Posted on 11/04/2011 12:06:23 PM PDT by RnMomof7
And it was a good thing the printing press came along or they would have had more people confused then they do now.
But there is no such thing as dispensations. The RCC said so. /s
Christians have taught and believed that the Sacrament of Baptism is how we receive regeneration for 2,000 years.
since the 16th century, some sects rose up to teach regeneration another way. they had a problem, what to do with this pesky “baptism” command.
their answer was to turn baptism into a matter of “obedience”. why? just because.
so much confusion reigns that it doesn’t matter what you think about it, Baptist or Presbyterian.
as for why no one understood this for 16 centuries, it doesn’t matter. it’s only to clear your conscience, so who cares?
makes sense to me.
I didn’t say God was the author of confusion.
you don’t have to say it, your posts speak for themselves.
The method and mode of baptism was changed many times over the last 2,000 years. Would you agree with Clements that unless you are baptized you cannot be saved? The Catholic Church held this view right up until Vatican II. And at one time you had to be immerse or baptisted in three times (name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost). The Church did away with this requirement which is still required in the Orthodox Church. So strongly do the Orthodox feel about the matter that if you leave the Catholic Church and join the Orthodox Church you must be rebaptized.
For when we immerse our heads in water, the old is buried as in a tomb below, and wholly sunk for ever: then as we raise them again, the new man rises in its stead. As it is easy to dip and lift our heads again, so it is easy for God to bury the old man, and to show forth the new. And this is done thrice, that you may learn that the power of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost fulfilleth all things. (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on St. John, p. 211).
To this very day, the Orthodox still retain the Apostolic pattern, and anybody joining the Orthodox church from the Latin (or most Protestant churches), must be rebaptized the Scriptural way by triune immersion.
Objection 1. It seems that trine immersion is essential to Baptism. For Augustine says in a sermon on the Symbol, addressed to the Neophytes: "Rightly were you dipped three times, since you were baptized in the name of the Trinity. Rightly were you dipped three times, because you were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, Who on the third day rose again from the dead. For that thrice repeated immersion reproduces the burial of the Lord by which you were buried with Christ in Baptism." Now both seem to be essential to Baptism, namely, that in Baptism the Trinity of Persons should be signified, and that we should be conformed to Christ's burial. Therefore it seems that trine immersion is essential to Baptism. (Catholic Encyclopedia, article on baptism).
Then he quotes Pope Gregory to show that the rite was changed to single immersion by the Spanish Fourth Council of Toledo in 633:
On the contrary, Gregory wrote to the Bishop Leander: "It cannot be in any way reprehensible to baptize an infant with either a trine or a single immersion: since the Trinity can be represented in the three immersions, and the unity of the Godhead in one immersion."
I answer that As stated above (7, ad 1), washing with water is of itself required for Baptism, being essential to the sacrament: whereas the mode of washing is accidental to the sacrament. Consequently, as Gregory in the words above quoted explains, both single and trine immersion are lawful considered in themselves; since one immersion signifies the oneness of Christ's death and of the Godhead; while trine immersion signifies the three days of Christ's burial, and also the Trinity of Persons.
But for various reasons, according as the Church has ordained, one mode has been in practice, at one time, the other at another time. For since from the very earliest days of the Church some have had false notions concerning the Trinity, holding that Christ is a mere man, and that He is not called the "Son of God" or "God" except by reason of His merit, which was chiefly in His death; for this reason they did not baptize in the name of the Trinity, but in memory of Christ's death, and with one immersion. And this was condemned in the early Church. Wherefore in the Apostolic Canons (xlix) we read: "If any priest or bishop confer baptism not with the trine immersion in the one administration, but with one immersion, which baptism is said to be conferred by some in the death of the Lord, let him be deposed": for our Lord did not say, "Baptize ye in My death," but "In the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
Later on, however, there arose the error of certain schismatics and heretics who rebaptized: as Augustine (Super. Joan., cf. De Haeres. lxix) relates of the Donatists. Wherefore, in detestation of their error, only one immersion was ordered to be made, by the (fourth) council of Toledo, in the acts of which we read: "In order to avoid the scandal of schism or the practice of heretical teaching let us hold to the single baptismal immersion."
But now that this motive has ceased, trine immersion is universally observed in Baptism: and consequently anyone baptizing otherwise would sin gravely, through not following the ritual of the Church. It would, however, be valid Baptism.(Catholic Encyclopedia, article on baptism).
The Fourth Council of Toledo changed the mode of baptism
The Fourth Council of Toledo was held in Toledo, Spain, in the year 633. It was not an ecumenical council and no Greeks were present. The Pope at that time was Gregory I, also called Gregory the GREAT.
At that time, the Vatican called anyone who did not belong to their church by the contemptuous title, ARIAN....An ARIAN meant anybody who didn't believe in the Trinity. The Goths of Spain would not unite with the Papacy and they considered themselves to be the true Catholics:
The Arians of Spain commonly referred to Catholicism as "the Roman religion", while Arianism was considered by them to be "the Catholic faith."' To become a Nicaean was, so to speak, to become a Roman, to cease to be a Goth. But they cannot seriously have regarded Arianism as 'catholic': that would have been in contradiction with the use of Gothic as the liturgical language and with the requirement of rebaptism of converts from Catholicism. (Thompson, The Goths in Spain, p. 40).
Now these "ARIAN" Goths in Spain baptized by TRIPLE IMMERSION even though the Roman historians say they didn't believe in the Trinity:
The triple as well as the simple immersion at baptism was recognized by the Catholic Church until it was noticed that the Arians of Spain immersed thrice. In a letter to Leander of Seville, Gregory the Great then recommended the Catholics to immerse once only so as to distinguish themselves from the heretics? (His letter was written in April 591 when Arianism had been smashed, and the need to distinguish Catholic baptismal rites from Arian ones might seem to have been less pressing than it had formerly been.) The problem was a puzzling one: it had already been raised among the Catholics of the Suevic kingdom of Galicia. It had been discussed by Pope Vigilius in 538 in a letter to Profuturus, Metropolitan of Braga,who had asked Rome for a ruling on this and other matters; and Vigilius, unlike his great successor, had declared in favour of the triple immersion. (Thompson, The Goths in Spain, p. 41-42)).
This shows that the early church rejected baptismal regeration as there is no link between salvation and baptism. Go look it up for yourself ... the post is there ...
I assume that is why you didn;t respond to that post ... because with simple Bible software and a search engine ... you can verify my post.
Rom. 3:21
Amen, Iscool. Rom. 3:21 with Eph. 2:13 are beautiful examples of “But Now”. Thanks! smvoice
the Scriptures do not tell us a specific mode of baptism is required.
the Scriptures do tell us absolutely baptism is required for salvation.
again, what we don’t find is anywhere the Scriptures teaching us baptism is symbolic, and we don’t find the Catholic Faith as evidenced by the Fathers teaching this either.
So are you saying that you must be baptized in the Catholic Church in order to be saved? You do understand this is old teaching put forth by the 4th Lateran Council of 1211. Nowaday Catholics teach that others can be saved even if they aren't baptised in the Church.
Baptism doesn't save you but it is evidence of your salvation. This is what John Gills has to say on the matter which I agree with:
John Gill's Commentary...
but the answer of a good conscience towards God; the Vulgate Latin renders it, "the interrogation of a good conscience"; referring, it may be, to the interrogations that used to be put to those who desired baptism; as, dost thou renounce Satan? dost thou believe in Christ? see Act_8:36, others render it, "the stipulation of a good conscience"; alluding also to the ancient custom of obliging those that were baptized to covenant and agree to live an holy life and conversation, to renounce the devil and all his works, and the pomps and vanities of this world; and baptism does certainly lay an obligation on men to walk in newness of life; see Rom_6:4, the Ethiopic version renders it, "confession of God"; and to this the Syriac version agrees, rendering it, "confessing God with a pure conscience"; for, to baptism, profession of faith in Christ, and of the doctrine of Christ in a pure conscience, is requisite; and in baptism persons make a public confession of God, and openly put on Christ before men: the sense seems plainly this; that then is baptism rightly performed, and its end answered, when a person, conscious to himself of its being an ordinance of Christ, and of his duty to submit to it, does do so upon profession of his faith in Christ, in obedience to his command, and "with" a view to his glory; in doing which he discharges a good conscience towards God: and being thus performed, it saves,
LOL!
DO YOU READ THE SCRIPTURES YOU REFER TO?
Peter says explicitly, Baptism does now save you!!
who cares what John Gill says?
see Acts 2:38 and 22:16 for starters.
see 2,000 years of historical Christian faith.
see the difference between a kingdom of believers and a body of believers.
see the difference between prophecy and mystery.
see the differences between Peter and the 11 and Paul.
that’s the point, there is no difference between Paul and the other Apostles.
One Lord, One Faith, One Body, One Baptism, One Eucharist, Neither Jew nor Greek, all saved by grace.
No difference!
But nice try, adding to God's Word by adding One Eucharist to Paul's message. He didn't say it.
Point 1 of Bible Doctrine Righty Dividing the Word of Truth - The 12 Apostles (which does NOT include Paul) had their commission provided to them by Christ Jesus and established them to preach exclusively to the Jews - circumcision - with some notable exceptions in the book of Acts.
Point 2 of Bible Doctrine Righty Dividing the Word of Truth - The Apostle Paul had received his commission of reconciliation of God for sinners and when Paul went to Galatia he meet with the original 12 Apostles (from Jerusalem) and Paul had been given the right hands of fellowship by these Apostles that Paul should go unto the heathen - Gentiles, un-circumcision - and that they - the 12 Apostles - should go unto the circumcision - Jews.
Please read Galatians 2:6-9 and you will SEE if you have eyes to SEE, that the Bible doctrines for this Biblical answer is provided by GOD's hand in His Word in the Bible.
Galatians clearly makes it obvious that Peter - Cephas - and the 12 Apostles great commission was primarily to the Jews; and the Paul was exclusively to the Gentiles, heathen, un-circumcision, in Paul's ministry of reconciliation. The Bible has NO CLEARER explanation than this; it cannot be missed unless the reader is blind to these truths.
Absolutely wrong -
point 1 - Jesus told the disciples to go “make disciples of all nations” in Matthew 28. were “all nations” exclusively Jewish?
and if they were to only go the Jews, how can there be any exceptions? you can’t be a little pregnant, or does it depend on the meaning of the word “exclusive”?
point 2 - the fact that Paul’s main mission was to the Gentiles and the others to the Jews, does not mean Paul didn’t try and convert Jews and Peter didn’t preach in Rome.
in any event, their message of salvation through faith in Christ was THE SAME, whether to Jew or Greek.
there was not a seperate message to the Jews on how to be saved different then the Greeks. all are ONE IN CHRIST.
There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see.
Amen. And those who WILL NOT see are the many on this thread who fail to utilize the Bible to Righty Dividing the Word of Truth.
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.