Posted on 11/01/2011 6:08:48 PM PDT by rzman21
Sola Scriptura or Prima Luther? What Did Martin Luther Really Believe About the Bible?
By COGwriter
Most people realize that the Living Church of God (or any of the true Churches of God) cannot be part of the Roman Catholic Church. However, some do not realize that the Living Church of God is not part of the Protestant reformation movement led by Martin Luther (our history predates Luther, and the actual Roman Catholic Church for that matter, please see the History of Early Christianity).
Regarding the Bible, the Living Church of God believes that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and, and is profitable for doctrine" (II Timothy 3:16, NKJV throughout unless otherwise stated).
Did Martin Luther agree?
Martin Luther publicly taught that only the Bible should be used as doctrine. One of the rallying cries of his movement was sola Scriptura (translated in English as 'the Bible alone'). This is one of the major positions that many professing Protestants respect Martin Luther for.
Although Martin Luther stated that he looked upon the Bible "as if God Himself spoke therein" he also stated,
My word is the word of Christ; my mouth is the mouth of Christ" (O'Hare PF. The Facts About Luther, 1916--1987 reprint ed., pp. 203-204).
[Specifically, what Martin Luther wrote in German was ""Ich bin sehr gewiss, dass mein Wort nitt mein, sondern Christus Wort sei, so muss mein Mund auch des sein, des Wort er redet" (Luther, 682) - also translated as "I am confident that it is not my word, but Christ's word, so my mouth is His who utters the words"(God's words - the violence of representation. Universitatea din Bucuresti, 2002. http://www.unibuc.ro/eBooks/filologie/meanings/1.htm, September 25, 2003).]
Did Martin Luther really revere and believe the Bible more than his own opinions? This article will quote Martin Luther extensively to assist the reader in answering that question.
Martin Luther Added to the Book of Romans
The Bible, in Romans 3:28, states,
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.
Martin Luther, in his German translation of the Bible, specifically added the word "allein" (English 'alone') to Romans 3:28-a word that is not in the original Greek. Notice what Protestant scholars have admitted:
...Martin Luther would once again emphasize...that we are "justified by faith alone", apart from the works of the Law" (Rom. 3:28), adding the German word allein ("alone") in his translation of the Greek text. There is certainly a trace of Marcion in Luther's move (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, pp. 64-65).
Furthermore, Martin Luther himself reportedly said,
You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,'…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word 'alone' is not in the Latin or the Greek text (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).
This passage strongly suggests that Martin Luther viewed his opinions, and not the actual Bible as the primary authority--a concept which this author will name prima Luther. By "papists" he is condemning Roman Catholics, but is needs to be understood that Protestant scholars (like HOJ Brown) also realize that Martin Luther changed that scripture.
Perhaps it should also be noted that Martin Luther also claimed that the word for "alone" was needed for a translation into the German language, but that is really only true if one feels that the word alone must be added (according to one person I consulted with who studied German). The truth is that Martin Luther intentionally added a word and many sadly relied on it.
A second rallying cry for followers of Martin Luther was the expression sola fide (faith alone). But it appears that Martin Luther may have intentionally mistranslated Romans 3:28 for the pretence of supposedly having supposed scriptural justification for his sola fide doctrine.
He also made another change in Romans. Romans 4:15 states,
...because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.
Yet in his German translation, Martin Luther added the word 'only' before the term 'wrath' to Romans 4:15 (O'Hare, p. 201).
This presumably was to attempt to justify his position to discredit the law.
Martin Luther Made At Least One Other Intentional Mistranslation
Martin Luther has also been charged with intentionally mistranslating Matthew 3:2, Acts 19:18, and many other scriptures (ibid, p. 200).
Matthew 3:2 states,
"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!"
Martin Luther, in his German translation, according to at least one Catholic source, changed the word 'repent' to 'mend' or 'do better' (ibid, p. 201), presumably to justify his position that one does not need to obey God's laws through repentance. Others disagree on that point and indicate that the German term chosen can or should be translated as repent.
Yet, irrespective of the translation (as I do not know enough German to have a strong opinion), Martin Luther did not seem to teach strong real repentance as he taught,
Be a sinner, and sin boldly, but believe more boldly still. Sin shall not drag us away from Him, even should we commit fornication or murder thousands and thousands of times a day (Luther, M. Letter of August 1, 1521 as quoted in Stoddard, p.93).
Martin Luther seemed to overlook what the Book of Hebrews taught:
For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries (Hebrews 10:26-27).
The Bible, in Acts 19:18, states,
"And many who had believed came confessing and telling their deeds..."
Yet according to one source, Martin Luther rendered it, "they acknowledged the miracles of the Apostles" (O'Hare, p. 201).
There are several possible reasons why Martin Luther intentionally mistranslated Acts 19:18, but the point on this article is to show that he did.
Another point to be made is that by making mistranslations of the Bible, Protestants have given Catholics reasons to ignore them (cf. 2 Peter 2:1-3). Here is what one Catholic priest has written:
The proponents of Protestantism made false translations of the Bible and misled people into their errors by apparently proving from the "Bible" (their own translations) the correctness of their doctrines. It was all deceit, lying and hypocrisy. (Kramer H.B. L. The Book of Destiny. Nihil Obstat: J.S. Considine, O.P., Censor Deputatus. Imprimatur: +Joseph M. Mueller, Bishop of Sioux City, Iowa, January 26, 1956. Reprint TAN Books, Rockford (IL), p. 224).
Perhaps I should add that many important Protestant-accepted doctrines would have been understood as false if later Protestant translators also would not have made their own intentional mistranslations of other parts of the Bible, especially in the New Testament. Yet, many who profess sola Scriptura even in the 21st century do not know that some of what they have relied on has been intentionally mistranslated.
Martin Luther Preferred to Change John 1:14
Martin Luther also taught,
And John 1 says: "The Word was made flesh," when in our judgment it would have been better said, "The Word was incarnate," or "made fleshly" (Disputation On the Divinity and Humanity of Christ February 27, 1540 conducted by Dr. Martin Luther, 1483-1546 translated from the Latin text WA 39/2, pp. 92-121 by Christopher B. Brown).
This was apparently done to justify his belief that Jesus was fully God and fully human while on the earth.
As Martin Luther correctly pointed out, John 1:14 states that "the Word was made flesh", yet John 1:14, combined with Philippians 2:6-7 show that Jesus 'emptied Himself' (the proper Greek translation; see Green JP. Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, 3rd ed., 1996, p. 607) of His divinity while on the earth.
If not, He could not have been tempted as we are, which He was,
"For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin" Hebrews 4:15-16).
This is discussed more in the article on Binitarianism.
Martin Luther Stated Jesus Meant the Opposite of What He Said
The Bible, in Luke 10:28, states,
"And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live" (KJV).
Yet Martin Luther taught,
To do means to believe-to keep the law by faith. The passage in Matthew: Do this and thou shalt live, signifies Believe this and thou shalt live. The words Do this, have ironical sense, as if our Lord should say: Thou wilt do it tomorrow, but not today; only make an attempt to keep the Commandments, and the trial will teach thee the ignominy of thy failure (O'Hare, p.205).
Although Martin Luther mentioned Matthew's account (which is in Matthew 19:16-21), the quote in question is actually from Luke 10:28. It is because of such misinterpretations of what the Bible states that many Protestants have tossed out the necessity to keep the ten commandments, even though scholars agree that they were kept by the early Christians (please see the article The Ten Commandments and the Early Church).
Martin Luther's comments clearly suggest that he felt that Jesus meant the opposite of what He said in Matthew 19:16,
"But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments".
Two articles of related interest may include What Did Jesus Teach About the Ten Commandments? and Hope of Salvation: How the Living Church of God differ from most Protestants
Martin Luther Taught Certain Books of the Bible Were Questionable
Martin Luther had different views of various books of the Bible. Specifically, he had a fairly low view of the Books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation.
The Catholic Encyclopedia claims:
As for Protestantism, the Anglicans and Calvinists always kept the entire New Testament But for over a century the followers of Luther excluded Hebrews, James, Jude, and Apocalypse (Reid, George J. Transcribed by Ernie Stefanik Canon of the New Testament. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume III Copyright © 1908 by Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, November 1, 1908. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).
Martin Luther himself was the obvious reason why, as he wrote,
Up to this point we have had the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation. In the first place, the fact that Hebrews is not an epistle of St. Paul, or of any other apostle (Luther, M. Prefaces to the Epistle of the Hebrews, 1546).
Regarding the New Testament Book of Hebrews Martin Luther stated,
It need not surprise one to find here bits of wood, hay, and straw (O'Hare, p. 203).
He also wrote,
St. James' epistle is really an epistle of straw…for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it" (Luther, M. Preface to the New Testament, 1546).
and
In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works…Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching (Luther, M. Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, 1546).
Interestingly the Epistle of James is the only place in the Bible to actually use the term 'faith alone':
You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone (James 2:24).
One would have to assume that the fact that James 2:24 contradicted Martin Luther's sola fide teaching would have been a major reason that he discounted this book of the Bible.
Protestant scholars have recognized that Martin Luther handled James poorly as they have written:
The great reformer Martin Luther...never felt good about the Epistle of James...Luther went to far when he put James in the appendix to the New Testament.
(Radmacher E.D. general editor. The Nelson Study Bible. Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, 1997, p. 2107)
Martin Luther taught,
Concerning the epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy of St. Peter's second epistle…Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of faith (Luther, M. Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, 1546).
To me, Jude does not sound that similar to 2 Peter, but if even it is, should it be discounted? Maybe Martin Luther discounted it because it warns people:
...to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). And this, sadly, is not something that Martin Luther really did (though he did sometimes make some efforts towards that).
Perhaps none of Martin Luther's writings on the Bible are as harsh as what he wrote about "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" (Revelation 1:1). Specifically he wrote,
About this book of the Revelation of John...I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic…I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it. Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly-indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important-and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep…My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it" (Luther, M. Preface to the Revelation of St. John, 1522).
Another reason Martin Luther may not have been able to accommodate this Revelation of Jesus Christ is because he clearly violated this warning,
For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book (Revelation 22:18-19).
Martin Luther took away from this book through his comments about it, and this is the same Martin Luther who (as shown previously in this article) added words to the Bible that were not there.
Martin Luther's Comments on Books of the Old Testament Show A Hate for Things Jewish
As the following quotes show, Martin Luther did not care for several books in the Old Testament either:
"Job spoke not as it stands written in his book, but only had such thoughts. It is merely the argument of a fable. It is probable that Solomon wrote and made this book."…
"Ecclesiastes ought to have been more complete. There is too much incoherent matter in it...Solomon did not, therefore, write this book."…
"The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much..."
"The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible." (as quoted in O'Hare, p. 202).
Furthermore, Martin Luther had little use for the first five books of the Old Testament (sometimes referred to as the Pentateuch):
Of the Pentateuch he says: "We have no wish either to see or hear Moses" (Ibid, p. 202).
Martin Luther hated the Jews, which may be why he was against Esther, the first five books of the Bible, and other parts of the Hebrew scriptures.
Notice that Martin Luther advised his followers,
...to burn down Jewish schools and synagogues, and to throw pitch and sulphur into the flames; to destroy their homes; to confiscate their ready money in gold and silver; to take from them their sacred books, even the whole Bible; and if that did not help matters, to hunt them of the country like mad dogs (Luther’s Works, vol. Xx, pp. 2230-2632 as quoted in Stoddard JL. Rebuilding a Lost Faith, 1922, p.99).
Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is: First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss in sulphur and pitch (Martin Luther (1483-1546): On the Jews and Their Lies, 1543 as quoted from Luther's Works, Volume 47: The Christian in Society IV, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971). pp 268293).
More on Martin Luther and the Jews (as well as some of his other doctrinal positions) can be found in the article The Similarities and Dissimilarities between Martin Luther and Herbert W. Armstrong.
Martin Luther Claimed that John Was the Only True Gospel
Although Martin Luther decried John for penning the Revelation of Jesus Christ, he did like John. According to Martin Luther,
The first three speak of the works of our Lord, rather than His oral teachings; that of St. John is the only sympathetic, the only true Gospel and should undoubtedly be preferred above the others. In like manner the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Paul are superior to the first three Gospels (O'Hare, p. 203).
Martin Luther's position on this, and some of his other matters, appear to be blasphemous and in contraction to II Timothy 3:16.
Martin Luther' German Translation of the Bible
Perhaps it should be mentioned, that while some have credited Martin Luther with being the first person to translate the Bible into German, this was not the case.
The first translation of the Bible into Teutonic (old German) was apparently by Raban Maur, who was born in 776 (O'Hare, p.183). Actually, by 1522 (the year Martin Luther's translation came out) there were at least 14 versions of the Bible in High German and 3 in Low German (ibid).
However, it is true that Martin Luther's translation, became more commonly available, and possibly more understandable (in a sense)--even though it did include his intentional translating errors.
Martin Luther Preferred to Change a Commandment
Martin Luther seemed to believe that the Sabbath command had to do with learning about God's word, as opposed to rest, as he wrote about it,
What does this mean? We should fear and love God so that we do not despise preaching and His Word, but hold it sacred and gladly hear and learn it (Luther's Small Catechism with Explanation. Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, 1986, p. 10).
"We sin against the Third Commandment when we despise preaching and the Word of God...What does God require of us in the Third Commandment? A. We should hold preaching and the Word of God sacred" (Ibid, p. 68).
The Lutheran Confessions admit:
As we study Luther's expositions of the Decalog, or the Ten Commandments, we find that he does not quote the Third Commandment in its Old Testament form: 'Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy', but rather in the spirit of the New Testament: 'Thou shalt sanctify the holy day' (Mueller, John Theodore. The Lutheran Confessions. Circa 1953, p.10).
In another place, Martin Luther wrote,
Now follows the Third Commandment: "Thou shalt hallow the day of rest." (Luther, M. A treatise on Good Works together with the Letter of Dedication, published 1520. In Works of Martin Luther. Adolph Spaeth, L.D. Reed, Henry Eyster Jacobs, et Al., Trans. & Eds. Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915, Vol. 1, pp. 173-285).
It should be noted that Lutherans (and Roman Catholics) consider the Sabbath to be the Third, not Fourth, Commandment. The order that Martin Luther chose to accept was an order changed by Augustine (please see the article Which Is Faithful: The Roman Catholic Church or the Church of God?) and not the order from the Bible or that as understood by the early Church (please see the article The Ten Commandments and the Early Church). Sadly, Martin Luther often accept Roman Catholic changes instead of believing what the Bible actually taught (and of course, he came up with other teachings that neither the Bible nor the Roman Church supported).
Martin Luther Preferred to Teach Doctrines That Did Not Have Proper Scriptural Support
Martin Luther apparently decided that he could not understand God, but that he should teach the unbiblical doctrine of the trinity. Notice what one Protestant scholar wrote:
For Luther, as for the German mystics, God is Deus absconditus, the "hidden God," inaccessible to human reason...
By emphasizing the sole authority of Scripture and downgrading the work of the church fathers and the decisions of the ecumenical councils, Luther created a problem for his followers. One the one hand, Luther wanted to affirm traditional theology with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity and Christ, but on the other those doctrines are not explicit in Scripture. They are the product of church fathers and the councils (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, p. 314).
It should be noted here that NONE of the so-called "church fathers" prior to the end of the second century espoused any trinitarian position (more can be found in the article Did the True Church Ever Teach a Trinity?).
A French Protestant named Rabaud declared,
Luther has no fixed theory of inspiration: if all his works suppose the inspiration of the Sacred Writings, all his conduct shows that he makes himself the supreme judge of it (Rabaud, Histoire de la doctrine de l inspriaation dans les pays de langue francaise depuis la Reforme jusqu a nos jours Paris, 1883, p.42 as quoted in O'Hare, p. 203).
Thus even Protestant scholars realize that Martin Luther considered Prima Luther to be of more importance than Sola Scriptura--those interested in doing God's will should heed the Bible, and most should read the article The Bible and Tradition.
Martin Luther held many doctrinal positions that did not have biblical support, as well as some that did (please see the documented article The Similarities and Dissimilarities between Martin Luther and Herbert W. Armstrong.
Martin Luther Declared That Part of Three Days Equaled Three Days and Three Nights
The Catholic-supporting Augustine declared through an odd calculation that three days and three nights equaled thirty-six hours as ratios of twelve came to thirty-six (please see the article What Happened in the Crucifixion Week?).
Martin Luther, who had been a Roman Catholic, also did not accept that Jesus was in the grave for three days and three nights as he wrote,
How can we say that he rose on the third day, since he lay in the grave only one day and two nights? According to the Jewish calculation it was only a day and a half; how shall we then persist in believing there were three days? To this we reply that be was in the state of death for at least a part of all three days. For he died at about two o'clock on Friday and consequently was dead for about two hours on the first day. After that night he lay in the grave all day, which is the true Sabbath. On the third day, which we commemorate now, he rose from the dead and so remained in the state of death a part of this day, just as if we say that something occurred on Easter-day, although it happens in the evening, only a portion of the day. In this sense Paul and the Evangelists say that be rose on the third day (Luther M. Of Christ's Resurrection from volume II:238-247 of The Sermons of Martin Luther, published by Baker Book House (Grand Rapids, MI). It was originally published in 1906 in English by Lutherans in All Lands Press (Minneapolis, MN), as The Precious and Sacred Writings of Martin Luther, vol. 11).
However, Jesus clearly said He would be in the grave for three days AND three nights and this would be the sign religious leaders should pay attention to:
An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:39-40).
Jesus being the Messiah was to be proven by Him being three days and three nights in the heart of the earth like Jonah was in the belly of the great fish.
Should we believe the Bible or human tradition? Does anyone really believe that ratios of 12 are how Jesus expected His words to be understood?
Notice what the Book of Jonah states:
Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights (Jonah 1:17).
Does any one really feel that Jonah was only in the belly of the fish for less than three days and three nights?
(Most Protestant commentators hedge on this and claim that parts of days is acceptable so 49 hours is possible--see The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1962 by Moody Press. Of course the problem with this is that even with 49 hours, it is not possible that Jesus was buried before sunset, about 6:00pm, on Friday and rose prior to sunrise, about 6:00am, on Sunday as that only adds up to 36 hours. Furthermore, if one takes the fact that Jesus died about 3:00 pm, as opposed to the time He was buried, that only makes 39 hours. Hence there is no way that any who actually believes the scriptures over personal interpretation can agree with Martin Luther.)
Conclusion
This author cannot agree with Martin Luther's assessment of the books of the Bible, nor Martin Luther's personal changes.
It appears that Martin Luther truly preferred the concept of prima Luther (the primacy of Luther) and not sola Scriptura when it came to doctrine.
Those of us in the Living Church of God believe that all 66 books of the Bible are inspired and profitable for doctrine (II Timothy 3:16). Because we also believe that we are not allowed to add or subtract from the Bible (see Revelation 22:18-19), we cannot follow the teachings of Protestant reformers such as Martin Luther—who changed or diminished the importance of at least 18 of them (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Esther, Job, Ecclesiastes, Jonah, Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation).
For a more complete background on the history of the Living Church of God, please request its free booklet God's Church Through the Ages or read it online at http://www.lcg.org/files/booklets/gca/default.htm.
For more information on how the Living Church of God differs from Protestantism, please read the article, Hope of Salvation: How the Living Church of God differs from most Protestants. To understand the the relationship between the Bible and tradition, please read Tradition and Scripture: From the Bible and Church Writings.
For specific information regarding the teachings of Martin Luther, please see the article The Similarities and Dissimilarities between Martin Luther and Herbert Armstrong.
Back to home page www.cogwriter.com
Thiel B., Ph.D. Sola Scriptura or Prima Luther? What Did Martin Luther Really Believe About the Bible? www.cogwriter.com (c) 2003/2006/2007/2008/2009/2011 1024
You are 100% correct on this but, as you will soon see, certain people will reject it for the sole reason that their "church" has declared the crucifixion happened on "Good Friday" and no amount of Scriptural correction will convince them they are wrong.
Try Acts 20:7.
Are you willing to say that you place your faith in the Council of Trent which was written by junior high students-the same level of academia as Luther?
So are you saying that Martin Luther was divinely inspired, say like a Joseph Smith?
Actually the Vatican is more closely aligned to Mormonism. Luther advocated Sola Scriptura-scripture alone. Mormonism and the Catholic Church place their faith in the scripture plus other man-made writings.
Paul says there is only one baptism.
Christians believe there is only one baptism.
others say there is only one baptism “that counts”
why do others try to seperate faith from baptism and again seperate the Holy Spirit from baptism.
Christians having received the teaching of baptismal regeneration can harmonize all Scriptures in a coherent fashion.
others come to a conclusion that there is such a thing as “spirit baptism” and a seperate thing called “water baptism” and then since “spirit baptism” is the only one “that counts” they must say “water baptism” is for something, so they make up that it is for public display ( no where taught in the Bible )
Paul was taught what Baptism was in Acts when he himself was told to “ arise, be baptized and wash away your sins”
The day of the death of Christ
Jesus died on Friday, the fifteenth day of Nisan. That He died on Friday is clearly stated by Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54, and John 19:31. The few writers who assign another day for Christ’s death are practically lost in the multitude of authorities who place it on Friday. What is more, they do not even agree among themselves: Epiphanius, e.g., places the Crucifixion on Tuesday; Lactantius, on Saturday; Westcott, on Thursday; Cassiodorus and Gregory of Tours, not on Friday.
The first three Evangelists are equally clear about the date of the Crucifixion. They place the Last Supper on the fourteenth day of Nisan, as may be seen from Matthew 26:17-20, Mark 14:12-17 and Luke 22:7-14. Nor can there be any doubt about St. John’s agreement with the Synoptic Evangelists on the question of the Last Supper and the Crucifixion. The supper was held “before the festival day of the Pasch” (John 13:1), i.e. on 14 Nisan, as may be seen from Matthew 22:7-14. Nor can there be any doubt about St. John’s agreement with the Synoptic Evangelists on the question of the Last Supper and the Crucifixion. The Supper was held “before the festival day of the pasch” (John 13:1), i.e. on 14 Nisan, since the sacrificial day was computed according to the Roman method (Jovino, 123 sqq., 139 sqq.).
Again, some disciples thought that Judas left the supper table because Jesus had said to him: “Buy those things which we have need of for the festival day: or that he should give something to the poor” (John 13:29). If the Supper had been held on 13 Nisan this belief of the disciples can hardly be understood, since Judas might have made his purchases and distributed his alms on 14 Nisan; there would have been no need for his rushing into the city in the middle of the night. On the day of Christ’s Crucifixion the Jews “went not into the hall, that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the pasch” (John 18:28). The pasch which the Jews wished to eat could not have been the paschal lamb, which was eaten on 14 Nisan, for the pollution contracted by entering the hall would have ceased at sundown, so that it would not have prevented them from sharing in the paschal supper. The pasch which the Jews had in view must have been the sacrificial offerings (Chagighah), which were called also pasch and were eaten on 15 Nisan. Hence this passage places the death of Jesus Christ on the fifteenth day of Nisan.
Again, Jesus is said to have suffered and died on the “parasceve of the pasch”, or simply on the “parasceve” (John 19:14, 31); as “parasceve” meant Friday, the expression “parasceve” denotes Friday on which the pasch happened to fall, not the before the pasch. Finally, the day following the parasceve on which Jesus died is called “a great sabbath day” (John 19:31), either to denote its occurrence in the paschal week or to distinguish it from the preceding pasch, or day of minor rest.
In the end we're all final authorities as to what we believe. I have seen on this site a number of Catholics dispute teachings of the Church and I have personally been told by some Catholics that they don't believe certain teachings. Usually these are peripheral issues that has nothing to do with the overall basic principles of denominational faith. Sometimes they're far more serious.
Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc all hold certain basic principles just like Catholics or Orthodox. It's very difficult to make the claim that Baptists find themselves to be the "final authority" any more than to say that Catholics submit themselves wholly to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Mr Rogers, since I am neither Catholic in the sense oLofob would use the term nor of your persuasion, perhaps you will take this as helpful, and that it might allow a dialogue and not a shouting match or, worse, a test of whose Bible verses are to be chosen over whose - as if God Himself would contradict Himself.
Is it not possible that to say, with St. Paul, that there is only one Baptism and yet not deny baptism of the Spirit. In fact, and please correct me, oLofob, if I am wrong, but I do not think you did deny the baptism of the Spirit. You just denied that there is a baptism of the Spirit apart from the baptism which God Himself instructed John the Baptizer to administer to Israel, Christ commanded His apostles to use in making disciples of all nations, and Paul’s insistence that there is only one baptism. To make this all work you simply have to assume that God is a) not a liar, b) that He does not contradict Himself, c) God’s word is understandable and clear (and was given to be understood), and, finally, d) we are all, because of our sin-darkened nature, slow learners.
Forced to choose between two options, a) God doesn’t explain things very well and b) I’m a slow learner, I’m going to choose b) every time.
It might be very good to go back and examine very carefully Nicodemus’ conversation with Jesus. Nicodemus too didn’t see much use for “water” baptism. However, it is more than apparent that by the end of John’s gospel he had changed his mind.
Proof Jesus Died Just Before the Passover Feast in 33 AD
This one seems obvious to many people, but it can quickly
become confusing due to a number of factors: how the scriptures
were translated, how and when the Jewish feasts occur, who
was alive and ruling at the time, and some indication from a
prior prophecy and the history behind that prophecy.
That last one was already covered in a previous article concerning
Daniel 9, where Jesus was predicted to die in 33 AD. So here is a
starting point to reference from, was the prediction correct, or not?
History records 3 prominent rulers mentioned in the New
Testament at the time that Jesus was said to have died:
* Tiberious Caesar ruled from 14 AD - 37 AD
* Herod Antipas ruled from 4 BC - 39 AD, he divorced his wife
and married his half brother Herod’s wife, which caused
John the Baptist to condemn that marriage, and John then
lost his head for saying such.
* Pontius Pilate ruled from 26 AD - 36 AD.
Pilate’s rule looks to limit Jesus’s year of death to a
span of only 10 years time. The gospel of Luke says that
John the Baptist started preaching in the 15th year of
Tiberius Caesar’s rule: 14 AD + 15 - 1 = 28 AD
Given John the Baptist’s arrival, needing to preach for a while
first (let’s guess a year for John to preach), and that Jesus
had to later minister for more than 3 years, Jesus had to have
died some time after: 28 + 1 + 3 = 32 AD, and also had to die
before Pilate left his position in 36 AD. Therefore, Jesus died
some time between 32 AD and 36 AD.
The 33 AD prediction falls within the 32 AD to 36 AD time span.
What about the Jewish feasts, do they help confirm the year?
To answer this, you have to know more about the Passover and
which day Jesus would have died on.
The bible records which day Jesus died on:
John 19:31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation,
that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on
the Sabbath day, (for that Sabbath day was an high
day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken,
and that they might be taken away.
So clearly, Jesus died just prior to the Sabbath, and it was
also a Sabbath that was a “high day” of the Passover feast week.
What is a “high day”?
The high days in the Passover feast week, are the first and last
days of the 7 Passover feast days of eating unleavened bread. The
first high day could start any day of the week, due to the fact
that the month of Nissan would start on the day that two witnesses
would see the new moon show up, and that day of the week varied
each year. They would kill the Passover lamb on the 14th day of
Nissan, and the unleavened bread would be eaten from the 15th
on for 7 days. The 2nd high day, was the 7th day or last day of the
7 day Passover feast. For that Passover the year Jesus died, the
first high day was said by John to have been the same day as the
Sabbath.
In simple terms showing what occurred per day (while noting that days
back then ran from evening to evening, and that the Sabbath starts
on Friday evening), this is how it looked to John back then describing
which day it was in the verse above:
“day” What was occurring that day
etc...
(the 7 days of the passover feast continue on, with the last day of
the passover feast week being the 2nd “high day”)
It is possible to find all years where the first high day fell on
the Sabbath to verify which years are possible candidates for the
year of Jesus’s death. As it turns out, between the years 27AD
and 38AD, there are only 2 years where the high day fell on a Sabbath
and those two years are 33AD and 36AD. So given this, during the
period of 32AD to 36AD (after John started preaching plus Jesus’s
preaching, yet before Pilate’s rule ended), the only years possible
for Jesus to have died in, are 33 AD and 36 AD.
The 36 AD year is ruled out for a number of reasons. Essentially
too many things had to happen during that year, and one account
given, becomes void when 36 AD is checked as a possible crucifixtion
date. Pilate was told to return to Rome in 36 AD, he arrived there
after Tiberius Caesar died, before Passover in 37AD. Herod Antipas
was in a war with Aretus in 36AD and wouldn’t have had time to be
across the Dead Sea during the preparation of Passover at Jesus’s
trial. Herod Antipas was said to have been desiring to see Jesus,
but in 36 AD, that was during a time of Herod’s war and preparing
for war with Aretus. There is also the issue that if Jesus died
in 36 AD, with a 3.5 year ministry that makes him 32.5 (or older)
at the start of it, and Luke said he “began to be about 30” (29.5?)
at that time. His birth as the next article states, had to happen
soon after the tetrarchy was formed so the people could be
registered under their specific tetrarch, and that happened only
2 or 3 years after 4 BC, making Jesus too old for Luke’s statement
that Jesus “began to be about 30”. The 33 AD crucifiction year,
does not have any of the issues the 36AD year has.
The only year that matches all accounts, is 33 AD.
As the Sabbath is Friday evening until Saturday evening and
Jesus died just prior to the Sabbath (they didn’t want his body
to be left on the cross during the Sabbath), Jesus had to have
died prior to Friday evening.
Therefore, Jesus died just prior to the 1st Passover feast day
(which that year fell on the Sabbath), on Friday before evening,
in 33 AD.
Is there more confirmation of this?
Absolutely.
At the last supper, Jesus told them that he wanted to eat the
Passover feast with them, but never would, in fact, he didn’t
even eat the night before he died. Jesus handed them the bread
at that last supper, but didn’t eat any of it himself.
Jesus was the first born, and the first born would be fasting
on the day the Passover lamb was sacrificed. That ‘day’ would
be Thursday evening, to Friday evening, and Jesus would be
fasting during that time. Friday afternoon when Jesus was
crucified, it was just before the Passover feast’s first day,
just before the evening of the Sabbath, when they would have
all ate together later that night on the Sabbath... but by then,
Jesus was dead, dead before the start of the 1st day of the
Passover feast, having died during the time of the lambs being
sacrified prior to the first day of the feast of unleavened
bread.
In the translations of the verses, there are instances
where it’s a little confusing concerning the days of
the Passover. For example:
Mt 26:17 Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread
the disciples came to Jesus, saying to him, Where
wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the
Passover?
Obviously, the preparation for the Passover is BEFORE the Passover
feast week. Typically it takes days or even weeks to clean
the rooms. That verse should have been and can be translated as:
Mt 26:17 Then to first honor the feast of unleavened bread the
disciples came to Jesus, saying to him, Where do you
want us to prepare for you to eat the Passover feast?
Again, that preparation could take days, where they’d first have
to clean all traces of the leaven from the place they’d be having
the Passover feast, and that cleaning is before the Passover started.
So they were asking Jesus before the Passover, and NOT on the
1st day of Passover.
You can find confirmation of this in a prior verse:
Mt 26:2 Ye know that after two days, is the feast of the Passover,
and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.
In other words, Jesus just told them that in two days, the feast
of the Passover would start, and the verses continue on where they
then replied back to him “Where should we go prepare for the Passover
feast?”. Obviously they weren’t asking him on the first day of
the Passover feast week, but had to be asking him prior to the
first day... that same 2 days before when Jesus said they needed
to go to Jerusalem. The Mt 26:17 verse to make proper sense with
the Jewish feasts, it should have been translated to english with
regards to the timing of events in those feast days such that
they’d simply be replying back on the same day, “where should
we go to prepare?”.
Retranslating other similar verses:
Mk 14:12 Then to first honor the time of unleavened bread after
they would kill the Passover lamb, his disciples said
to him, “Where do you want us to go and prepare, that
you may eat the Passover feast?”
Lu 22:7 But approaching was the time of unleavened bread, with
the Passover to be killed.
8 And he sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare us
the Passover feast, that we may eat.
The translators basically didn’t check to insure that the translated
english description matched with regard to the Old Testament laws of
the Passover feast. Choosing proper english wording from available
translation options, helps substantially in conveying what Jesus
had said and when he had said it, verses the actual events occurring
then. There is nothing wrong with the original scriptures concerning
the verses, but there is a problem with how the scriptures were
translated to english.
Regardless, Jesus knew he was being betrayed by Judas Iscariot
2 days before the Passover started, so the timeline of Jesus’s
death looks like:
Weds - They were in Simon the leper’s house in Bethany. Jesus
told them he was being betrayed (by Judas Iscariot), and
the woman put the spikenard on Jesus’s head and feet for
his burial, while Judas complained that the spikenard
could have been sold for a lot of money, and the money
should have been given to the poor. John said that Judas
had a bag of money at the time that the chief priests gave
Judas to tell them who Jesus is and point him out. Jesus
reminded them that in two days the feast of the Passover
would start and they had to move on into Jerusalem.
The disciples knew they had to prepare for the Passover
so they asked Jesus where they’d be having the Passover
so they could go there and start preparing for it. Jesus
then tells them to follow a man bearing a pitcher of
water to where ever he went in the city to a new house,
with a new large room where they’d be preparing the
Passover feast at. In that they didn’t yet know where
the house was, Judas wouldn’t know, and couldn’t report
back to the high priests or soldiers. And this delayed
Jesus being taken, while Judas looked for an opportunity
where he’d know where Jesus was that was close enough
to go get the soldiers to turn him in.
Thurs - They entered Jerusalem, Jesus rode on an ass’s colt and
was praised by them, mostly over Lazarus being raised. They
quickly became disenchanted in that they expected Christ
would abide forever, yet Jesus told them he’d die. That
evening they went to the large room for the last supper,
Jesus didn’t eat. Judas had the money bag, he was anxious
to turn Jesus in, and he now knew where they were staying for
the Passover feast. Being in Jerusalem, it was closer to
the chief priests and soldiers than it was when they were
back in Bethany. Now it was easier for Judas to walk off
and quickly get the soldiers. Judas then left the last
supper, to go get permission to get the soldiers and to
then bring them to take Jesus. But they left while Judas
was gone. That night, Judas helped the soldiers find Jesus,
he then identified him, the soldiers took him and his
disciples deserted him.
Fri - Jesus was taken to prison, interrogated, beaten, ridiculed,
mutilated, and crucified until he died. John confirms the
the day by saying Jesus was there being questioned by Pilate
and accused by the chief priests and elders (of which Jesus
did not defend himself against their claims) on the day of
preparation for the feast days of Passover. The preparation
day is when the Passover lambs would be slaughtered, much like
Jesus was about to be after Pilate washed his hands of it
and told the chief priests and elders that Pilate would be
innocent of Jesus’s death. The chief priests and elders
convinced the crowd to demand they crucify Jesus and let
Barabbas go free. Just before evening, after Jesus died,
he was taken down off the cross, wrapped in linen and laid
in the tomb. The Sabbath then started that evening, as did
the 1st day of the 7 day feast of Passover, the feast of
unleavened bread.
Sat - Sabbath continues through the daylight hours, no work allowed
to finish Jesus’s burial. The chief priests and the Pharisees
went to Pilate to tell him to place guards at the tomb as
they’d heard Jesus say he’d rise again after the third day.
Pilate told them to guard it and make it as sure as they liked.
During the evening, Jesus’s disciples stayed away from the tomb
probably because it was: too dark to see in the tomb, there
were now guards there guarding it, and they probably feared
using lamps as that would draw attention to themselves, them
being seen as followers of Jesus after he’d been crucified
the previous day by the chief priests, elders and crowd.
Sun - Early morning, the women went to the tomb to see about finishing
the burial, the angel appeared with the appearance of lightning,
and the guards fell to the ground. The angel rolled back the
stone while telling the women that Jesus had risen, and for
them to go tell the others.
The 3 days and nights article discusses the prophecy of Jesus being
in the hands of sinful men from Thursday evening, until Sunday morning.
Further discussion of the above mentioned prophecy in Daniel 9
described in a another article, the calculation for that is as
follows:
* 360 days for a prophetic year
* 365.242199 days per standard year
* 7*7+62*7 prophetic years from the order to restore Jerusalem
* Artaxerxes gave the order to restore Jerusalem to Nehemiah in 444 BC
* There is no 0 BC year, 1 BC jumps to 1 AD in 1 year of time.
Therefore, the messiah shows up, as per Daniel 9 in:
-444+1+(7*7+62*7)*(360 prophetic days/yr)/(365.242199 day/yr) = 33 AD
The accounts line up in many ways with Jesus dying in 33 AD, before the
Passover feast’s 1st day (or “high day”, which was also on the Sabbath),
and on the same day as the Passover lambs were being slaughtered that
year. There is no other year where the accounts all align.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Return
Note: The above information was written by John P. Boatwright and is freely given. The information is simply my opinion based on how I perceive the content discussed. Anyone reading such should use their own judgement as to whether or not the information has any value to them. You may copy portions of the above opinions as long as a reference to this page is included and no text within said portion is altered. If copied to another medium other than the internet, include the entire text. The above content may change over time.
Best wishes.
copied from home.teleport.com
why do people so readily believe anyone born before the 16th century was an idiot???
no actually Protestants and Mormons both teach the Church went apostate and had to be “restored”.
anyone who knows Scripture knows this is impossible.
Here are a couple of Protestant theologians who disagree with you:
Richard T. (Dick) France "Three days and three nights was a Jewish idiom to a period covering only two nights.
D. A. Carson (regarded as one of the deans of conservative Protestant Bible exegesis) notes: "In rabbinical thought a day and a night make an onah, and a part of an onah, is as the whole (cf. Strach and Billerbeck: Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, 1:649, for references; cf. further 1 Sam 30:12-13, 2 Chron 10:5, 12, Esth 4:16, 5:1). Thus according to Jewish tradition, 'three days and three nights' need mean no more than 'three days' or the combination of any part of three separate days" (Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 8, p. 296).
The point of the story with Nicodemus was that it was the spirit that mattered, not the flesh. Nic figured he was golden, because he had been born a Jew. But it is spiritual birth that matters.
There is only one baptism that makes you a Christian - the Baptism done by Jesus Christ.
“44While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. 45And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. 46For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.”
Water baptism follows conversion, and we are sealed with the Holy Spirit at conversion.
I am not arguing against water baptism. I believe it should be done ASAP, and not wait for months of education. You won’t find any examples in Acts of someone converting, and then waiting for months or years for baptism with water.
But you are either baptized in the Holy Spirit by Jesus, or not. If not, no amount of water is great enough to save you. If so, then water baptism should follow ASAP.
Odd. I’ve been a Baptist for 40 years, and I’ve never heard that the true church of God needed to be restored. But then, we also don’t believe the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church...
Kind of hard to do, when so many doctrines contradict the explicit teaching of scripture. If I have to choose between the breath of God, and the words of the Pope, I’ll take the former.
I’m wiling to admit that the Council of Trent was guided by the Holy Spirit against Martin Luther and the Protestant rebels.
You miss the point, Luther and Joseph Smith seemed to think the gates of hell had prevailed against the Church.
In any case, Lutherans place the Lutheran Confessions above scripture. Calvinists place Calvin’s teaching and the Calvinist confessions above scripture. And Baptists place their traditions above scripture.
Luther advocated his conscience plus scripture just like his successors.
The Baptist/Evangelical teaching on baptism is rooted in TRADITION, not scripture.
Plus, Martin Luther the author of Sola Scriptura would disagree.
XIIIA.
Part Fourth
Of Infant Baptism.
__________
Here a question occurs by which the devil through his sects, confuses the world, namely, Of Infant Baptism, whether children also believe, and are justly baptized. Concerning this we say briefly: Let the simple dismiss this question from their minds, and refer it to the learned. But if you wish to answer then answer thus: —
That the Baptism of infants is pleasing to Christ is sufficiently proved from His own work, namely, that God sanctifies many of them who have been thus baptized, and has given them the Holy Ghost; and that there are yet many even to-day in whom we perceive that they have the Holy Ghost both because of their doctrine and life; as it is also given to us by the grace of God that we can explain the Scriptures and come to the knowledge of Christ, which is impossible without the Holy Ghost. But if God did not accept the baptism of infants, He would not give the Holy Ghost nor any of His gifts to any of them; in short, during this long time unto this day no man upon earth could have been a Christian. Now, since God confirms Baptism by the gifts of His Holy Ghost as is plainly perceptible in some of the church fathers, as St. Bernard, Gerson, John Hus, and others, who were baptized in infancy, and since the holy Christian Church cannot perish until the end of the world, they must acknowledge that such infant baptism is pleasing to God. For He can never be opposed to Himself, or support falsehood and wickedness, or for its promotion impart His grace and Spirit. This is indeed the best and strongest proof for the simple-minded and unlearned. For they shall not take from us or overthrow this article: I believe a holy Christian Church, the communion of saints.
Further, we say that we are not so much concerned to know whether the person baptized believes or not; for on that account Baptism does not become invalid; but everything depends upon the Word and command of God. This now is perhaps somewhat acute but it rests entirely upon what I have said, that Baptism is nothing else than water and the Word of God in and with each other, that is when the Word is added to the water, Baptism is valid, even though faith be wanting. For my faith does not make Baptism, but receives it. Now, Baptism does not become invalid even though it be wrongly received or employed; since it is not bound (as stated) to our faith, but to the Word.
For even though a Jew should to-day come dishonestly and with evil purpose, and we should baptize him in all good faith, we must say that his baptism is nevertheless genuine. For here is the water together with the Word of God. even though he does not receive it as he should, just as those who unworthily go to the Sacrament receive the true Sacrament even though they do not believe.
Thus you see that the objection of the sectarians is vain. For (as we have said) even though infants did not believe, which however, is not the case, yet their baptism as now shown would be valid, and no one should rebaptize them; just as nothing is detracted from the Sacrament though some one approach it with evil purpose, and he could not be allowed on account of his abuse to take it a second time the selfsame hour, as though he had not received the true Sacrament at first; for that would mean to blaspheme and profane the Sacrament in the worst manner. How dare we think that God’s Word and ordinance should be wrong and invalid because we make a wrong use of it?
Therefore I say, if you did not believe then believe now and say thus: The baptism indeed was right, but I, alas! did not receive it aright. For I myself also, and all who are baptized, must speak thus before God: I come hither in my faith and in that of others, yet I cannot rest in this, that I believe, and that many people pray for me; but in this I rest, that it is Thy Word and command. Just as I go to the Sacrament trusting not in my faith, but in the Word of Christ; whether I am strong or weak, that I commit to God. But this I know, that He bids me go, eat and drink, etc., and gives me His body and blood; that will not deceive me or prove false to me.
Thus we do also in infant baptism. We bring the child in the conviction and hope that it believes, and we pray that God may grant it faith; but we do not baptize it upon that, but solely upon the command of God. Why so? Because we know that God does not lie. I and my neighbor and, in short, all men, may err and deceive, but the Word of God cannot err.
Therefore they are presumptuous, clumsy minds that draw such inferences and conclusions as these: Where there is not the true faith, there also can be no true Baptism. Just as if I would infer: If I do not believe, then Christ is nothing; or thus: If I am not obedient, then father, mother, and government are nothing. Is that a correct conclusion, that whenever any one does not do what he ought, the thing in itself shall be nothing and of no value? My dear, just invert the argument and rather draw this inference: For this very reason Baptism is something and is right, because it has been wrongly received. For if it were not right and true in itself, it could not be misused nor sinned against. The saying is: Abusus non tollit, sed confirmat substantiam, Abuse does not destroy the essence but confirms it. For gold is not the less gold though a harlot wear it in sin and shame.
Therefore let it be decided that Baptism always remains true, retains its full essence, even though a single person should be baptized, and he, in addition, should not believe truly. For God’s ordinance and Word cannot be made variable or be altered by men. But these people, the fanatics, are so blinded that they do not see the Word and command of God, and regard Baptism and the magistrates only as they regard water in the brook or in pots, or as any other man; and because they do not see faith nor obedience, they conclude that they are to be regarded as invalid. Here lurks a concealed seditious devil, who would like to tear the crown from the head of authority and then trample it under foot, and, in addition, pervert and bring to naught all the works and ordinances of God. Therefore we must be watchful and well armed, and not allow ourselves to be directed nor turned away from the Word, in order that we may not regard Baptism as a mere empty sign, as the fanatics dream.
Lastly, we must also know what Baptism signifies, and why God has ordained just such external sign and ceremony for the Sacrament by which we are first received into the Christian Church. But the act or ceremony is this, that we are sunk under the water, which passes over us, and afterwards are drawn out again. These two parts, to be sunk under the water and drawn out again, signify the power and operation of Baptism, which is nothing else than putting to death the old Adam, and after that the resurrection of the new man, both of which must take place in us all our lives, so that a truly Christian life is nothing else than a daily baptism, once begun and ever to be continued. For this must be practised without ceasing, that we ever keep purging away whatever is of the old Adam, and that that which belongs to the new man come forth. But what is the old man? It is that which is born in us from Adam, angry, hateful, envious, unchaste, stingy, lazy, haughty, yea, unbelieving, infected with all vices, and having by nature nothing good in it. Now, when we are come into the kingdom of Christ, these things must daily decrease, that the longer we live we become more gentle, more patient more meek, and ever withdraw more and more from unbelief, avarice, hatred, envy, haughtiness.
This is the true use of Baptism among Christians, as signified by baptizing with water. Where this, therefore, is not practised but the old man is left unbridled, so as to continually become stronger, that is not using Baptism, but striving against Baptism. For those who are without Christ cannot but daily become worse, according to the proverb which expresses the truth, “Worse and worse — the longer, the worse.” If a year ago one was proud and avaricious, then he is much prouder and more avaricious this year, so that the vice grows and increases with him from his youth up. A young child has no special vice; but when it grows up, it becomes unchaste and impure, and when it reaches maturity real vices begin to prevail the longer, the more.
Therefore the old man goes unrestrained in his nature if he is not checked and suppressed by the power of Baptism. On the other hand where men have become Christians, he daily decreases until he finally perishes. That is truly to be buried in Baptism, and daily to come forth again. Therefore the external sign is appointed not only for a powerful effect, but also for a signification. Where, therefore, faith flourishes with its fruits, there it has no empty signification, but the work [of mortifying the flesh] accompanies it; but where faith is wanting, it remains a mere unfruitful sign.
And here you see that Baptism, both in its power and signification, comprehends also the third Sacrament, which has been called repentance, as it is really nothing else than Baptism. For what else is repentance but an earnest attack upon the old man [that his lusts be restrained] and entering upon a new life? Therefore, if you live in repentance, you walk in Baptism, which not only signifies such a new life, but also produces, begins, and exercises it. For therein are given grace, the Spirit, and power to suppress the old man, so that the new man may come forth and become strong.
Therefore our Baptism abides forever; and even though some one should fall from it and sin, nevertheless we always have access thereto, that we may again subdue the old man. But we need not again be sprinkled with water; for though we were put under the water a hundred times, it would nevertheless be only one Baptism, although the operation and signification continue and remain. Repentance, therefore, is nothing else than a return and approach to Baptism, that we repeat and practise what we began before, but abandoned.
This I say lest we fall into the opinion in which we were for a long time, imagining that our Baptism is something past, which we can no longer use after we have fallen again into sin. The reason is, that it is regarded only according to the external act once performed [and completed]. And this arose from the fact that St. Jerome wrote that repentance is the second plank by which we must swim forth and cross over after the ship is broken, on which we step and are carried across when we come into the Christian Church. Thereby the use of Baptism has been abolished so that it can profit us no longer. Therefore the statement is not correct, or at any rate not rightly understood. For the ship never breaks because (as we have said) it is the ordinance of God, and not a work of ours; but it happens, indeed, that we slip and fall out of the ship. Yet if any one fall out, let him see to it that he swim up and cling to it till he again come into it and live in it, as he had formerly begun.
Thus it appears what a great, excellent thing Baptism is, which delivers us from the jaws of the devil and makes us God’s own, suppresses and takes away sin, and then daily strengthens the new man, and is and remains ever efficacious until we pass from this estate of misery to eternal glory.
For this reason let every one esteem his Baptism as a daily dress in which he is to walk constantly, that he may ever be found in the faith and its fruits, that he suppress the old man and grow up in the new. For if we would be Christians, we must practise the work whereby we are Christians. But if any one fall away from it, let him again come into it. For just as Christ, the Mercy-seat does not recede from us or forbid us to come to Him again, even though we sin, so all His treasure and gifts also remain. If, therefore we have once in Baptism obtained forgiveness of sin, it will remain every day, as long as we live, that is, as long as we carry the old man about our neck.
you are correct that God does not contradict Himself and all Scripture is true and must be able to be harmonized. we also must realize that the Church received both an oral Sacred Tradition from the Apostles in addition to the written Scriptures.
given that, we know we are saved by grace and grace is a gift from God Himself. grace can not be earned nor is it deserved, we are all sinners and under the penalty of sin. when Christ died for our sins on the cross and then rose from the dead, before He ascended to heaven He gave the Apostles authority to go into all the world, make disciples of all nations by baptizing them and teaching them. He also told them He would send another comforter, which we know was the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.
the Holy Spirit only works within the Body of Christ, the Church. the Church is the instrument the Holy Spirit uses to baptize believers. the Church, possessing the keys to the kingdom, has no authority at all except that given to it from Jesus, thru the Apostles, to their successors down to today.
so we see Peter preaching in Acts 2:38 and clearly stating baptism is for the remission of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit. Paul makes there clear there is only one baptism, no where in the Bible does anyone speak of “water baptism” and “spirit baptism” Baptism is the Sacrament whereby the Holy Spirit thru the Church washes away the sins of the recipient, the Holy Spirit takes residence in the soul, and the baptized become “in Christ” and part of the Body of Christ, outside of which there is no salvation.
the Catholic position is the only one where all the Scriptures come together and make sense. the Baptist must say there are two baptisms and then explain what “water baptism” is for.
the big confirmation of the Catholic position is the Church itself. one only read the Church Fathers to see they all believed in baptismal regeneration, the Baptist position doesn’t appear until the 16th century.
finally, when the bishops at Nicea said “ we acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”, where were the “true” Christians to oppose them with the “two baptism” theory? where were they? 1,300 years away is the answer.
see post #276 for the Biblical harmonization of Baptism.
Anyone who knows history should know about the corruption of the Church and efforts to reform the Church. History abounds with plentiful examples of corruption of those in priestly power and how God raises up men to correct the wrong. This is not the same thing as trying to create a bastardized religion.
That is why John The Baptist stated what he did about Christ. Baptism was around before Christ. The Baptism of Christ was not. Another note is on The Lords Supper. Christ is present before any wine is poured or wafer passed out. Scripture states Where two or more gather in my name there I am also. The Lords Supper is a serious event done for our sakes for us too remember what Christ did for us at the cross as well as too examine our lives and heart. Examine, ask forgiveness, repent, then "Do in this in remembrance of me." It was a basic rite given believers. It isn't literal body and blood it is a remembrance of it.
The Lamb's bloods has done been spilled as an offering for sin, sprinkled in our spirit to cleanse us, and body offered and accepted by GOD. His Word given us is the new bread. Spiritually we live on it.
You will find I do not hold my Calvinist leanings with Calvin. I hold it with Augustine who's writings seems to be rejected by so many Catholics here.
Luther advocated his conscience plus scripture just like his successors.
God gave us a mind to think with and His Holy Spirit to teach and guide us. What Catholics reject is the notion that the Holy Spirit is capable of guiding individuals just as much as great men of the faith.
ahh, you need to spend more time on the FR religion board to see what many ( not all ) Protestants think of anyone who believes the Catholic Faith. most frequently i hear that Contantine started the Catholic Church and pagan beliefs were brought in and Catholics are lost and need to be saved.
reforming the Church would have meant fighting the corruption, but keeping the One, Holy, Apostolic and Catholic Faith which was believed from 33ad to the 16th century. restoring the church meant breaking away from the false church, throwing away the Catholic faith ( baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist, apostolic succession, etc ) and starting new churches with new doctrines which up until that time were unheard of except in the imagination of those men starting a new group.
the fruit of it all? everyone feels free to believe what they want, the teaching authority of the Church is scoffed at and the number cults ( JW’S, 7th day adventist, mormons, christian scientist, oneness pentecostals etc ) have multiplied unlike any time in history.
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.