Baptism's meaning

[Guest Aluigi]

J S, you're listed in your profile as being Roman Catholic, why do you quote Martin Luther in your sig?

All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. An excellent teaching worthy of respect. An excellent teaching that when written had no intention of disregarding the possibility of God making a special figure in Salvation History to fulfil all prophecy and be the New Eve to Christ's being the New Adam. How can you honestly believe St. Paul had the intention of including Mary in the statement. He was writing to the Church in Rome, Mary was not there, therefore he was telling them to stop being all prideful, all of them were sinful. Literal interpretation is wrong there, because that's not the intention the scripture had in saying that.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Oct 22 2004, 03:07 PM']It's sad that you don't even recognize where your own beliefs contradict the Bible...

Let's start with the Immaculate Conception. Without jumping through all kinds of exegetical hoops, how can you prove this doesn't contradict the Bible, notably Rom 3:23. The Scriptures make quite a ruckus about Christ's sinlessness, but never Mary's.[/quote]

A SHORT BIBLICAL QUESTIONNAIRE

Did Jews read the Old Testament in order to know what to believe? [b]No. Judaism was based on Oral Tradition. Judaism was about 1,000 years old before the first word of their Scriptures was written, and it took about another 1,000 years to complete them. [/b]

Did the early Christians read the New Testament and then decide what to believe? [b]No. Christianity was based on the Oral Tradition of the Apostles delivered to and through the Catholic Church. The New Testament was written by the Church. The NT and the Bible as we know them didn't exist until 382. [/b]

Is the Bible a continuous book that fell out of heaven? [b]No.[/b]

Is the Bible a collection of books, 46 of them inherited from Jesus and the Apostles and 27 of them written by the early Church? And were these 27 writings selected from about 200 that circulated and were read aloud during the Liturgy in the early Church because most people couldn't read? [b]Yes.[/b]

Did Christians know which of these many writings were "Scripture" before the Church selected these 27 and canonized them? [b]No.[/b]

Were these "books" written by different people at different locations and times for different audiences and purposes? [b]Yes.[/b]

How did the disparate writings come to be unified in one book and called the Old Testament and New Testament? [b]The Catholic Church collected, canonized, and named them and declared them to be Scripture -- the Inspired Word of God. The entire collection she named "ta Biblia" -- the Bible.[/b]

When did this happen? [b]It began at the Council of Rome in 382; the process was completed when Pope Innocent I approved the 73 Scriptures in 405.[/b]

Is everything God revealed through Christ and the Apostles contained in the Bible? [b]No. This myth was born in the 16th century.[/b]

Does the Bible claim to contain the entire Revelation of God? [b]No.[/b]

Does the Bible claim to be the sole rule of faith, as Protestants believe? [b]No.[/b]

Do the two ancient Churches -- Catholic and Orthodox, that were one Catholic Church for the first 1,000 years A.D. -- both hold firmly to a belief in the sinlessness of Mary, based on the oral teaching of the Apostles and their own knowledge as witnesses of her life? [b]Yes.[/b]

Do come-lately Protestants deny the sinlessness of Mary because they can't find it in the Scriptures? [b]Yes.[/b]

Is everything Christ and the Apostles taught and the early Christians believed written in the NT Scriptures? [b]No, it most definitely isn't.[/b]

Then is it logical for Protestants to expect every Christian belief to be found in the Scritures? [b]No, it most definitely is not logical.[/b]

All Protestants are urged to read [i]Logic and the Foundations of Protestantism[/i] by former Protestant Brian W. Harrison at www.chnetwork.org.

Ave Cor Mariae, Likos

[Justified Saint]

[quote]J S, you're listed in your profile as being Roman Catholic, why do you quote Martin Luther in your sig?[/quote]

Well, Luther was Catholic too. Anyway, it is a good quote which Luther actually never said. I repudiate any historical implications it may carry with the Protestant heresies.

[point5]

Icthus

"all have sinned" - does not mean every single person ever has sinned. Did Jesus sin? You have to include him in your interpretation of this scripture or deny his humanity. You can't seperate his humanity and divinity to fit this verse, or you fall into a Christological heresy that has been around for some time now. As Tim Staples say: "If you get it wrong on Mary then you get it wrong on Jesus", and vise versa.

-Kiel

[ICTHUS]

[quote]Here's the problem: no one is "truly saved" (past tense) until they have reached eternal life with God. In that sense, I would agree that one cannot be "truly saved" and fall away from grace completely (destined for hell). [/quote] Of course, and this all stems from the fact that you reject eternal security - perseverance of the saints (hereafter, POTS). If you'd like to discuss this matter further, in specific terms, I suggest we make another thread.

[quote]To a Catholic, this doesn't really make sense...and reasonably, it shouldn't make much sense to non-Catholics. In the Catholic view, the grace of Baptism opens the door for us to live in a "newness of life" (Romans 6:4), though it doesn't guarantee that we will be "truly saved."[/quote] This is because you don't take seriously Romans 8:28-39 promise that nothing can separate those who are regenerated in Christ from the love of God.

[quote]One of the key effects of baptism is to return us to the state that Adam and Eve were in before the Fall, to return to a friendship with God--a life of grace. Recall that Adam and Eve were not created as fallen creatures, but with grace sufficient for a relationship with God. And then they fell, causing consequences for all of humanity. They had a real life of grace; but this did not preclude a loss of this life of grace.[/quote] Of course. God gave them just enough grace to allow them to fall from grace. God gives His elect enough grace to overcome the world, the flesh, and the devil. I don't see what difficulty this offers for eternal security.

[quote]There is a simple practical problem with this statement: no one knows "whom God has accepted in His Beloved." Do you know? If so, I'd like to find out who told you! Anyway, what is the consequence of this statement if no one knows who has truly been accepted by God? As a mere laymen, this kind of logic (i.e. arguing about being eternally saved) just doesn't resonate as meaningful for me.[/quote] It is meaningful. We don't know who are among the Elect, that doesn't mean that we can't go through life justified by faith 'making certain our calling and election' and taking Romans 8:38-39 and all its promises, seriously. We go through life as if we are among the Elect, and we 'strive to enter' the Kingdom.

[quote]The warning that I quoted means nothing if those to whom Jude is warning possess "eternal security."[/quote] No, it doesn't. It just means that they need to make sure that they continue in God's grace, making certain their calling and election. At this point, I really am going to have to insist that you read the Westminster Confession from start to finish, especially the parts on soteriology, because you really don't get a feel for the consistency of the doctrine until you read the whole thing and study the proof texts offered.

[quote]And if they have no chance for heaven (eternally destined for hell), one wonders why they would be warned when God predestined them to eternal condemnation. [/quote] So they would have no excuse??[quote] This passage only makes sense if our response (or lack of response) to God's grace has consequences. [/quote] That's just it - [b]they do[/b]. I fail to see what effect this has on the doctrine of election

[quote]Our Lord knows each of our hearts. Sin does not begin with an act, it ends with an act. It begins in our heart. And Judas's sin began long before the act of his betrayal--it began in his heart.[/quote] Yes - it began in his unregenerate, reprobate heart which never knew Christ to begin with, as per the text I quoted to that effect ("They went out from us...")

[quote]This "delay" is relevant to the discussion of grace and baptism. I think that while a visible response to the grace of Baptism may be delayed, the actual life of grace cannot be equated to the soul's response (i.e. the fruits). [/quote] And your proof of this is? Mere conjecture isn't going to get us anywhere.

[quote]The life of grace begins with the sacrament. To detach the temporal beginning of the life of grace from the act of baptism is just a way to deny the meaning and efficaciousness of the sacrament itself. [/quote] But we do not deny that baptism is efficacious! We just have a different idea of when and how it is efficacious!

[quote]Such a position vs. a position of "baptism is symbolic" is only separated by a few fancy SAT words.[/quote] There is a world of difference between the Calvinist and Zwinglian view...*sigh*

[quote]Again, this quote from John begs the question: why bother talking about "Eternal Security" unless you've got a copy of the book Saint Peter's using at the Pearly Gates? Did Calvin somehow stumble upon the Book of Life (Rev. 13:8)?[/quote] No, but as I said above, we are to live as though we are elect., with the Bible's teaching about eternal security in view. I've answered this question

[quote]For entertainment purposes, you can explain how someone could get "blotted out" of the book of life (Rev. 3:5), if you hold to the Calvinist theory of predestination. So the book changes? Sounds like free will...LOL[/quote] Alright, I have an answer. Revelation 3:5 does not necessitate that anyone will be blotted out of the book of life. It's like Jesus saying "I will never leave you or forsake you" - it's a promise of security to those who overcome, not a threat to all Christians in general.

[quote]Again, let me know when you find who's in and who's out.  Then, the idea of predestination will begin to mean something to me. [/quote] It ought to mean something to you at present - it's in the Bible.

[quote]Regarding water vs. wine:

Well, I hate to say it, but wine is approximately 85% water.  And if you are going to reject wine, would you reject water with too much dissolved mineral content?  What purity of water is acceptable to the Calvinist?  Ninety percent?  Ninety-nine percent?  99.44 percent?  Anyway, without any authority, I really don't know how you could judge such a novel practice as valid or invalid, because wine is overwhelmingly made up of water (H20).[/quote] That's the stupidest freaking argument I've ever heard. Wine is wine, water is water. Yes, water is a constituent of wine...

You must think Protestants are retarded or something....

[quote][url="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0881336637/qid=1098559703/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-9330945-9818258?v=glance&s=books"]handling snakes and drinking poison (link)[/url](Mark 16:18)?  In cases like these, the unity of protestants disappears.  In the end, no protestant can truly speak for anyone else but himself.[/quote] In the first case, I would hazard to call these people 'Protestants'. "Nutjobs posing as Christians" is a more appropriate term. Secondly, what they are doing is not baptism, but something entirely different. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

[quote]To the Catholic, God's grace works unconditionally.  All who receive valid baptism receive grace, regardless of the individual's reponse.

It would seem that a Calvinist would see no visible response by an individual to God's grace, and then judge that God denied the grace of the sacrament.  I think that's a big difference for Catholics/Calvinists.[/quote] It depends. If the person remained unregenerate with no evidence of regeneration to the end of their life, then we would say that God deigned not to regenerate that person, yes.

Edited October 25, 2004 by ICTHUS

[Mateo el Feo]

Sorry for the long post and any typos/grammar problems!

[quote]Of course, and this all stems from the fact that you reject eternal security - perseverance of the saints (hereafter, POTS). If you'd like to discuss this matter further, in specific terms, I suggest we make another thread.[/quote]
Depending on the interpretation, I may agree with some of the statements. For example, let's look at OSAS. I could say that I believe in it in the following sense: at the end of the life, we are saved (once). From that moment on, we are saved for eternity. I just don't believe in the novel interpretations of the various protestant positions, as they contradict the message of Jesus Christ, His Word, and His Church.

[quote]This is because you don't take seriously Romans 8:28-39 promise that nothing can separate those who are regenerated in Christ from the love of God.[/quote]
Actually, I don't take seriously the idea that you or any other Calvinist has the ability to judge souls (even your own) before you get to God's judgment at the end of your life.

Also, regarding St. Paul's Letter to the Romans, I always found it interesting that the final verse doesn't list our own will. Nothing external can separate us from God. But what about our own free will? It's not on the list...

Regarding my Adam and Eve quote:
[quote]I don't see what difficulty this offers for eternal security.[/quote]
In my understanding, Adam had received grace from God. Heck, God walked with Adam, so the relationship couldn't have been too bad. OK, so Adam lost that relationship and that grace (not to mention all the nice fruit in Eden). If God hadn't given Adam enough grace, does that mean He was setting Adam up for a Fall, so to speak? I don't think so. I think that God did not positively will Adam's disobedience.

[b]All[/b] who receive the sacrament of Baptism will receive God's grace. We are basically brought to the pre-Fall state of Grace, like Adam and Eve. And just as Adam's sin and banishment don't prove that God had withheld His grace from Adam, so our own sins do not prove the lack of Baptismal grace.

The concept of eternal security is only meaningful to those who exist outside of time...and all of us mortals are constrained by time. It's a nice topic to create controversies. Goodness knows that protestant views about what "eternal security" vs. POTS vs. OSAS seems to cover a wide spectrum of differing opinions.

But placing these controversies aside, the idea has no meaning on the judgment of individual souls while they are alive. If they are going to fall into sin in the future (and possible eternal damnation), only God will know. The only consequence I can see (from your interpretation) is a denial of the efficaciousness of the Sacrament of Baptism on the souls of some or all of its recipients. According to your description of Calvinism, one must conclude that those who are baptized cannot have confidence that what they did means anything at all! "But don't worry, baptized Calvinist, God will tell you if the waters resulted in the gift of grace when you reach the judgment of God!"

[quote]No, it doesn't. It just means that they need to make sure that they continue in God's grace, making certain their calling and election. At this point, I really am going to have to insist that you read the Westminster Confession from start to finish, especially the parts on soteriology, because you really don't get a feel for the consistency of the doctrine until you read the whole thing and study the proof texts offered.[/quote]

I've read the sections that seem relevant to the topic. I just don't think that the existance of a baptized person who dies outside of God's friendship would necessarily deny the efficacy of his baptism. I don't think it's Biblical to believe that God is handing out a bunch of sacramental duds.

[quote]We go through life as if we are among the Elect, and we 'strive to enter' the Kingdom. [/quote]
Ummm...so we're don't know if we're among the Elect? OK, now we're getting somewhere. So who can be "Eternally Secure"? God only knows....LOL!

Regarding my quote discussing actual grace vs. a soul's response to grace and my belief that Baptism confers grace:
[quote]And your proof of this is? Mere conjecture isn't going to get us anywhere.[/quote]

How about the St. Thomas Aquinas: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/406904.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/summa/406904.htm[/url]

He quotes St. Augustine, who in turn quotes the Gospel of John:
[quote name='John 1:16']Of His fulness we all have received.[/quote]

[quote]But we do not deny that baptism is efficacious! We just have a different idea of when and how it is efficacious![/quote]
Actually, you question if it is efficacious. You may accept that some valid baptisms are efficacious; but you deny that all are efficacious, because you condition the efficaciousness on the final state of the soul at the end of its life.

[quote]Alright, I have an answer. Revelation 3:5 does not necessitate that anyone will be blotted out of the book of life. It's like Jesus saying "I will never leave you or forsake you" - it's a promise of security to those who overcome, not a threat to all Christians in general.[/quote]
The question is whether we will ever leave Him, not whether He will leave us. God will never leave us, but He will never force Himself on us, either.

Anyway, here's Aquinas again: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/102403.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/summa/102403.htm[/url]

Once again, predestination as it relates to this subject is only relevant to those who live outside of time.

[quote]It ought to mean something to you at present - it's in the Bible.[/quote]
I guess I would look back at your words above:
[quote]We go through life as if we are among the Elect...[/quote]
You don't know whether you are among the Elect, yet you "go through life" as if you are. Sounds like predestination doesn't matter to the behavior of Calvinists, either. LOL!

[quote]That's the stupidest freaking argument I've ever heard. Wine is wine, water is water. Yes, water is a constituent of wine...[/quote]
The Church Tradition has the authority to declare that water for baptism is invalid when it is not "pure." The wine contains water, but that water is not "pure." That's in the Summa, too.

If water were necessary for Baptism, wine has it. But, the Catholic Church goes further and states that not only must we use water; but the water must be pure. Wine would pass the test for the literal interpretation of the Bible (which only speaks of water), but fail when we applied the Sacred Tradition of the Church that demands water to be "pure."

[quote]You must think Protestants are retarded or something....[/quote]
Actually, I don't.

Regarding the "Holiness People" and Mark 16:18:
[quote]In the first case, I would hazard to call these people 'Protestants'. "Nutjobs posing as Christians" is a more appropriate term. Secondly, what they are doing is not baptism, but something entirely different. It's like comparing apples and oranges[/quote]
Well, they are evangelicals who believe in the literal application of Mark 16:18. It was a promise that Our Lord made to His followers: "These signs will accompany those who believe..."

I believe in quite a few things that result in non-Christians viewing me as a "nut-job." And I'll bet that you agree with me on most of these beliefs, too.

Also, I might not have been clear: I wasn't suggesting that what they (the Holiness People) were doing was baptism. I [b]was[/b] suggesting that there is no authority in Protestantism to approve or reject any novel doctrine developed by its various denominations, other than personal interpretation.

[quote]If the person remained unregenerate with no evidence of regeneration to the end of their life, then we would say that God deigned not to regenerate that person, yes.[/quote]
Here, we arrive at Calvin's "double predestination," which contradicts scripture (let me know if you would like me to back this up with quotes). God wills all men to be saved--certainly, Christs sacrafice was done for all mankind. Only God's permissive will allows the unfaithful to be lost.

Anyway, you are using an argument that assumes you are able to read the soul by the "evidence" of regeneration. Only God has a knowledge of the soul...and only God knows who the Elect are. So, let's not worry about predestination, and just "go through life as if we are among the Elect!"

God bless,

Mateo

[Quietfire]

[quote]It's sad that you don't even recognize where your own beliefs contradict the Bible...

Let's start with the Immaculate Conception. Without jumping through all kinds of exegetical hoops, how can you prove this doesn't contradict the Bible, notably Rom 3:23. The Scriptures make quite a ruckus about Christ's sinlessness, but never Mary's.[/quote]

I do not see where my beliefs contradict the Bible. My 'beliefs' (as you put it) are actually [b]knowledge[/b] based on 2000 years + of tradition and history that has been carefully preserved, recorded and taught by the Church established by Christ to represent him on Earth, that Church is the Catholic Church. Handed down from God himself to the Apostles and from them, every Pope and Bishop thereafter.

To put it bluntly, if every Bible were destroyed tomorrow the Church would continue her teachings because she is the author of the Bible under the direction of God and was here teaching long before the New Testament was collected.

Your beliefs are founded on roughly 500 years of individual men interpreting the Bible into what they wanted it to be. Luther himself who when shown that praying for the dead was actually in Scripture decided it should be removed, since he thought it was unnecessary and waste of time.

But of course, it may be difficult for any non-Catholic to understand the Immaculate Conception and the sinlessness of Mary. After all, unless you know the author, everything is a guess. It is much easier to dismiss it than to understand it.

Peace

Edited October 26, 2004 by Quietfire

[Quietfire]

Here ya go....


Our understanding of Our Blessed Lady depends totally upon our understanding of her Son. Everything about her flows from her being Christ's mother; as our understanding of him grows, our understanding of her grows. It was so with the Church. By the year 500 the main dogmas about Christ had been defined (yes! 500 years people!) The Church's mind could now bear upon his Mother; we come to hear the Assumption and Immaculate Conception. It is so with ourselves: unless we have some knowledge of the doctrines of Trinity of Incarnation, we can still love her but cannot know her; and we know that loving without deep knowledge is only a shadow of loving.

Theoketos, said the Council of Ephesus in 431; she is the mother of God; the child she conceived and bore is God the Son. In his divine nature he had exited eternally. But his human nature he owed to her as much as anyone owes his human nature to his mother. There is nothing that makes my mother mine which is lacking in her relation to him as man. As God he was born of the Father before all ages; as man he was born at a particular point of time of the Virgin Mary. Do not think it sufficient to call her the mother of his human nature; for natures do not have mothers. She was mother, as yours or mine is, of the person born of her. And the person was God the Son. Most find this truth almost shattering in its greatness; it is not simply a biographical fact about Jesus which one notes but does not linger upon. There are those who do see it like that and so dismiss it. One imagines them saying, "Naturally, if God was to be born into our world, one would expect him to have a mother; but haveing brought him to birth she had done her duty and passes into the background." If though of all by such people, she is thought of with respect. But she is not often thought of. There is a type of religious mind which brushes creatures aside as irrelevant, indeed a distraction from the Absolute. The Absolute did not find them so. The Son died for them; for them the Father spared not his own Son (Rom 8:33)
I have put it this way of looking at her as a sort or rough outline of a whole state of mind. In its more extreme utterance it can be so comic that one almost forgets how tragic it is. On the outdoor platform I once had a questioner who said, solemnly: "I respect Christ's mother as I respect my own." The overwhelming temptation, when one hears such a remark, is to point to the difference between the two sons. But it is necessary to make clear why the difference makes a difference. We are not saying that mothers of holy children are better that mothers of less holy. The difference is not between on son who is holy and another who is less obviously so. It is between a Son who is God and a son who is man only.

To start simply, the Son existed before his mother. So that he is the only Son who is in a postition to choose who his mother should be. He could choose therefore, what every son would choose if he could, a mother who would suit him best. Further, it goes with the very heart of sonship that a son wants to give his mother gifts; and Christ, being God, could give her all that she would want. To his giving power there was no limit. And what above all she wanted was union with God, the completest union possible to a human being of her will with God's will, grace therefore in her soul.

He was her Son, and he gave it lavishly. She responded totally, so that she was sinless. It was her response to the grace of God that made her supreme in holiness- higher even than the highest angel, the Church tells us. We may pause for a moment to look at this truth. By nature she was lower than the least angel, for human nature as such is less than angelic. But, any relation in the order of grace is higher than any in the order of nature. It is by grace that we are closer to God; by our response, that is, to the created share in his own life that God offers us. By grace Our Lady outranks all created beings. But only because she responded to God's love more perfectly. St. John Chrysostom says, "She would not have been blessed, though she had borne him in the body, had she not heard the word of God and kept it."

[Quietfire]

Ooooh and this too....

At the Annunciation, theologians hold that in saying, "Be it done unto me according to thy word," Our Lady uttered the consent of the human race to the first step in its redemtion. The Assumption means that in heaven she represents the human race redeemed;she alone is, body and soul, where all the saved will one day be. We must look a little more closely at her relation to the human race which at these two points she represents.

We call her our mother, and for most of us the matter requires no discussion. Yet it repays discussion. If we take for granted that she is our mother simply because she is Christ's, we omit something that matters for our understanding of what he means to her and she to us. As her Son, he drew his natural life from her; but, because he was her Redeemer, she drew her supernatural life from him; and it is in the supernatural order, the order of grace, that she is our mother.

How, in this order, does she become so? By her Son's appointment. In the Collect to feast as Mediatrix of All Graces, the Church says it- "O Lord Jesus Christ, our Mediator with the Father, who hast deigned to appoint Thy most blessed Virgin Mother to be our Mother." The appointment was made upon Calvary. When Our Lord gave her the Apostle John to be her son, he was not simply making provision for her. For that he had no need to wait for Calvary; he could have attended to it before his crucifixion and after his Reurrection. Calvary was the sacrifice of the race's redemption; everything that he did and said on the cross is related to that. So with his words to Our Lady and St. John. It was as part of his plan of redemption, that he was giving her to be the mother of John-not of John as himself but as man. From that moment she is the mother of us all.

What does motherhood carry with it? Essentially, love and total willingness to serve. Those two things Catholics have always seen in her, telling her their needs with complete confidence, inwardly conversing with her freely. That is, we pray to her; which means that we ask her to pray for us-for all kinds of things, but especially for grace, which is what mattered most to her (matters most to us too, though we dont always realize it.) In the encyclical Ad Diem St. Pius X called her "the first steward in the dispensing of graces."

With this we come to an element in the Redemption which we too easily fail to notice. Christ redeemed us, but it is in God's plan that the application to individual souls of the Redemption Christ won should be by fellow members of the race: that we are not meant to be only recipients of redemption, still less spectators and no more:we are all called to be stewards in the dispensing of graces. The principal ways for every one of us are love, prayer (the Mass above all), suffering.

None of these things would be of any effect if Christ had not died for us; but in union with his redemptive act they are of immense power. From the beginning of the Christian Church, their effect is taken for granted. Thus St. Paul can tell his converts to pray for others precisely because there is one Mediator between God and man(1 Tm 2:5). In other words, the fact that Our Lord is Mediator does not make our prayer for one another unnecessary; it makes it effective.

Everyone's prayers can help others, but the holier, the more. With Christ and in Christ we are all called upon to take a part in redeeming others. All are meant to take a part in his redeeming work, but Mary above all; for she was sinless, she was wholly love, she suffered supremely.

The Mystical Body exists for the application of Christ's redemtion to the souls of men; we are all called upon to help in the application to souls of that redemption which only he could have won for our race-called upon to be in that sense co-redeemers. But she more than all! So that once again she represents the race, the redeemed race. So much of what we say when we speak of her and when we speak of the Church is interchangeable-we call her our mother, for instance, and in the next breath we speak of our holy mother the Church. The truth is that what the Church, the Mystical Body, does in its other members more or less well according to the individual's will to cooperate, she in her single person does continually and perfectly. She is the first steward in the dispensing of graces.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Oct 24 2004, 09:58 PM']

This is because you don't take seriously Romans 8:28-39 promise that nothing can separate those who are regenerated in Christ from the love of God.

[/quote]
Nothing [i][b]except sin[/b][/i] can separate us from the love of God . . .

The Scriptures have to be read holistically to be correctly understood -- one must read [i][b]everything[/b][/i] they say on a given subject. And just as the NT Scriptures were informed by the teaching of the Catholic Church when they were written, so must we be informed by the Church's teaching when we read them.

The Church does not teach Perseverance of the Saints (also known as OSAS) because the Apostles did not teach it; the Apostles did not teach POTS because Christ did not teach it.

This idea sprang full blown from the mind of Luther, refined by Calvin. They "found it in the Scriptures" in the 16th century.

This is not a hard Q like which came first the chicken or the egg? The CHURCH came first, and she wrote the NT and produced the Bible. She -- not Luther and not Calvin -- is its rightful interpreter.

The Church and her Scriptures are not divisible. Those who read them out of context do so at their peril.

JMJ Likos

[burnsspivey]

A million years later...

Ex-baptist (southern and then independant) here. On baptism:

1) Do any protestants believe that Baptism is efficacious?

No, one must already be saved to be baptised. It is simply a public announcement, if you will, of said saving. It's usually necessary for becoming a member of a church.

2) How does one reconcile the insistance on a particular form (i.e. immersion) if it's all just a symbol?

Because a) it's the way that Jesus did it and b) each part of the immersion is symbolic. It's the life, death, rebirth cycle (born-again christian, right?) as well a symbol of Jesus' life with coming out of the water symbolizing his resurrection.

3) What is the difference between a symbol that is judged to be valid versus one that is judged to be invalid?

If baptism is done in any other way the symbolism is lost and thus it's invalid.

[Mateo el Feo]

Hi burnsspivey,

Thanks for answering my questions.

One question regarding question number three:

[quote]3) What is the difference between a symbol that is judged to be valid versus one that is judged to be invalid?

If baptism is done in any other way the symbolism is lost and thus it's invalid. [/quote]
I'm not seeing an answer to the question. What is the consequence of an "invalid" symbol, beside that it is "invalid"? And why worry about "lost symbolism"?

If you look at the dictionary.com entry on the term [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=valid"]invalid (link)[/url], the second definition is interesting:
[quote][b]Invalid[/b]:  Producing the desired results; efficacious: valid methods.[/quote]
In this context, what "desired results" are produced by a "valid" baptism that would not be achieved by an "invalid" baptism? It would seem that if this was all just symbolism, then there is no substantial difference between an invalid baptism and a valid baptism.

Enjoy!

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Dec 10 2004, 12:31 PM'] Hi burnsspivey,

Thanks for answering my questions.

One question regarding question number three:


I'm not seeing an answer to the question. What is the consequence of an "invalid" symbol, beside that it is "invalid"? And why worry about "lost symbolism"?

If you look at the dictionary.com entry on the term [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=valid"]invalid (link)[/url], the second definition is interesting:

In this context, what "desired results" are produced by a "valid" baptism that would not be achieved by an "invalid" baptism? It would seem that if this was all just symbolism, then there is no substantial difference between an invalid baptism and a valid baptism.

Enjoy! [/quote]
Because a symbolic act only has the meaning given to it. If that meaning is lost the symbolism is lost and the act is meaningless.

[quote]Symbol: something that stands for or suggests something else by reason of relationship, association, convention, or accidental resemblance[/quote]

If the parts of submersion in baptism stands for life, death and rebirth (and simultaneously for Jesus' life) then without them what does baptism stand for?

A better [url="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=valid"]definition[/url] of valid in this instance:
[quote]well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful [/quote]

If it isn't relevant and meaningful (by loss of symbolism) it isn't valid.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote]If it isn't relevant and meaningful (by loss of symbolism) it isn't valid.[/quote]
This seems to me to be circular reasoning. It seems that the only consequence of an invalid baptism is that it isn't valid. But if it's just a symbol, then a judgment (i.e. determination of validity) is necessarily meaningless.

Edit: On second thought, it seems from other threads that you're not a Christian and you really don't hold the position that you're trying to describe. I'd prefer to focus on discussions with people who are Protestant believers.

Edited December 10, 2004 by Mateo el Feo

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='Oct 26 2004, 01:00 PM'] Here ya go....


Our understanding of Our Blessed Lady depends totally upon our understanding of her Son. Everything about her flows from her being Christ's mother; as our understanding of him grows, our understanding of her grows. It was so with the Church. By the year 500 the main dogmas about Christ had been defined (yes! 500 years people!) The Church's mind could now bear upon his Mother; we come to hear the Assumption and Immaculate Conception. It is so with ourselves: unless we have some knowledge of the doctrines of Trinity of Incarnation, we can still love her but cannot know her; and we know that loving without deep knowledge is only a shadow of loving.

Theoketos, said the Council of Ephesus in 431; she is the mother of God; the child she conceived and bore is God the Son. In his divine nature he had exited eternally. But his human nature he owed to her as much as anyone owes his human nature to his mother. There is nothing that makes my mother mine which is lacking in her relation to him as man. As God he was born of the Father before all ages; as man he was born at a particular point of time of the Virgin Mary. Do not think it sufficient to call her the mother of his human nature; for natures do not have mothers. She was mother, as yours or mine is, of the person born of her. And the person was God the Son. Most find this truth almost shattering in its greatness; it is not simply a biographical fact about Jesus which one notes but does not linger upon. There are those who do see it like that and so dismiss it. One imagines them saying, "Naturally, if God was to be born into our world, one would expect him to have a mother; but haveing brought him to birth she had done her duty and passes into the background." If though of all by such people, she is thought of with respect. But she is not often thought of. There is a type of religious mind which brushes creatures aside as irrelevant, indeed a distraction from the Absolute. The Absolute did not find them so. The Son died for them; for them the Father spared not his own Son (Rom 8:33)
I have put it this way of looking at her as a sort or rough outline of a whole state of mind. In its more extreme utterance it can be so comic that one almost forgets how tragic it is. On the outdoor platform I once had a questioner who said, solemnly: "I respect Christ's mother as I respect my own." The overwhelming temptation, when one hears such a remark, is to point to the difference between the two sons. But it is necessary to make clear why the difference makes a difference. We are not saying that mothers of holy children are better that mothers of less holy. The difference is not between on son who is holy and another who is less obviously so. It is between a Son who is God and a son who is man only.

To start simply, the Son existed before his mother. So that he is the only Son who is in a postition to choose who his mother should be. He could choose therefore, what every son would choose if he could, a mother who would suit him best. Further, it goes with the very heart of sonship that a son wants to give his mother gifts; and Christ, being God, could give her all that she would want. To his giving power there was no limit. And what above all she wanted was union with God, the completest union possible to a human being of her will with God's will, grace therefore in her soul.

He was her Son, and he gave it lavishly. She responded totally, so that she was sinless. It was her response to the grace of God that made her supreme in holiness- higher even than the highest angel, the Church tells us. We may pause for a moment to look at this truth. By nature she was lower than the least angel, for human nature as such is less than angelic. But, any relation in the order of grace is higher than any in the order of nature. It is by grace that we are closer to God; by our response, that is, to the created share in his own life that God offers us. By grace Our Lady outranks all created beings. But only because she responded to God's love more perfectly. St. John Chrysostom says, "She would not have been blessed, though she had borne him in the body, had she not heard the word of God and kept it." [/quote]
Why are you talking about Mary? This thread has nothing to do with her.