Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Big Discovery [by David, former Presbyterian]
Journeyof ImperfectSaint.blogspot.com ^ | October 4, 2009 | David

Posted on 06/03/2012 1:47:18 PM PDT by Salvation

Sunday, October 4, 2009

The Big Discovery

        I made some good friends outside my church and found out that they were all Catholics.  Now, I did not know much about Catholicism at the time.  By the way, the Mass did seem somewhat mysterious to me externally.  In fact, what little I had heard from other church members was all negative.  There was a Mrs. J at my church, who had just retired from her missionary post in China.  She was such a kind and endearing soul to all.  One day she got back from visiting someone at a hospital and looked extremely sad and disturbed.  It turned out that when she got to the hospital room, she saw that a Catholic priest was already there with the patient.  Now the question was if the patient would ever get to heaven. 
 
        Nevertheless, my Catholic friends all looked quite normal and happy.  Then could the Catholic Church, the largest church in the the world, be in error?  It so happened that at that time I was also beginning to question my Protestant faith.  The fact that there were numerous different denominations around the world bothered me.  Also, as a Protestant, whether you're a minister or lay person, you are free to marry and divorce any number of times.  It's hard to see that Jesus would be happy with these two facts.  Since I am the kind of person who always likes to find the answer to any question that's important, I decided to look into Catholicism.
 
        I made up my mind not to talk to anyone about my investigation.  I was single then and had a lot of free time to myself.  The local public library housed an excellent collection of books on Catholicism, so I started borrowing books on the subject.  I read every weekend, even taking notes as I read.  The went on for over a year.  I read all those books that viciously attack the Catholic Church too, but somehow they did not affect me much because I sensed that these attacks could not have been prompted by the Holy Spirit.  The books that really helped me were the ones on early Church history.  I could see that the continuity was there and the beliefs and practices of the early Church had been preserved to this day in the Catholic Church.  The only conclusion I could come to was that the Catholic Church was indeed the church Jesus had come and established.  Like Christ himself, the Church, being his body, must be accepted (or rejected) totally, with no middle ground. 
 
        Here's some advice for those who seek the truth.  Your chances of success will greatly improve if, first, you start out with a completely open mind and secondly, go to the source(s) directly to get the facts.  Many who misunderstand the Catholic Church today have already made up their mind that the Church is wrong, thus never bothering to pick up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to find out what the Church really teaches.  This is being close-minded. 


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; converts; willconvertforfood
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 701-720721-740741-760 ... 1,061-1,062 next last
To: Titanites

****I think a lot of the Catholics posting here are doing the same.****

Some of us have strayed away as it is never ending and such repetition of the same things. Like dogs with bones, they can’t let go.

Every thread regarding Catholicism that is not a closed thread ends up being a defense of Catholicism thread, which is fine, but some of us have taken ourselves out of the game.

Reminds me of babies who drop something on the floor and mommy or daddy pick it up, usually with a soft word or smile as they hand it back. The baby makes the connection and soon drops the toy over and over and over loving the “game” of pick up with their parents.

The parents, of course, tire of the game and after so many times, starts to get annoyed/irritated and tries to stop playing telling the baby, “No more game.” Naturally, the baby gets upset that the parents won’t play the game and begins to wail. It’s a vicious cycle.

I used to be a very frequent poster but now limit myself to something that piques my interest, a new angle or understanding of something, maybe something that has made me look differently at a passage of Scripture.

It’s hard to stay on topic though as the non Catholic Christian of undeclared or unknown denomination or beliefs cannot simply discuss the topic at hand, but when they have run out of rote responses, they just move on to something else; another accusation.

A prime example is your discussion of the Ukrainian Catholics. Their arguments having been shown to be without merit, they bring in the Eastern Orthodox.


721 posted on 06/12/2012 5:07:04 PM PDT by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 719 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism
“the wheat existed at some point without the weeds, just as the Church has existed for 2,000 years and for many centuries without many of the above named “weeds”.”

Since the weeds were planted soon after the wheat there was only a short period of time, Paul indicates it was during the life of the apostles (2 Thess. 2:1-12), that the “sowing” of wheat occurred.

“so let’s take the parable and look at through the lens of history. was the Church planted among the Arians or did the Arians spring out out of the Church?”

No doubt by “the Church” you refer “the Catholic church”, yes?

Not until both produced fruit or seed after a time was it possible to tell wheat from weeds.

What has been the fruitage of “the Church”? That of weeds or “Sons of the Kingdom”.

“the wheat existed at some point without the weeds, just as the Church has existed for 2,000 years and for many centuries without many of the above named “weeds”.”

“”the wheat existed at some point without the weeds,....”

When was this?

Remember that while growing to a point of producing fruit the wheat and weeds could not be distinguished one from the other and when such differentiation could be made it was now impossible to separate the two.

Now that the mixed crop is maturing has history shown “the Church” to be Christian wheat or just part of the poisonous weeds?

722 posted on 06/12/2012 5:07:39 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 705 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism

Don’t confuse them with OT typology.


723 posted on 06/12/2012 5:09:50 PM PDT by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 708 | View Replies]

To: Jvette
The baby analogy is a good one. I used to post much more frequently, but now take extended breaks.

A prime example is your discussion of the Ukrainian Catholics. Their arguments having been shown to be without merit, they bring in the Eastern Orthodox.

That's what I have been suspicious of. It does appear they are trying to shift topics.

724 posted on 06/12/2012 5:14:19 PM PDT by Titanites
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 721 | View Replies]

To: Jvette
“And we see that Jesus laid His hands upon them and said “Let them come to me. Do not hinder them.”

The age of the children here is irrelevant, Jesus was laying his hands upon them not baptizing them.

“Is that a phrase ever found in Scripture before? Why does Paul phrase it this way, rather than just, obey your parents?”

Obeying their parents was obedience to the Lord. Nothing is suggestive of baptism.

There simply is no support in Scripture for infant baptism or that of a child too young to be instructed as a disciple.

Disciple, baptism, teaching them all things Jesus commanded is the pattern.

725 posted on 06/12/2012 5:32:59 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 716 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
As we frequently find out, usually well after the fact, there are ulterior motives to leaving the Church, rarely theological, if ever. Your own testimonies are very illustrative.

Since you are impugning my own testimony, please clarify what I have said that gives you that right.

I am not impugning your testimony; I am cheering it and celebrating it. It is fantastic and supports everything that we have been saying.

Making the decision to return to God, following the example of the Prodigal Son, or the Roman centurion, is to be celebrated. Not sneered at.

I do not disagree at all that it is ALWAYS a cause for rejoicing when anyone either comes to saving faith in Christ or leaves a wanton lifestyle to return to living in holiness after an initial decision to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. I DO disagree that it is only the Roman Catholic Church that can be that place of homecoming.

Nobody here has ever said that the Roman Catholic Church that is the only path to salvation. Well, no Catholic; only the antiCatholics.

For many people such as myself, it was when I read God's word and recognized the Gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Christ that God lead me OUT of that religion and into a church where the truth of the Gospel was celebrated and where Christian living was encouraged out of gratitude for God's grace and not as a means to gain His grace. Thank you again for giving me a chance to retell my testimony.

Again, it is a fantastic testimony and I thank you for it.

726 posted on 06/12/2012 5:48:01 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 574 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change; Jvette
I think it is equally important to go back and look at how "baptism(s)" was/were used within the Jewish community and within the Jewish religion. We had this same discussion months ago and we talked about the use of the "mikvah". Not only that, but that John was first baptizing before Jesus started His ministry. It DID exist back then as a way to identify with a specific group, to testify of following a way of life. When Jesus presented Himself to John to be baptized, did he need "the remission of sins" or "to receive the Holy Spirit"? Of course not. Jesus said it was "to fulfill all righteousness". It was a sign to all those surrounding John - his disciples as well as the religious leaders and peasants - that Jesus was beginning His ministry in righteousness.

Christianity did NOT invent baptism - it had been used for centuries before. John the Baptist said, "I baptize with water, but when He comes, He will baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire." And we see that IS what happened at Pentecost to the followers of Jesus. There are numerous kinds of baptisms in Scripture and I think it is incorrect to presume that whenever Scripture uses the word "baptism", that it always means the ritual of water baptism. We know that it is NOT always what is meant.

But the actual ritual of water baptism did NOT begin within the Christian community as something that was done TO babies. It was always done to people who FIRST exercised faith, they believed on Christ, and THEN they got water baptized. That IS the Biblical picture we have been given. Did some decide later that it should also be done to believer's children who could not make the decision for themselves? We know they did and it eventually became part of the rituals that happened in the church, but I do NOT agree that it was God's leading that caused them to do this because Scripture would have said so and it doesn't. There have been many things added to the list of rituals and observances done in the church, but not all of them have Scriptural sanction. I firmly believe if there is something God intends for us to believe, it is found in Scripture and this concept was also held by the ECFs of the first three centuries.

727 posted on 06/12/2012 6:11:56 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 691 | View Replies]

To: Titanites; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; Quix; smvoice; CynicalBear; bkaycee; ..

'What do you mean by Orthodox Catholics?" The imperfect union who has? What issues?

I meant Eastern Orthodox (commonly referred to as being the Orthodox Church), and i should have used that term, and the imperfect communion refers to them, in distinction from the full communion of the UGCs, while issues (from what i understand) would be whatever remains of the conflict regards support from Rome in the UGCs conflict with the Greek Orthodox (which is far more of an issue), and the de-Latinization of ceremonies and practices, which the below portions deal with (see here and a full reading, which is educational).

Polish Roman Catholics versus Ukrainian/Greek Catholics in Galicia [2001]

Several of our interviewees felt that the Greek Catholics had been abandoned by Rome. The head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church's Department for External Church Relations Ihor Ozhievs'kyi cited to us the absence of direct financial support for his church from the Vatican. The funding which had permitted the extensive church construction we had observed in L'viv and Ternopil' oblasti had come, he said, from two German-based Catholic charities, 'Aid to the Church in Need' and 'Renovabis', as well as from the US Catholic Bishops' Conference - but not from Rome. The Vatican, he maintained, was terrified 'that we will destroy the system which has developed within the Catholic Church', since in effect the Greek Catholic Church was a 'local church', and the Catholic Church 'does not recognise local churches'. In Patriarch Filaret's view, the Greek Catholics already sensed that 'Rome does not need them any more'. Greek Catholic village priest Fr Ihor Fedorishin told us that in his view the Roman Catholic Church was a quite separate structure. The Greek Catholic union with the Vatican, he maintained, was purely symbolic, 'just as the Moscow Patriarchate is symbolically subordinate to Constantinople'...

There are 'serious contradictions' between the Greek and Roman Catholic Churches in Ukraine, Viktor Bondarenko told us. When we visited western Ukraine we did indeed encounter evidence of substantial friction between the two branches of the Catholic Church at local level...

Oksana Zhaborinskaya told us how Archbishop Avhustyn (Markevich) of L'viv had written to the papal nuncio in Kiev, Archbishop Antonio Franco, on 19 July 1995 to complain about the behaviour of Greek Catholics in Urizh. When he had tried to investigate the conflict in the village, the archbishop wrote, Greek Catholic parishioners had attempted to push him down some steps, ripped his surplice and used foul language. In his reply of 7 August 1995, apparently without independent confirmation of the incident, Franco apologised to the archbishop for the acts of violence perpetrated against him by the Greek Catholics - and lamented that similar incidents also occurred between Greek and Roman Catholic parishes in western Ukraine.

According to Fr Legowicz, Roman and Greek Catholics used to attend each others' churches before the Second World War, but now Greek Catholic priests sometimes forbid their parishioners to attend Roman Catholic churches: 'The Greek Catholics are viewed as a Ukrainian church, the Roman Catholics as Polish.' This clear demarcation of nationality was reflected in the words of one woman leaving the Roman Catholic cathedral in L'viv: she apologetically remarked to us that she liked the church very much and attended it 'even though' she was Ukrainian.

At the close of a Greek Catholic service in the village of Beneva (Ternopil' oblast'), the choir and congregation tearfully sang a Ukrainian nationalist hymn: '0 Lord, listen to our plea, take misfortune from our land, a people's strength is in unity, o Lord, grant us unity.' The village priest Fr Ihor Fedorishin later told us that he believed the latinisation of Greek Catholics to be the aim of Poland rather than of the Vatican, 'because then it will be easier for Poland to take this territory'. During the sixteenth century, he told us, the patriarch of Constantinople had visited Ukraine and castigated the people for having paganised Christianity with so many national elements. 'But these are so strong with us', he explained to Keston, 'that neither Rome nor Moscow can destroy us. - GERALDINE FAGAN & ALEKSANDR SHCHIPKOV, — 'The Ukrainian Greek Catholics in an Ambiguous Position, Religion, State & Society, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2001. *The material for this article was collected by the authors on a visit to Ukraine in September 2000. http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/rss/29-3_207.pdf

And if there is any truth in this report from a Ukrainian Orthodox

► “Orthodox in communion with Rome:”

Trials and Tribulations of Eastern Catholics

Dr. Alexander Roman

Eastern by ritual, Western by ecclesial jurisdiction, Eastern Catholics have historically been pulled in two directions by competing loyalties that continue to cause tension in their church identities and lives. With politics and cultural issues thrown into the mix, it is no wonder that they appear to be forever pondering what the future holds for what is a true complex of various, distinct perspectives on everything from liturgical issues to what really constitutes a “Particular Church” in union with Rome . . .

Even the issue of “union with Rome” can provoke numerous arguments that never do seem to get resolved. (If you doubt me, then join an internet Eastern Christian chat forum and see for yourself!)

One may go happily on one’s way talking about the ups and downs of Eastern Catholic “union with Rome” when someone breaks into the debate to say that “union” implies “subservience” and so “in communion with” should be used to avoid that implication.

Eastern Catholic discussion circles are also prone to develop their own sense of “political correctness” and Roman Catholic and Orthodox “intruders” can be rudely corrected in the way they innocently express themselves about the realities of Eastern Catholic life.

Thus, under the terms of such correctness, “Church” replaces “Rite.” In every which way, Eastern Catholics involved in such discussions wish to carefully distinguish themselves from the Roman Catholic West, while insisting they are “Orthodox” in all but the papacy.

And even with respect to the papacy, they have their own (Eastern) theological viewpoint that qualifies their relationship with the Pope in Rome. Some maintain they recognize him only as a “first among equals.” Others say he is only the court of last resort and when the primates of the Eastern Catholic churches ask him to step in. As in other respects, what Rome expects of Eastern Catholics is at variance with what some of their bishops and laity feel is actually the case.

Of course, one would find that the majority of Eastern Catholics, the people in the pews (oh my, now let’s not get started on the issue of PEWS!) are oblivious to any of this. They truly do see themselves as “Catholics” rather than as “Orthodox in communion with Rome” – in fact, the very idea of calling themselves “Orthodox” would suggest, to them, that they aren’t fully under Rome or fully “Catholic.”

Within the Eastern Catholics Churches, especially the Ukrainian and Ruthenian Churches, there are parishes which are truly very Eastern. In some cases, they are “more Orthodox than the Orthodox” in terms of their liturgical practices. Apart from the commemoration of the Pope of Rome, there is no other apparent distinguishing feature about them that would make a visitor to them suggest they are anything other than “Orthodox.”

And yet, this particular Eastern Catholic movement is not without its own pitfalls.

One of these is that the more “Eastern” they seem to become, the more likely that members of such parishes will eventually become formal members of Orthodox Churches (“definitely NOT in communion with Rome”). — http://www.ukrainian-orthodoxy.org/articles/catholic/communionWithRome.htm http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/rss/29-3_207.pdf


728 posted on 06/12/2012 6:27:02 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a damned+morally destitute sinner,+trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 712 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

As I said, the connection is there but not to those who do not want to see it.

They brought their children to Jesus, whole households were baptized.

The age of the children is not irrelevant and it is connected to the actions of the parents.

Again, there is also no Scriptural support that baptism was restricted to adults, period. When Scripture says whole households, there is no specifics given, period.

Parents in the Lord, it meant something to Paul to phrase it that way and not to just say, obey your parents as the Lord commanded in the Law.

No, he says parents in the Lord. As in parents IN the Lord. What did the Apostles teach? That those who were baptized were IN the Lord as told to us in Galatians, Corinthians and Romans.

We are baptized into Christ, into the one body, into His death and so will have a share of His resurrection. Never before had believers been In Him.


729 posted on 06/12/2012 6:32:13 PM PDT by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 725 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

there is only one Church, as there is only one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism. all Christians are called to be one by Jesus in John 17, and Paul in 1 Corinthians and Ephesians calls for there to be NO dissentions among believers and calls for UNITY in the Faith. so if other people call themselves a “church”, it doesn’t change the fact there is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

“fruitage of the Church”? obeying Jesus in Matthew 28:18-20, and being the instrument on earth to take souls from the dominion of darkness and transferring them to the Kingdom of His Son.
Paul says it best in 1 Corinthians 3:5-9
what then is apolos? what is paul? servants through whom you believed as the Lord assigned to each. i planted, apolos watered, BUT GOD GAVE THE GROWTH. so neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, BUT ONLY GOD WHO GIVES THE GROWTH. he who plants and he who waters are equal, and each shall receive his wages according to his labor. for we are fellow workers for God ; you are God’s field, God’s building.

that my friend, is fruitage. God has been merciful, kind, loving and gracious to GROW THE WHEAT FIELD for 2,000 years and the fact the devil has planted Arians, Donatists, Gnostics, Pelagians, Waldenese, Baptists, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, etc. etc. doesn’t much affect us. God restrains the devil and he can’t frustrate the spreading of the good news.


730 posted on 06/12/2012 6:33:29 PM PDT by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 722 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
I meant Eastern Orthodox (commonly referred to as being the Orthodox Church), and i should have used that term, and the imperfect communion refers to them, in distinction from the full communion of the UGCs

Thanks. As previously stated, I'm really not interested into getting into a discussion about the Eastern Orthodox. Some seem already confused by the distinction and then using terms like Orthodox Catholic, etc. only makes it worse.

731 posted on 06/12/2012 6:34:11 PM PDT by Titanites
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 728 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism; Jvette; count-your-change; Iscool
Circumcision is the OT type of Baptism, as Paul explains in Colossians 2:11-12. now, were babies circumcised in the OT, YES OR NO?

Two different things. Here's Colossians 2:11-12

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

But why stop there? What does Paul continue to say?

When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins (Col. 2:13)

What was that? "A circumcision made without hands"????!!!! How can someone being water baptized be the same thing as this? It is "without hands" in other words, a SPIRITUAL thing. How? BY FAITH. And the "uncircumcision of our SINFUL NATURE"? God made us alive through faith in Christ. Then look what Paul says in Romans:

No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God. (Romans 2:29)

How can anyone possibly think that Paul was in any way talking about something that is done to babies? Y'all can go ahead and believe that - and I fully understand that you sorta HAVE to seeing that's what your Catholic religion commands of you - but I choose to stick with what the word of God says.

There's one more thing...no matter what WE think about this subject of infant baptism, it does not change the fact that we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ by the grace of God Almighty. That is not something any religion can take away from a person. We are held by God, in His hands, never to be cast away, lost, plucked out of or given up. One day we will know as we are known and this particular issue will be seen as a silly distraction from what really matters.

732 posted on 06/12/2012 6:43:38 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 708 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212; CynicalBear; boatbums

Now you’ve done gone and done it. You provided yet MORE evidence of the lack of unity within Catholicism to be ignored.

Prepare for more incoming.


733 posted on 06/12/2012 6:52:39 PM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 728 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; count-your-change; Jvette

we know two things for sure in reading the Catholic Church Fathers:

1. The Church has always taught and believed in baptismal regeneration, that baptism is for the remission of sins, receivinf the Holy Spirit and placing one “into Christ”. No Church Father ever spoke of “believers baptism” or spoke of baptism being for testimony purposes. NO, NO, 1,000 TIMES NO. The Scriptures do not anywhere say baptism is for a public testimony. This is 16th century fantasy stuff.
2. The Church has ALWAYS baptized infants, just as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Hippolytus tell us they did. Search as you might, you will not find ANY CONTROVERSY ABOUT INFANT BAPTISM until the 16th century. Again, i ask you Baptists, what would happen if this Sunday the minister dunked a baby and baptized it? WOULD THERE BE CONTROVERSY?? now picture 1st and 2nd century churches that had been founded by Apostles and are spread through out the Roman world, but without telephones , internet or other forms of instant communication. how is it possible for bible believing, “believer baptizing” congregations to ALL change into man made tradition loving baby dunkers and NO ONE STANDS UP FOR THE TRUTH?? the question answers itself, it is OBVIOUS the Apostles taught the Church to baptize infants. THE PROBLEM IS IN A MISTAKEN BELIEF IN SOLA SCRIPTURA RATHR THAN OBEYING 2 THESSALONIANS 2:15.


734 posted on 06/12/2012 6:54:49 PM PDT by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 727 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

****It DID exist back then as a way to identify with a specific group****

Scripture for that? What was the specific group?

****did he need “the remission of sins” or “to receive the Holy Spirit”? *****

Red herring.

****Christianity did NOT invent baptism - it had been used for centuries before. John the Baptist said, “I baptize with water, but when He comes, He will baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” And we see that IS what happened at Pentecost to the followers of Jesus. There are numerous kinds of baptisms in Scripture and I think it is incorrect to presume that whenever Scripture uses the word “baptism”, that it always means the ritual of water baptism. We know that it is NOT always what is meant.****

All well and good except for two things I have to say.....

Pentecost was not the first time the Apostles received the Holy Spirit from Jesus, though it is considered their baptism in the Spirit.

Also, one can certainly think that baptism by water was of no significance or is not regenerative or washes away sin, but the words of Jesus outweigh that erroneous opinion.

John 3:3,5 - Jesus says, “Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

*****But the actual ritual of water baptism did NOT begin within the Christian community as something that was done TO babies. It was always done to people who FIRST exercised faith, they believed on Christ, and THEN they got water baptized. That IS the Biblical picture we have been given.****

You have absolutely NO proof of that. It is the picture that you have chosen to accept. I have explained over and over that the parents of the children would have had them baptized, speaking for them and raising them to believe.

Adults would be expected to speak and act for themselves, parents would be expected to speak and act for their children.

You have posted no Scripture that rejects this, only an opinion that they must have been excluded since Scripture does not explicitly say they weren’t, though I have given you Scripture to show that children were certainly brought by their parents to Jesus.


735 posted on 06/12/2012 6:55:16 PM PDT by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 727 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; count-your-change; Jvette

salvation is found “in Christ” alone, outside of Christ there is no salvation.

how do the Scriptures tell us we get “into Christ”?

do we say a sinner’s prayer, do we ask Jesus into our heart, was anyone ever told this in the Scriptures?

Galatians 3:27 for as many of you as were BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST, have put on Christ.

Romans 6:3 do you not know that all of us who have been BAPTIZED INTO JESUS CHRIST were baptized into His death?

Paul seems to think the only way “into Christ” is baptism, which of course has been Christian doctrine for 2,000 years.

btw, why do you use the unscriptural term “water baptism”. the Bible never uses the phrase “water baptism”, it always only says baptism.


736 posted on 06/12/2012 7:08:32 PM PDT by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 732 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212; metmom; boatbums
Oh dear me! That all must have come from an anti Catholic site. Surely it must have. With a site name of http://www.ukrainian-orthodoxy.org/articles/catholic/communionWithRome.htm .............oh.....wait........pfffft.
737 posted on 06/12/2012 7:11:29 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 728 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Lack of unity? Ain’t no way. Can’t be. Don’t you know that the Pope blessed the Bishop and even had him over for dinner or something like that? Besides, your just persecuting them to say that they aren’t all one big happy clan. And something else also, whoever says they ain’t one big happy clan must be some disgruntled ex Catholic who wanted to get a divorce or somthin and don’t know nothing of “church” history.


738 posted on 06/12/2012 7:20:15 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 733 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; count-your-change; Jvette

as far as the 16th century nonsense about baptism being for a public testimony, the baptism of the eunuch by Philip in Acts 8:26-40 blows this heresy right out of the water.

who did the eunuch give public testimony to when it was only he and Philip that went into the water? the answer is NO ONE. obviously Philip explained to him that baptism is for the remission of sins, receiving the Holy Spirit and being placed “into Christ”, that is why the eunuch was anxious to be baptized! if Philip told him baptism was for a public testimony, it was a waste of time because THERE WAS NO PUBLIC TO WITNESS IT!


739 posted on 06/12/2012 7:21:17 PM PDT by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 732 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; count-your-change; Jvette; Iscool; metmom

Born Again : Baptism in the Early Fathers


Jesus told Nicodemus, “You must be born again” (John 3:7). What did our Lord mean?

Modern Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christians, while agreeing with Catholic Christians that a spiritual regeneration by the Holy Spirit (or the “new birth”) is necessary for salvation (e.g. John 3:3-8; 2 Cor 5:17; Titus 3:5), generally disagree that the Sacrament (or what some call “ordinance”) of Baptism is the means by which the Holy Spirit regenerates and saves the person, and all sins committed prior to Baptism are forgiven and washed away by the power of Christ (John 3:5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom 6:1ff; 1 Cor 6:11; Gal 3:27; Eph 5:26f; Col 2:11ff; 1 Peter 3:21; etc). There are exceptions of course (such as Evangelical Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, and Church of Christ groups who hold some form of “baptismal regeneration” — and certain of these practice infant Baptism, as do most Reformed or Calvinist Christians).

Many of these modern Fundamentalists and Evangelicals suggest that accepting or “receiving Christ” as one’s “personal Lord and Savior” by faith alone is what our Lord meant in John chapter 3. The Sacrament of Baptism is seen as merely a “symbolic” gesture with no inherent spiritual efficacy.

Catholics, while not denying the importance of the “personal relationship” with Jesus Christ (you cannot get much more personal than receiving Christ in the Holy Eucharist) and clearly emphasizing a holy life after Baptism, understand the Gospel text on “born again” as a reference to the Sacrament of Baptism. Catholics note our Lord’s words that one must be “born of WATER AND THE SPIRIT” as clearly equated by Jesus himself with the phrase “born again” (compare verses John 3:3,5,7). The surrounding context of the first four chapters of John’s Gospel also show that by “water and the Spirit” that water BAPTISM is what our Lord meant (cf. John 1:29ff; 3:22ff; 4:1ff), which Sacrament was instituted by Christ himself at the Great Commission where he commanded Baptism in the name of the Blessed Trinity (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16). This is shortly followed by St. Peter the Apostle’s command to be baptized in order to receive the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). Catholics accept the plain and literal meaning of the biblical texts.

The Catholic understanding of Baptism is also the unanimous teaching of the earliest Christians who immediately followed the apostles. Every Christian, all the Church Fathers, bishops, and saints who lived after the apostles (and some while the apostles were still alive) interpreted our Lord’s words in John chapter 3 that to be “born again” and “born of water and the Spirit” refers to the Sacrament of Baptism. There are no exceptions. And Protestant scholars frankly admit this fact (note the relevent sections on Baptism in Reformed/Presbyterian scholar Philip Schaff’s History of the Christian Church, Anglican scholar J.N.D. Kelly’s Early Christian Doctrines, and Lutheran scholar Jaroslav Pelikan’s The Christian Tradition).

Philip Schaff (Presbyterian/Reformed) —

“This ordinance [Baptism] was regarded in the ancient church as the sacrament of the new birth or regeneration, and as the solemn rite of initiation into the Christian Church, admitting to all her benefits and committing to all her obligations....Its effect consists in the forgiveness of sins and the communication of the Holy Spirit.

“Justin [Martyr] calls baptism ‘the water-bath for the forgiveness of sins and regeneration,’ and ‘the bath of conversion and the knowledge of God.’ “It is often called also illumination, spiritual circumcision, anointing, sealing, gift of grace, symbol of redemption, death of sins, etc. Tertullian describes its effect thus: ‘When the soul comes to faith, and becomes transformed through regeneration by water and power from above, it discovers, after the veil of the old corruption is taken away, its whole light. It is received into the fellowship of the Holy Spirit; and the soul, which unites itself to the Holy Spirit, is followed by the body.’ ....”From John 3:5 and Mark 16:16, Tertullian and other fathers argued the necessity of baptism to salvation....The effect of baptism...was thought to extend only to sins committed before receiving it. Hence the frequent postponement of the sacrament [Procrastinatio baptismi], which Tertullian very earnestly recommends....” (History of the Christian Church, volume 2, page 253ff)

“The views of the ante-Nicene fathers concerning baptism and baptismal regeneration were in this period more copiously embellished in rhetorical style by Basil the Great and the two Gregories, who wrote special treatises on this sacrament, and were more clearly and logically developed by Augustine. The patristic and Roman Catholic view on regeneration, however, differs considerably from the one which now prevails among most Protestant denominations, especially those of the more Puritanic type, in that it signifies not so such a subjective change of heart, which is more properly called conversion, but a change in the objective condition and relation of the sinner, namely, his translation from the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of Christ....Some modern divines make a distinction between baptismal regeneration and moral regeneration, in order to reconcile the doctrine of the fathers with the fact that the evidences of a new life are wholly wanting in so many who are baptized. But we cannot enter here into a discussion of the difficulties of this doctrine, and must confine ourselves to a historical statement.” [patristic quotes follow] “In the doctrine of baptism also we have a much better right to speak of a -consensus patrum-, than in the doctrine of the Holy Supper.” (History of the Christian Church, volume 3, page 481ff, 492)

Paul Enns (Dispensational/Baptist, Th.D. Dallas Theological Seminary) —

“Justin Martyr suggests Isaiah 1:16-20 refers to Christian baptism, apparently suggesting that this rite produces the new birth (1 Apol 61).....Very early in the Christian church, prominence was given to the rite of baptism so that many, in effect, taught baptismal regeneration. Justin Martyr taught that, to obtain the remission of sins, the name of the Father should be invoked over the one being baptized (1 Apol 61)...Although this concept was not as emphatic among the apostolic Fathers, it became increasingly so in the following centuries. Augustine, for instance, taught that original sin and sins committed before baptism were washed away through baptism. For that reason he advocated baptism for infants.” (The Moody Handbook of Theology [1989], page 415, 427)

J.N.D. Kelly (Anglican patristic scholar) —

“From the beginning baptism was the universally accepted rite of admission to the Church; only ‘those who have been baptized in the Lord’s name’ may partake of the eucharist [Didache 9:5]....As regards its significance, it was always held to convey the remission of sins....the theory that it mediated the Holy Spirit was fairly general....The Spirit is God Himself dwelling in the believer, and the resulting life is a re-creation....”

“Speculation about baptism in the third century revolves around its function, universally admitted hitherto, as the medium of the bestowal of the Spirit. Infant baptism was now common, and this fact, together with the rapid expansion of the Church’s numbers, caused the administration of the sacrament to be increasingly delegated by bishops to presbyters....We observe a tendency to limit the effect of baptism itself to the remission of sins and regeneration, and to link the gift of the Spirit with these other rites [Chrismation, Confirmation, and the laying on of hands — detailed analysis from the ante-Nicene Fathers on Baptism follows].....

“From these general considerations we turn to the particular sacraments. Cyril of Jerusalem provides a full, if not always coherent, account of the conception of baptism which commended itself to a fourth-century theologian in Palestine. The name he applies to the rite is ‘baptism’ or ‘bath’ [Greek provided along with references]. It is ‘the bath of regeneration’ in which we are washed both with water and with the Holy Spirit. Its effects can be summarized under three main heads. First, the baptized person receives the remission of sins, i.e. all sins committed prior to baptism. He passes from sin to righteousness, from filth to cleanliness; his restoration is total....Secondly, baptism conveys the positive blessing of sanctification, which Cyril describes as the illumination and deification of the believer’s soul, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the putting on of the new man, spiritual rebirth and salvation, adoption as God’s son by grace, union with Christ in His resurrection as in His suffering and death, the right to a heavenly inheritance....Thirdly, and closely connected with this, baptism impresses a seal [Greek provided] on the believer’s soul. Just as the water cleanses the body, the Holy Spirit seals [Greek] the soul. This sealing takes place at the very moment of baptism....and as a result of it the baptized person enjoys the presence of the Holy Spirit....These ideas are fairly representative of Greek and Latin teaching about baptism in the fourth and fifth centuries.” [detailed analysis from the post-Nicene Fathers on Baptism follows] (Early Christian Doctrines, page 193ff, 207ff, 428ff)

Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran patristic scholar) —

“Although references to the doctrine of baptism are scattered throughout the Christian literature of the second and third centuries, only one extant treatise from the period is devoted exclusively to the subject, that of Tertullian. And the most succinct statement by Tertullian on the doctrine of baptism actually came, not in his treatise on baptism, but in his polemic against Marcion....Tertullian argued that none of the four basic gifts of baptism could be granted if that dualism [of Marcion] were maintained. The four gifts were: the remission of sins, deliverance from death, regeneration, and bestowal of the Holy Spirit...It is noteworthy that Tertullian, regardless of how much a Montanist he may have been at this point, was summarizing what the doctrine of the church was at his time — as well as probably before his time and certainly since his time. Tertullian’s enumeration of the gifts of baptism would be difficult to duplicate in so summary a form from other Christian writers, but those who did speak of baptism also spoke of one or more of these gifts. Baptism brought the remission of sins; the doctrine of baptism was in fact the occasion for many of the references to forgiveness of sins in the literature of these centuries [references to Cyprian, Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Hermas].”

“With deliverance from death came a new life and regeneration. The phrase ‘washing of regeneration’ in Titus 3:5 was synonymous with ‘the baptism of regeneration.’ [references to Methodius of Olympus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen].”

“Tertullian’s summary of these four gifts makes it clear ‘that by the end of the second century, if not fifty years earlier, the doctrine of baptism (even without the aid of controversy to give it precision) was so fully developed that subsequent ages down to our own have found nothing significant to add to it’ [citing Evans].” (The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, volume 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition 100-600, pages 163ff)

William Webster, a former Catholic turned Evangelical, in his 1995 book The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, freely admits the unanimous position of the Church Fathers as to what is called “baptismal regeneration” :

“The doctrine of baptism is one of the few teachings within Roman Catholicism for which it can be said that there is a universal consent of the Fathers....From the early days of the Church, baptism was universally perceived as the means of receiving four basic gifts: the remission of sins, deliverance from death, regeneration, and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit.” (Webster, page 95-96)

Let us take a look at the writings of the earliest Christians on the Sacrament of Baptism, baptismal regeneration, and infant baptism. All the major Church Fathers are covered through the fifth century.


THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS (c. A.D. 70)

Now let us see if the Lord has been at any pains to give us a foreshadowing of the waters of Baptism and of the cross. Regarding the former, we have the evidence of Scripture that Israel would refuse to accept the washing which confers the remission of sins and would set up a substitution of their own instead [Jer 22:13; Isa 16:1-2; 33:16-18; Psalm 1:3-6]. Observe there how he describes both the water and the cross in the same figure. His meaning is, “Blessed are those who go down into the water with their hopes set on the cross.” Here he is saying that after we have stepped down into the water, burdened with sin and defilement, we come up out of it bearing fruit, with reverence in our hearts and the hope of Jesus in our souls. (11:1-10)


THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS (c. A.D. 140)

“I have heard, sir,” said I, “from some teachers, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.” He said to me, “You have heard rightly, for so it is.” (The Shepherd 4:3:1-2)

They had need [the Shepherd said] to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God, except by putting away the mortality of their former life. These also, then, who had fallen asleep, received the seal of the Son of God, and entered into the kingdom of God. For, [he said,] before a man bears the name of the Son of God, he is dead. But when he receives the seal, he puts mortality aside and again receives life. The seal, therefore, is the water. They go down into the water dead [in sin], and come out of it alive. (ibid 9:16:2-4)


ST. JUSTIN MARTYR (inter A.D. 148-155)

Whoever is convinced and believes that what they are taught and told by us is the truth, and professes to be able to live accordingly, is instructed to pray and to beseech God in fasting for the remission of their former sins, while we pray and fast with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: In the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they receive the washing with water. For Christ said, “Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” ...The reason for doing this, we have learned from the Apostles. (The First Apology 61)


ST. THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH (c. A.D. 181)

Moreover, those things which were created from the waters were blessed by God, so that this might also be a sign that men would at a future time receive repentance and remission of sins through water and the bath of regeneration — all who proceed to the truth and are born again and receive a blessing from God. (To Autolycus 2:16)


ST. IRENAEUS (c. A.D. 190)

“And [Naaman] dipped himself...seven times in the Jordan” [2 Kings 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: “Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Fragment 34)


TERTULLIAN (inter A.D. 200-206)

A treatise on our sacrament of water, by which the sins of our earlier blindness are washed away and we are released for eternal life will not be superfluous.....taking away death by the washing away of sins. The guilt being removed, the penalty, of course, is also removed.....Baptism is itself a corporal act by which we are plunged in water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from sins. (On Baptism 1:1; 5:6; 7:2)

...no one can attain salvation without Baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says: “Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life.” (On Baptism 12:1)


ST. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (ante A.D. 202)

When we are baptized, we are enlightened. Being enlightened, we are adopted as sons. Adopted as sons, we are made perfect. Made perfect, we become immortal....”and sons all of the Most High” [Psalm 82:6]. This work is variously called grace, illumination, perfection, and washing. It is a washing by which we are cleansed of sins; a gift of grace by which the punishments due our sins are remitted; an illumination by which we behold that holy light of salvation — that is, by which we see God clearly; and we call that perfection which leaves nothing lacking. Indeed, if a man know God, what more does he need? Certainly it were out of place to call that which is not complete a true gift of God’s grace. Because God is perfect, the gifts He bestows are perfect. (The Instructor of Children 1:6:26:1)


RECOGNITIONS OF CLEMENT (c. A.D. 221)

But you will perhaps say, “What does the baptism of water contribute toward the worship of God?” In the first place, because that which has pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because when you are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so ...you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For thus has the true Prophet [Jesus] testified to us with an oath: “Verily, I say to you, that unless a man is born again of water....he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Recognitions 6:9)


ORIGEN (post A.D. 244)

Formerly there was Baptism, in an obscure way....now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God as He Himself says: “My flesh is truly food, and My blood is truly drink” [John 6:55]. (Homilies on Numbers 7:2)

The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit. (Commentaries on Romans 5:9)


ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (c. 200 - 258 A.D.)

But afterwards, when the stain of my past life had been washed away by means of the water of re-birth, a light from above poured itself upon my chastened and now pure heart; afterwards through the Spirit which is breathed from heaven, a second birth made of me a new man... Thus it had to be acknowledged that what was of the earth and was born of the flesh and had lived submissive to sins, had now begun to be of God, inasmuch as the Holy Spirit was animating it. (To Donatus 4)

[When] they receive also the Baptism of the Church...then finally can they be fully sanctified and be the sons of God...since it is written, “Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (Letters 71[72]:1)

[It] behooves those to be baptized...so that they are prepared, in the lawful and true and only Baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God...because it is written, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (Letters 72[73]:21)


SEVENTH COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE (c. A.D. 256)

And in the gospel our Lord Jesus Christ spoke with his divine voice, saying, “Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” ...Unless therefore they receive saving Baptism in the Catholic Church, which is one, they cannot be saved, but will be condemned with the carnal in the judgment of the Lord Christ.


APHRAATES THE PERSION SAGE (inter A.D. 336-345)

For from Baptism we receive the Spirit of Christ. At that same moment in which the priests invoke the Spirit, heaven opens, and He descends and rests upon the waters; and those who are baptized are clothed in Him. For the Spirit is absent from all those who are born of the flesh, until they come to the water of re-birth; and then they receive the Holy Spirit....in the second birth, that through Baptism, they receive the Holy Spirit. (Treatises 6:14)


ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (c. A.D. 350)

If any man does not receive Baptism, he does not have salvation. The only exception is the martyrs, who, even without water, will receive the kingdom....for the Savior calls martyrdom a Baptism (cf. Mark 10:38) ...Bearing your sins, you go down into the water; but the calling down of grace seals your soul and does not permit that you afterwards be swallowed up by the fearsome dragon. You go down dead in your sins, and come up made alive in righteousness. (Catechetical Lectures 3:10,12)

Since man is of a twofold nature, composed of body and soul, the purification also is twofold: the corporeal for the corporeal and the incorporeal for the incorporeal. The water cleanses the body, and the Spirit seals the soul....When you go down into the water, then, regard not simply the water, but look for salvation through the power of the Holy Spirit. For without both you cannot attain to perfection. It is not I who says this, but the Lord Jesus Christ, who has the power in this matter.

And He says, “Unless a man be born again” — and He adds the words “of water and of the Spirit” — “he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” He that is baptized with water, but is not found worthy of the Spirit, does not receive the grace in perfection. Nor, if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but does not receive the seal by means of the water, shall he enter the kingdom of heaven.

A bold saying, but not mine; for it is Jesus who has declared it.

(Catechetical Lectures 3:4)


ST. BASIL THE GREAT (c. A.D. 330 - 379)

For prisoners, Baptism is ransom, forgiveness of debts, death of sin, regeneration of the soul, a resplendent garment, an unbreakable seal, a chariot to heaven, a protector royal, a gift of adoption. (Sermons on Moral and Practical Subjects: On Baptism 13:5)

This then is what it means to be “born again of water and Spirit” : just as our dying is effected in the water [Rom 6:3-4; Col 2:11-13], our living is wrought through the Spirit. In three immersions and in an equal number of invocations the great mystery of Baptism is completed in such a way that the type of death may be shown figuratively, and that by the handing on of divine knowledge the souls of the baptized may be illuminated. If, therefore, there is any grace in the water, it is not from the nature of water but from the Spirit’s presence there. (On the Holy Spirit 15:35)


ST. AMBROSE OF MILAN (c. A.D. 333 - 397)

The Lord was baptized, not to be cleansed Himself but to cleanse the waters, so that those waters, cleansed by the flesh of Christ which knew no sin, might have the power of Baptism. Whoever comes, therefore, to the washing of Christ lays aside his sins. (Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 2:83)

The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed, he must circumcise himself from his sins [in Baptism — Col 2:11-13] so that he can be saved...for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the sacrament of Baptism....”Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (On Abraham 2:11:79,84)

You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood and the Spirit [1 John 5:8]: and if you withdraw any one of these, the sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is the water without the cross of Christ? A common element with no sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for “unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (On the Mysteries 4:20)


ST. GREGORY OF NAZIANZ (c. A.D. 330 - 389)

Baptism is God’s most beautiful and magnificent gift....We call it gift, grace, anointing, enlightenment, garment of immortality, bath of rebirth, seal, and most precious gift. It is called gift because it is conferred on those who bring nothing of their own; grace since it is given even to the guilty; Baptism because sin is buried in the water; anointing for it is priestly and royal as are those who are anointed; enlightenment because it radiates light; clothing since it veils our shame; bath because it washes; and seal as it is our guard and the sign of God’s Lordship. (Orations on Holy Baptism 40:3-4; PG 36, 361C cited in CCC [1216])

Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified [i.e. baptized] from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal because of the weakness of nature? O what a pusillanimous mother, and of how little faith! ....Give your child the Trinity, that great and noble Protector. (Orations on Holy Baptism 40:17)


ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM (c. A.D. 344 - 407)

Behold, they thoroughly enjoy the peacefulness of freedom who shortly before were held captive. They are citizens of the Church who were wandering in error. They have their lot in righteousness who were in the confusion of sin. For not only are they free, but holy also; not only holy, but righteous too; not only righteous, but sons also; not only sons, but heirs as well; not only heirs, but brothers even of Christ; not only brothers of Christ, but also co-heirs; not only co-heirs, but His very members; not only His members, but a temple too; not a temple only, but likewise the instruments of the Spirit.

You see how many are the benefits of Baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins; but we have enumerated ten honors. For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by sin [or though they do not have personal sins] so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be His members. (Baptismal Catecheses quoted by Augustine in Contra Iulianum 1:6:21)


APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS (c. A.D. 400)

Be ye likewise contented with one Baptism alone, that which is into the death of the Lord [Rom 6:3-4; Col 2:11-13]...he that out of contempt will not be baptized shall be condemned as an unbeliever and shall be reproached as ungrateful and foolish. For the Lord says, “Except a man be baptized of water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven.” And again, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (6:3:15)


ST. JEROME (c. A.D. 415)

This much you must know, that Baptism forgives past sins, but it does not safeguard future justice, which is preserved by labor and industry and diligence, and depends always and above all on the mercy of God. (Dialogue Against the Pelagians 3:1)


ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO (c. A.D. 354 - 430)

By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive....gives also the most hidden grace of His Spirit to believers, grace which He secretly infuses even into infants....It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call Baptism itself nothing else but “salvation” and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else but “life.”

Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ hold inherently that without Baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture too.

If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this....The Sacrament of Baptism is most assuredly the Sacrament of regeneration.

(Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 c. A.D. 412)

It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated....when that infant is brought to Baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, “Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents” or “by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,” but: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.” The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in one Adam.” (Letters 98:2 c. A.D. 408)

Those who, though they have not received the washing of regeneration, die for the confession of Christ — it avails them just as much for the forgiveness of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of Baptism. For He that said, “If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven,” made an exception for them in that other statement in which He says no less generally, “Whoever confesses Me before men, I too will confess him before My Father, who is in heaven” [Matt 10:32]. (City of God 13:7 c. A.D. 420)


ST. FULGENCE OF RUSPE (c. A.D. 524)

From that time at which our Savior said: “If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven,” no one can say, without the sacrament of Baptism, except those who, in the Catholic Church, without Baptism pour out their blood for Christ, receive the kingdom of heaven and eternal life. Anyone who receives the sacrament of Baptism, whether in the Catholic Church or in a heretical or schismatic one, receives the whole sacrament...

[But one outside the Church] must, therefore, return to the Church, not so that he might receive again the sacrament of Baptism, which no one dare repeat in any baptized person, but so that he may receive eternal life in Catholic society, for the obtaining of which no one is suited who...remains estranged from the Catholic Church. (The Rule of Faith 43)

These articles originally appeared in the August 1992 and October 1994 issues of THIS ROCK magazine (under the column “The Fathers Know Best”) with commentary by Church historians edited and added by Phil Porvaznik.


Back to Apologetics Articles

Back to Home Page

About | Apologetics | Philosophy | Spirituality | Books | Audio | Links

from philvaz.com

let everyone see what the Catholic Church Fathers taught about baptismal regeneration.


740 posted on 06/12/2012 7:27:00 PM PDT by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 732 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 701-720721-740741-760 ... 1,061-1,062 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson