Baptism: Substance or Symbolism?
.... In the days before the Protestant Reform- ation, the Catholic church taught salvation, essentially, through maintaining a regement of good works (Ephesians 2:8-9; 2 Timothy 1:9). It was an attitude of earning one's salvation by sticking with the program. Then came Martin Luther, who proclaimed salvation by faith alone (sola fide), saying that it was a gift from God rather than something we earn from Him (Ephesians 2:8-9). A clear battle line seemed to be drawn..
.... Now, if you were a Catholic in those days, how would argue with a Protestant? You would probably try to find a hole in his beliefs that pointed to a need for works after all: "What about water baptism?" you might say. "Wouldn’t you say you would have to do something in order to be baptized?"
.... Now, if you were a Catholic in those days, how would argue with a Protestant? You would probably try to find a hole in his beliefs that pointed to a need for works after all: "What about water baptism?" you might say. "Wouldn’t you say you would have to do something in order to be baptized?"
.
.... The alarmed Protestant would immediately sense a march on his premise. Holding up his palms defensively he would say. "Look, we are saved by faith alone," and would probably leave it at that. He'd be fearful of putting a feather in the Catholic’s cap. So from his point of view, the battle line is not so clear after all.
.... The alarmed Protestant would immediately sense a march on his premise. Holding up his palms defensively he would say. "Look, we are saved by faith alone," and would probably leave it at that. He'd be fearful of putting a feather in the Catholic’s cap. So from his point of view, the battle line is not so clear after all.
.... " . . . baptism . . . not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God -- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
(1 Peter 3:21)
.... Since the time of the Protestant Reformation, a vast theological no-man’s land has emerged between faith and works. Within this realm struggles every form of legitimate response to God, including such admirable qualities as loyalty, devotion, obedience and (in the case of water baptism,) ‘the answer of a good conscience toward God’ (1 Peter 3:21). Baptism, in particular, has been downplayed and reduced to an ‘optional’ status by many Protestants, who now seem to portray it as quaint ‘symbolism’ in order to dismiss it’s significance – to the shame of those who have done so.
.
.... Since the Protestant Reformation has been well under way for almost 500 years now, it is probably safe to assume that it is no longer too fragile to bear re-examination in such gray areas. In fact, there is good reason why we should do so. Because, in addition to forming a 'response' to God, those areas represent our side of building a relationship with Him, and this is something we shoudl not dismiss so easily.
.... Since the Protestant Reformation has been well under way for almost 500 years now, it is probably safe to assume that it is no longer too fragile to bear re-examination in such gray areas. In fact, there is good reason why we should do so. Because, in addition to forming a 'response' to God, those areas represent our side of building a relationship with Him, and this is something we shoudl not dismiss so easily.
.
.... So in this posting, let’s consider a simple yet controversial point. Is baptism merely symbolic, or does it actually serve a functional purpose? Opinions are widespread and, honestly, of no consequence, so let’s look at what the Scriptures have to say. We have listed a few below, then we’ll offer some elaboration in the ‘comments’ section, where I hope a lively discussion will follow:
.... So in this posting, let’s consider a simple yet controversial point. Is baptism merely symbolic, or does it actually serve a functional purpose? Opinions are widespread and, honestly, of no consequence, so let’s look at what the Scriptures have to say. We have listed a few below, then we’ll offer some elaboration in the ‘comments’ section, where I hope a lively discussion will follow:
.... "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:16)
.... "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord."
(Acts 22:16)
.... "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."
(Galatians 3:27)
To proceed to the next lesson, click here
Daily Bible Reading: Matthew 21
posted by loren at 3:11 AM
31 Comments:
"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:16)
In this statement, Jesus seems to be leaving a gray area of His own. What about those who have believed, but they have not been baptized? Will they be saved or condemned?
I believe this question is left gray on purpose, because baptism will not always be possible. For example, a deathbed conversion may make baptism a practical impossibility; a prisoner of war may be denied this privilege by the enemy and die in captivity, etc. To require baptism anyway would, indeed, be salvation by works.
Such circumstances would be rare, yet when they did occur some sort of judgment call would be needed concerning the validity of their faith. Jesus provides no criteria because He doesn’t want us making that call. He reserves that to Himself (Rom 14:4).
So then, the question comes down to you. Jesus Himself was baptized and He commanded us to do the same. So if you have not been baptized, what would be your excuse? It had better be a good one if you haven’t gotten around to it for a whole lifetime. (See my next posting, when it comes out). I highly recommend not betting your salvation on it, since you would clearly be slighting Him in order to do so. In fact, if someone did manage a baptism in a deathbed conversion, that person would rise up in the judgment to condemn you.
Speaking of which: someone will undoubtedly point to the thief on the cross as an example that baptism is not necessary for salvation. This is an example of a ‘deathbed’ conversion, which I have just discussed, but there is also much more. Please see my posting, two articles ago, for details.
By
loren, at 5/20/2005 3:16 AM
“who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. There is also an antitype which now saves us-- baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (1 Pet 3:20-21)
Some Christians use this passage to claim that we are saved by baptism, but this is not what it says. Noah and his family were not saved by the water, they were saved by the ark. The water would have killed them! In the same way we are not save by baptism, but by abiding in Christ, who will carry us safely through death (the waters of baptism) into newness of life. Please see my previous posting for a more detailed explanation.
By
loren, at 5/20/2005 3:16 AM
'And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.' (Acts 22:16).
This is the conversion of Saul of tarsus, who would become the Apostle Paul. And here is an important distinction to bear in mind. Saul was not told to be baptized in order to be saved. He was told to be baptized to wash away his sins. And here is what that distinction means:
When we believe the gospel, we are born again. As partakers of the divine nature we are no longer under the power of sin (Rom 6:14). We have the power to walk in God’s grace, even if we have not yet been baptized.
This passage seems, instead, to refer to our old sins, which still exist in heaven as a matter of record. When we are baptized, those records are washed away, as in Col 2:12-14: “buried with Him in baptism . . . having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us . . .”.
So here is a definite function that is served through baptism. If you haven’t yet been baptized, please consider it well. In more ways then one, it will influence how Jesus thinks of you.
By
loren, at 5/20/2005 3:16 AM
“For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Gal 3:27).
Christianity can be summed up in three words: ‘in Christ Jesus’. This passage is the only Scripture that describes an actual transition point: you weren’t in Christ, and then you were, and it occurs through baptism. Doesn’t this make you want to be baptized, instead of taking chances? We’re talking about a relationship, here.
But there is more. Through baptism, it is said that we ‘put on Christ’. Compare this to Romans 13:12-14: “put on the armor of light . . . put on the Lord Jesus Christ.” The armor of light is the same thing as the full armor of God: “Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.” (Eph 6:13). This would tie baptism into a right standing in Christ, that assists you in spiritual warfare. This, too, is an actual function, and doesn’t that sound like something you’d want?
Remember, again, that Jesus was personally baptized and He commands us to do the same. So who do you think would be behind a teaching that says it isn’t important?
By
loren, at 5/20/2005 3:17 AM
I seriously disagree with almost everything in this post.
#1 Catholics do not, and did not teach a regemen of good works in order to be saved. What they taught and continue to teach (and this can be verified in the Canons of the Council of Trent) is that God's Grace alone is what saves us, but that, as the Bible makes plain, faith alone does not. Faith can never be enough to save us, because as St. James belabours to explain, faith without works is dead. (In fact, do a concordance search, and the only time in the Bible that the phrase "faith alone" occurs is when James says, "Do you think faith alone will save you? I tell you no!" (James 2:14-26).
#2 Baptism is not a work that we do. Auto-baptism (baptising yourself) has always been declared as an invalid sacrament. Baptism is something that the Church does to you, entering you into the Covenant relationship with Christ.
#3 1 Peter 3:20-21 is very clear, and I cannot see how you can rationalise that away. Noah and his family were saved by passing through the water (yes, in the boat--but as a type, that is immaterial). St. Peter is very clear that, as a fulfilment of the type, we have baptism, which saves us now. The antitype, or fulfilment, is always greater than the type--and it doesn't always correspond 1-1. Isaac never actually died when Abraham sacrificed him. God stopped Abe from actually killing him. Yet, St. Paul declares that it was a type of Christ's resurrection. As such, just because the boat saved Noah doesn't negate the typology of baptism in that narrative. And because the antitype is always superior to the type, baptism itself is superior to the physical lives that were saved from the flood. Baptism saves our spiritual life. This is seen especially in Titus 3:5, where baptism is called "the bath of regeneration and rebirth"!
For a site that talks about going back to the basics, and back to an Apostolic, Christ-focused Christianity, you really missed on this issue.
I submit, in all seriousness, that the Catholic Church that you deride above, has in fact retained that solid and complete focus on Christ--despite its failings. We are not a museum of saints, after all, but a school for sinners. Jesus is our teacher, and the one who enables us to learn about Him.
This has not changed in 2000 years, even when the Church has seemed to be sleeping. That is why I contend that your premise of having a new Reformation in these end times is a false premise, because I sincerely believe that revival is what we need. I deny that the original Reformation brought much good with it, but is fundamentally what led to the divisions in the Church that you mentioned recently.
I think you've got a great site, and I think your heart is in the right place. I hate confrontation and in-your-face replies. I trust you can take the above as I meant it, and not as a harsh or overbearing attack.
Notably, though, having grown up for 23-odd years as a Zwinglian Pentecostal, it was reading the Bible, as is, that I realised that there was something more going on in Baptism, and in the Lord's Supper, than I had ever been taught.
The fullness of what Jesus has for us is in the Catholic Church, where He gives His grace to us miraculously in seemingly ordinary things like bread and water.
I'll stop ranting now, but food for thought, anyway.
I have a further treatment on Baptism at Grace for the Wayward heart: "Reflections on Snow"
By
Gregory, at 8/03/2005 3:59 PM
Hi Gregory,
I re-read the article, and I can't honestly say that I'd change anything in it. But this should not be considered a blanket endorsement of Luther. I'm much too selective for that.
However, I do want to be fair. You're completely free to disagree here, as long as you stay within the rules: to speak the truth in love, to use Scripture in your arguments, and to point us to Christ as clearly as you can.
Remember that this course is a template, and one day the comments will be gathered together for thoughtful revisions -- and maybe by persons other than me. So feel free to make your points and contributions. If you and I disagree personally, remember those future audiences and make your case with them in mind.
I have asked another friend of mine, named Dave, to review your comments and offer some comments of his own. He has more of a Catholic background than I do, so I think you'd find more common ground with him. You may see his remarks soon.
By
loren, at 8/03/2005 6:24 PM
Dave being Unchained Slave? Sounds good. I appreciate the openness of your forum for such discussions.
My question to you, though, would be to whom do you give "blanket support?"
It's one thing to say "God", "Jesus", or "The Bible", because we would all make that claim--and yet, we all differ. I think honestly it is far too simplistic to simply say "We differ because we've taken our eyes off of Jesus," though I wholeheartedly agree with that affirmation.
By
Anonymous, at 8/03/2005 11:15 PM
Dave being Unchained Slave? Sounds good. I appreciate the openness of your forum for such discussions.
My question to you, though, would be to whom do you give "blanket support?"
It's one thing to say "God", "Jesus", or "The Bible", because we would all make that claim--and yet, we all differ. I think honestly it is far too simplistic to simply say "We differ because we've taken our eyes off of Jesus," though I wholeheartedly agree with that affirmation.
But the problem goes deeper. Jesus established a Church with authority to teach in His Name, and He promised His Spirit would lead her into all truth, and that the Gates of Hell would never prevail against her. These promises are what prompted St. Paul to comment to St. Timothy (almost as a given, in the context), that the Church is rightfully called the pillar and foundation of the Truth (1 Tim 3:15).
So, looking at the state of Christianity today, with its divisions and competing and contradicting theologies (like the Calvinist/Arminian debate) how are we to know which Church is that pillar and foundation of truth?
This is one of the biggest reasons I left Protestantism altogether when I left Catholicism (I almost stopped at Lutheranism, because of its sacramentology, but it still was not complete). Sola Scriptura in practice amounts to an authority-less system, while ironically touting the Bible as the ultimate authority! The Bible, as a book, needs an interpreter, and so the question is, why should I take your interpretation, or Dave's, or Berry's, or C.S. Lewis's, or R.C. Sproul's, or A.W. Tozer's, or St. Augustine's, or St. Thomas Aquinas's, or Luther's interpretation over any other? What ultimately ends that debate?
By
Gregory, at 8/03/2005 11:17 PM
That was weird. I don't know why it anonymously posted the first half of my reply like that.
By
Gregory, at 8/03/2005 11:32 PM
Hi Gregory,
Glad you asked that question, I give blanket support to Jesus Himself, who is the Word made flesh. He didn't just tell us the truth, but He IS the truth (John 14:6).
In other words, everything we accept as 'true' is true, ultimately, because it reflects His way of thinking. The closer it agrees with this, the truer it will be. But the more it deviates, the more error it will contain.
One source that I use for exploring the mind of Christ is the Old Testament's Messianic prophecy. Through it, God expressed His intentions, and Jesus came to act on those intentions. Thus there is a living correlation, and it requires a stricter line of interpretation to uphold the prophetic fulfillment. So to answer another question on an 'interpreter', this makes the Bible a self-interpreting book (not to leave out the Holy Spirit, of course).
Paul tells us that we are built on the foundation of apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ Himself as the chief cornerstone (Eph 2:20). Their joint testimony of Jesus is our guide, and to a very large degree it offers a built-in proof to make sure we've gotten it right. They were designed to be compared one day (Is 34:16). When I've quoted Messianic prophecy in talking to the cults, for example, and used them to back New Testament points, it has always caught them flat footed. But unfortunately for most of us, the Messianic prophecy is virtually a lost understanding in the church of today. I hope that will change.
Jesus did establish His church, and of course He also remains the head of it today, for He has not passed along those reigns to anyone else. In fact, if you'll do a study on authority, you'll see that the only authority He gave to church leaders was the authority to carry out tasks (Matt 13:34). But it's never an authority over other people (Matt 20:25,26). (The Bible placed emphasis on our submission, instead.)
I would happily listen to the opinions of the men you've mentioned, just like I would listen to the opinions of old catholic counsels. But, my loyalty is to Jesus alone. Think of it this way. If any of those men were wrong, they could not recompense me before the judgment seat of Christ. It is not to them that I owe an account. But if I was truly pursuing Christ and still made a mistake, at least the Lord would see the sincere intention of my heart (1 Cor 4:5)
One last point about authority. I have to admit that I find it strange that you would consider a reliance on Scripture to be an 'authority-less' situation. I disagree because I think it's obvious that an authoritative voice is the one that is quoting Scripture (see Titus 2:1,15). Therefore, authority is not in a person, such as a pope or a priest. Remember that Jesus is the head of the church, and that all authority is His.
If a pope or priest or anyone else says something that agrees with Scripture, they've matched the mind of Christ and so the truth is represented. But if their word doesn't match the Scripture, it is devoid of authority. For the truth is in Jesus Himself.
Hope this clarifies my views.
By
loren, at 8/04/2005 12:37 AM
The problem I see with that approach is when two people quote the same Scripture and arrive at two completely opposite conclusions. Baptism itself is a great example, as has been shown.
I can quote John 3:5, where Jesus says, "Unless you are born of water and the Spirit, you will not see the Kingdom of God," and say, here Jesus is clearly teaching the necessity of baptism. You, on the other hand, will point to the same verse while denying my interpretation.
So the question remains, who has the authority to interpret the Bible? Sola Scriptura does indeed break down into an authority-less system because of this reality. Yes, the Bible is authoritative because it is the Word of God, but words on a page cannot interpret themselves. When there are genuine disagreements over the text of Scripture, who is the final say on the truth of the matter?
Saying "I'll examine the issue from Scripture myself, and decide which perspective is true," is not good enough, because now you're adding one more interpretation: your own--and based on your own interpretation you are authoritatively declaring that your interpretation is correct. It's circular and subjective.
For Scripture to be an Authority, it needs to be interpreted. That interpretation needs to be Authoritative. For it to be Authoritative, it needs to come from an Authoritative teacher. And for that teacher to be Authoritative, it has to be set up by Christ, to whom all authority was given--and Christ has to give that teacher, its Tradition, and its Scripture, an infallible quality. Otherwise, its binding authority might cause people to be bound to error.
Were that to happen, the Gates of Hell would indeed prevail over the Church--and Jesus would be proven to be either a liar or powerless!
Thus, the Church that He gave us points back to His authority, power, and Truth by manifesting that to the world.
But when Christians sit and debate over the meaning of Scripture, often reaching irreconcilably opposite conclusions, this is not a testament to the Spirit of Truth guiding us into all truth! It is testament to the subtle seeds of rebellion sown in the hearts of believers by the arch-rebel.
Yes, Jesus is our authority, but He gave His authority to His Apostles, to His Church, when He sent them out. The Church is His body here on earth, and we are His ambassadors. Through Apostolic Succession, the Truth was preserved, pondered, and more fully understood in the Apostolic Tradition, of which Scripture is a part--even the most fundamental part--but not the whole.
Every doctrine in the Catholic Church has its root, purpose, and meaning in Christ. Every one. And every day, in nearly every Catholic Church in every part of the world, you can go and meet with Christ, literally, physically and tangibly present in the Tabernacle--and every day you can receive Him in Holy Communion!
Nowhere else is He so honoured!
By
Gregory, at 8/04/2005 4:17 AM
Hi Gregory,
Ah, the Bible has the answer for the problem you see. Eph 4:13-14 tells us that in the knowledge of the Son of God there are no more winds of doctrine, but there is unity of the faith. This tells us all about proper interpretation and the ‘authority’ behind it.
The word of God is not merely words on paper, as you have called it, when we’re looking for Jesus in those words. When we seek Him, we break beyond the letter and into the spirit (2 Cor 3:6,17; Rev 19:10). In finding the testimony of Jesus, we find the One with all authority, and the truth itself personified (Matt 28:18; Eph 4:21) and the Holy Spirit guides us in this:
"However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you.”
(John 16:13)
Please notice that the Holy Spirit Himself is the perfect example of what I’m talking about. He points us to Christ in order to guide us into truth, and does not claim an ‘authority’ of His own in doing so. For He respects that Jesus Himself is Head over all things to the church, and all authority is given to Him.
But when you talk about an ‘authoritative teacher’ on earth, you’re getting into a realm that the Bible doesn’t even acknowledge as existing. One is our teacher, the Christ, and we are all brethren (Matt 23:8-10). Again, if I may point to the Holy Spirit as our example, He is called our paraclete, which means one who ‘comes along side’. Even He never tries to place Himself as a mediator between us and Christ. He merely points us to Christ, and it is to our master that we stand or fall.
Here’s the thing Gregory. You say we’re talking in circles, but I’m talking in a straight line that leads to Jesus every time, that ends there. There’s no wider circle of persons in anything I’m saying. If I receive guidance from someone, even the Holy Spirit, the purpose is still to point me straight to Jesus without a mediator. But when you’re talking about binding interpretations made by other men, or even by a body of men, you’re talking about human mediators. That’s the big problem I have with Catholic doctrine. There always seems to be a mediator between a Catholic and the Lord, whether it is in prayer, communion, understanding of the Scripture, or even death.
The reason Christians debate over Scriptures without reaching agreement is because they are debating systems, principles, and things of that nature, and they are not truly focusing on Christ Himself. Here’s an experiment: try this some time. The next time you find a blog by a Christian leader, of any denomination, use your control-f function to do a search and see the last time Jesus was mentioned on their blog. And then go a little further and see how often He is mentioned. You’ll be shocked! How can they even hope to get it straight if they’re not looking for Jesus? And even if they do reach an agreement, what would it matter if it didn’t point us to Him, to truly represent His mind? Therein lies the real problem.
You’ve also stated that Jesus gave His authority to the apostles when He sent them out, but I disagree. In that very instance He specified that all authority was given to Himself in heaven and on earth, And said ‘Go therefore’. (Matt 28:18).
In other words He has all authority and we have none, so we must act in His name. His authority is not delegated through this, it is only represented (Matt 20:25,26). If I speak the word of God in a way that points to Jesus, I’ve got the spirit and the truth of Scripture, and I’ve pointed to the one who has the authority. But it is not up to me, from there, to make it ‘binding’ on anyone else, for we have dominion over no man’s faith. It is to their master that they stand or fall (Rom 14:4; 2 Cor 1:24).
Anyone who can speak in this sense speaks ‘with’ authority, though it is not their own authority. They can be a pope, a priest, you or me, or the lad who pushes the plow. Because the authority is not in themselves, but in the word they speak that points to Christ.
You’ve also claimed that every Catholic doctrine has it’s root, purpose and meaning in Christ. If so, please feel free to present them here, and we’ll listen fairly. If they really do point to Jesus, I’m sure you’ll win the day because Christ is who we’re looking for, and you’ll have our sincere thanks. But Gregory, right now, you have to appreciate that those are pretty tall claims to protestant ears, so of course we’ll want to see the proof of it. But in the arguments of authority and apostolic succession, so far, I’m afraid I actually see the opposite. I see Israel asking for a king, without appreciating that the Lord is already their king. I don’t say this to condemn, I only mean to say that I see human weakness and subjectivity in the Catholic church too, just like I see it everywhere else. But I also believe a true focus on Jesus will take us beyond that (Eph 4:13,14).
I’ll leave the discussion on transubstantiation to you and David (oh, by the way, yes, he is the ‘unchained slave’ person.)
By
loren, at 8/04/2005 7:32 AM
Thing is, Loren, your claim to go straight to Jesus doesn't work practically (and as for the Christian blogs I read regularly, Jesus is certainly mentioned often!).
We cannot have Christ without His Church, because He Himself gave that Church to us. The Scriptures come from the Church, and not the other way around. The Church, through the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit, formed the Canon of Scripture so that we could be sure, infallibly sure, that the books of the Bible are indeed the Inspired Word of God, and nothing was left out, and nothing was added. The Scriptures themselves provide no formal list of which books are canon. The Table of Contents is not an inspired document.
Similarly, the Bible did not fall out of Heaven as a complete collection of books. It was the Church, over the course of nearly 3 centuries, that finally declared the 73 books we have as Canon.
In what way is it subjectivity and relativism to take the approach to Christianity and Scriptures that you have taken? By the very fact that you only claim 66 out of 73 of those books as Inspired, even though the Church had declared otherwise until the time of Martin Luther.
So really, I have to ask, why should I take his (or your) word for it on the subject of which books actually belong in the Bible?
It's convenient to say that there are doctrinal difficulties in those "disputed" books, but then, if they are indeed inspired, you would be guilty of reading your own theological framework into those books, rather than letting Scripture speak for itself, which is your ideal.
Of course I agree that the Bible isn't simply words on a page, since those words are the God-breathed message to His Church. But without an interpreter of that message, we see endless disputes over doctrine. Some would argue that the disputes are only over the "non-essentials", but this cannot be true, since even what is essential is disagreed about from tradition to tradition!
The Bible Alone, even in the hands of the most sincere Jesus-seeker, is not self-interpreting or self-authenticating. You have argued in the above comments that Scripture is ambiguous about baptismal regeneration. I would argue that baptismal regeneration is plainly taught again and again, and, with the rest of the 7 Sacraments, is one of the most clear doctrines in the NT!
We do not disagree about the purpose or the sense of Authority in the Church. All authority that anyone has is because they are representing Christ, and acting on His behalf, and not because of any intrinsic quality they themselves have.
The Pope has Authority in the Church because, as the successor of Peter, he has the authority that Christ gave to Peter. What authority did Christ give to Peter?
Matthew 16:18-19--"So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build My community. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
You tried to sell the notion that "Shall be bound...shall be loosed" was somehow, "Shall have already been bound..." or something. But the tense of the Greek verb "shall be" is clearly future tense: esomai Strong's #2071.
Therefore, Jesus was actually delegating an authority to Peter. What do the Keys refer to? Take a look (since you enjoy OT prophecy and typology) at Isaiah 22:20-23--
"And when that day comes
I shall summon my servant
Eliakim son of Hilkiah
I shall dress him in your tunic,
I shall put your sash around his waist,
I shall invest him with your authority;
and he will be a father
to the inhabitants of Jerusalem
and the the House of Judah.
I shall place the Key of David's palace on his shoulder;
When he opens, no one will close,
When he closes, no one will open.
I shall drive him like a nail into a firm place;
and he will become a throne of glory for his family."
(emphasis mine)
From Isaiah, we see that the Steward (formerly Shebna, but here he's being stripped of his authority and it's given to Eliakim) has the authority to run the Kingdom on behalf of the King. This is symbolised by the Keys to David's Palace (compare Matt 16:19, "Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven"). They are symbolic, because what person carries functional keys on their shoulder. But the symbolic keys represent a real authority--binding and loosing (Matt 16) or, opening and closing (Is 22).
The Steward held the position of Father for the house of Israel. The Pope holds the position of Father (Holy Father) for the household of Christianity ("Pope" literally means "Father").
But all this is not his own glory, it is the Glory of Christ, because the Pope only has any glory as the Vicar or representative of Christ.
It is on that binding authority that Christ established that we can be assured of the Truth that Christ has promised us. It is on that authority only that the Church can rightfully be called the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth. How can a church that cannot agree on wh
By
Anonymous, at 8/04/2005 1:46 PM
Thing is, Loren, your claim to go straight to Jesus doesn't work practically (and as for the Christian blogs I read regularly, Jesus is certainly mentioned often!).
We cannot have Christ without His Church, because He Himself gave that Church to us. The Scriptures come from the Church, and not the other way around. The Church, through the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit, formed the Canon of Scripture so that we could be sure, infallibly sure, that the books of the Bible are indeed the Inspired Word of God, and nothing was left out, and nothing was added. The Scriptures themselves provide no formal list of which books are canon. The Table of Contents is not an inspired document.
Similarly, the Bible did not fall out of Heaven as a complete collection of books. It was the Church, over the course of nearly 3 centuries, that finally declared the 73 books we have as Canon.
In what way is it subjectivity and relativism to take the approach to Christianity and Scriptures that you have taken? By the very fact that you only claim 66 out of 73 of those books as Inspired, even though the Church had declared otherwise until the time of Martin Luther.
So really, I have to ask, why should I take his (or your) word for it on the subject of which books actually belong in the Bible?
It's convenient to say that there are doctrinal difficulties in those "disputed" books, but then, if they are indeed inspired, you would be guilty of reading your own theological framework into those books, rather than letting Scripture speak for itself, which is your ideal.
Of course I agree that the Bible isn't simply words on a page, since those words are the God-breathed message to His Church. But without an interpreter of that message, we see endless disputes over doctrine. Some would argue that the disputes are only over the "non-essentials", but this cannot be true, since even what is essential is disagreed about from tradition to tradition!
The Bible Alone, even in the hands of the most sincere Jesus-seeker, is not self-interpreting or self-authenticating. You have argued in the above comments that Scripture is ambiguous about baptismal regeneration. I would argue that baptismal regeneration is plainly taught again and again, and, with the rest of the 7 Sacraments, is one of the most clear doctrines in the NT!
We do not disagree about the purpose or the sense of Authority in the Church. All authority that anyone has is because they are representing Christ, and acting on His behalf, and not because of any intrinsic quality they themselves have.
The Pope has Authority in the Church because, as the successor of Peter, he has the authority that Christ gave to Peter. What authority did Christ give to Peter?
Matthew 16:18-19--"So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build My community. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
You tried to sell the notion that "Shall be bound...shall be loosed" was somehow, "Shall have already been bound..." or something. But the tense of the Greek verb "shall be" is clearly future tense: esomai Strong's #2071.
Therefore, Jesus was actually delegating an authority to Peter. What do the Keys refer to? Take a look (since you enjoy OT prophecy and typology) at Isaiah 22:20-23--
"And when that day comes
I shall summon my servant
Eliakim son of Hilkiah
I shall dress him in your tunic,
I shall put your sash around his waist,
I shall invest him with your authority;
and he will be a father
to the inhabitants of Jerusalem
and the the House of Judah.
I shall place the Key of David's palace on his shoulder;
When he opens, no one will close,
When he closes, no one will open.
I shall drive him like a nail into a firm place;
and he will become a throne of glory for his family."
(emphasis mine)
From Isaiah, we see that the Steward (formerly Shebna, but here he's being stripped of his authority and it's given to Eliakim) has the authority to run the Kingdom on behalf of the King. This is symbolised by the Keys to David's Palace (compare Matt 16:19, "Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven"). They are symbolic, because what person carries functional keys on their shoulder. But the symbolic keys represent a real authority--binding and loosing (Matt 16) or, opening and closing (Is 22).
The Steward held the position of Father for the house of Israel. The Pope holds the position of Father (Holy Father) for the household of Christianity ("Pope" literally means "Father").
But all this is not his own glory, it is the Glory of Christ, because the Pope only has any glory as the Vicar or representative of Christ.
It is on that binding authority that Christ established that we can be assured of the Truth that Christ has promised us. It is on that authority only that the Church can rightfully be called the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth. How can a church that cannot agree on what the essentials are, let alone what to believe about those essentials, claim to be the pillar and foundation of the truth?
Ultimately, and your response in another thread gives evidence to this, it becomes not so much Christ-centered, but self-centered.
"I have nothing against ancient counsels that examined Scriptural questions, and the conclusions they reached. I'm perfectly open to looking at their work. But I do reserve the right to concur with their conclusions, or not. None of their beliefs are binding on me because my faith is in the Lord Himself, and nowhere else."
That last line is a nice, spiritual-sounding touch, but it basically means that none of the previous generations of Christianity mean anything to you if they fail to meet up with your own view of Christ. It's the same autonomy-cleverly-disguised-as-piety that you yourself reject as a model of the end-times heresy! You pointed out that most examples would be much more subtle than my friend's pseudo-Christian church (from the module on the end time heresy, for those other readers out there), but it seems that the subtle form is a hard trap to escape, even for genuine Christ-Seekers as ourselves.
When the Authority that Christ Himself set up is rejected in favour of seeking only Christ, you have begun to seek a disembodied Head. Christ can only fully be known in and through His Church. If Christ is the Head and the Church His body, having a mentality of "Church alone" (which is a corruption or misrepresentation of Catholic theology) gets you a decapitated Saviour. Conversely, as I said, seeking Christ without His Church gives you a disembodied Saviour.
The only argument to this that could conceivably have any force, is that Christ Himself appeared to you and told you the truth about Himself. But let's examine two historical cases of this occurence:
1. Joseph Smith--yeah, that guy that founded the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Sounds good. Sounds Christ-focused. Oh wait, aren't they the Mormons? We see how that worked out!
2. The Apostle Paul--What did he do? Converted after his experience, was baptised into the Christian Church, went off by himself to be taught by the Spirit, and came back. When he came back, he submitted himself to Peter and James (Galatians 1:18-19).
I think I've gone on for more than long enough here.
God bless!
By
Gregory, at 8/04/2005 1:49 PM
Hi Gregory,
I think a lot of what you're saying depends on the concept of the church. The true, biblical concept is that Jesus Himself is head over all things to the church, and we all go directly to Him (1 Cor 11:3; Col 1:18). The Bible does not say that He is head over the church and the church is the head of the people in the church. Because whatever else the church may be, it's not, and was never intended to be, an institutional mediator (1 Cor 7:23). This is the central point, and you have still not managed to answer it.
Based on your background, I'm a little surprised that you are quoting Matt 16:18-19 to make your point about Peter being the first pope. But for the benefit of future readers I'll use the opportunity to explain it further:
He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”
(Matt 16:15-18)
The Greek word for ‘Peter’ is ‘Petros’ which means a small stone, a piece from a larger rock (Strong’s 4074), But the ‘rock’ on which the church is built is the Greek word ‘Petra’ (Strong’s 4073) which is a feminine word that means a mass of rock, like the Rock of Gibraltar. Vine’s explains:
Petra ^4073^ denotes "a mass of rock," as distinct from petros, "a detached stone or boulder," or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved. For the nature of petra, see Matt. 7:24,25; 27:51,60; Mark 15:46; Luke 6:48 (twice).
In other words, Peter has recognized that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus Himself is the true rock and foundation of the church that He refers to (1 Cor 3:11;2 Sam 22:32). And because Simon has recognized this, he has gotten a piece of the rock (to use the old ad line). Nothing in this passage makes him the first pope, it just means he’s a part of the church. In fact, five verses later, Peter totally missed the gospel itself being preached to him, and Jesus called him ‘Satan’! (vs 23). So even if you do think this passage makes him special, it also shows that he is very fallible.
By the way, Isaiah 22:20-23 is a prophecy of Jesus Himself, not of Peter. (Compare Rev 3:7).
You’ve also said that going to Jesus for ourselves doesn’t work in practical terms. But it’s as easy has having faith in Him. We do not need to say, ‘Who will do this for me, to make His death and resurrection work in my life?’ There is no mediation involved, but it is in our own heart and mouth by faith (Rom 10:6-10). Ironically, it is Peter himself who says that even newborn babes in Christ may come to Jesus as to a living stone (1 Peter 2:1-4), and in the same passage, he says we are all a part of a royal priesthood (v 9).
In the days this was written, some of the other Scriptures still weren’t written yet, and most Christians in those days would never see more than a little bit of Scripture in their whole life time. But they still had a walk with God. The Scriptures definitely help, but the relationship is what’s really important.
Gregory, on a personal note, I can’t figure you out, why you’re so insistent on including the concept of mediators in your beliefs. You do have a focus on Christ that is very evident and encouraging, but why are you putting a step between yourself and Him? I would think you would want to draw closer, but instead you draw a curtain.
The Corinthians had started to lean toward mediators also. Even though their mediators brought them into bondage, devoured them, took from them, exalted themselves, and struck them in the face, the Corinthians thought of themselves as good, submissive Christians for allowing it. They also thought Paul was a poor example of a Christian because he would not submit. But in 2 Cor 11:20-21, Paul derided them as the true weaklings because they tolerated such things.
I don’t say this to accuse Catholic leaders of today, my point is that no one has dominion over our faith, and it is by a direct faith in Christ that we stand (2 Cor 1:24). Humanity has a weakness that wants to set other men set in such positions for them (Ex 20:19), so I can only guess that you see a virtue in mediators, similar to what the Corinthians thought they saw. But that kind of submission is wrongly placed (Gal 2:5). In fact, Paul said in the next verse, referring to Peter himself:
“But from those who seemed to be something-- whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man-- for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me.
(Gal 2:6)
Instead, we should rely on Jesus alone, and if we do we’ll find Him that He is very approachable:
“in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through faith in Him.
(Eph 3:12)
By
loren, at 8/04/2005 3:58 PM
Wow, there's a lot to comment on here, but I don't have a lot of time. I'll reply in greater depth later tonight.
But to clarify, I do not, never have, and never will believe that I cannot personally come to Christ on my own. I wholeheartedly believe and proclaim that Christ has made access to Himself available to all people.
That being said, Christ is only completely known in His Church.
When I say "Going straight to Christ doesn't work out in a practical sense," what I mean is that claiming to be going straight to Christ for the full revelation of true doctrine is not possible--or if it is, it has yet to be demonstrated in 2000 years (especially the last 500!). Christ is open to us, to go to Him for our Salvation, to receive His Grace, and yes, to know Him intimately. But the closer we get to Christ, the more He will lead us to His Church. Christianity is first and foremost a Family, and that family is more than "Me and my Big Brother"!
There is an intricate family structure, and family rules and traditions, that must be held to, and this structure and these rules are indicated clearly in the Bible, if not spelled out directly. What's more, the Structure of the Church (the Episcopacy, priesthood, and diaconate) were very fully developed exceedingly early in Church History.
In fact, without this structure, the Church would never have survived early heresies such as Arianism, which itself had overrun much of the Church (so that Bishops like Athanasius could quip mottos like "Athanasius contra mundi" or "Athanasius against the world"! But the authoritative, binding councils of the Church, protected by the Holy Spirit by the grace of infallibility, gave us Creeds like the Chalcedonian, Nicaeen, and Constantinopolitan Creeds that interpret Scripture and set out incontrovertibly the orthodox Christian understanding of such fundamental doctrines as the Trinity, the 2 Natures of Christ, and so on.
These creeds systematise Biblical Theology since Arius and the others were very keen to use biblical prooftexts in their arguments against Christ's divinity (as the United Pentecostals--or Jesus Only Churches--do today).
History has bourne out the need for such an accountability, a binding authority, so that we can be sure that we are standing on the truth, so that we indeed are not tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine!
I'll discuss Matthew 16:16-18 later on tonight, but I just wanted to clarify my position. I most certainly do not believe I need a priest to bring me to Christ. But the Church, to whom Christ gave priests as a gift, is necessary for us to fully know the richness of Christ Himself, and to fully participate in His life of Grace.
By
Gregory, at 8/04/2005 6:07 PM
Well,
It seems that any ‘discussion’ regarding baptism needs to wait…at least temporarily.
About the Author:
1. Having been execrated by the Holy Roman Catholic Church, as a heretic and schismatic, the author is under numerous sentences of latae sententiae excommunication. As such, according to the doctrine of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, salvation is unattainable.
While the author has performed services to and for the Holy Roman Catholic Church and some of its Orders, the author is not now, and does not foresee reconciliation between himself and the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
The author’s ‘issues’ with the Holy Roman Catholic Church is in no way ‘translated’ to individuals. The primacy issue being that ‘Salvation’ is available to all and not to be denied by any. The author condemns no one, nor denies that ‘all might be saved’, under obligation of the ‘Great Commission’ [Matthew 28:18-20]. [http://history-politics.blogspot.com/2005/08/from-damned-you-dont-have-to-be.html]
1a. “After a first and second warning, break off contact with a heretic, realizing that such a person is perverted and sinful and stands self-condemned.” (Tit 3:10-11)
2. This author is neither a theologian nor Biblical scholar, merely a student of the Bible.
Both Loren and Gregory have questioned the ‘interpreter’ of the Scriptures and whose authority it is to interpret them:
A. The Bible is an exegesis of the Bible - The Bible explains the Bible.
B. the Holy Spirit is the interpreter. (John 16:13) and as Canons 109 - 119 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church attest.
A couple of notes on ‘History’:
The very issues dividing you now are the issues that divided the ‘Church Faithful’ and the ‘Reformers’ at the Council of Trent. [The ‘Reformers’ were invited to the Council of Trent and did participate initially - but having run headfirst into the issue of the ‘Authority of the Pope’ withdrew.]
Gregory, in love, The original Vulgate cf. AD 400 - the Latin translation of the Bible did not include the ‘Apocryphal Books’ - it contained the 66 books ‘attributed’ to the ‘Protestant’ Bible - The ‘Apocryphal Books’ were not added to the Canon until the 1564 Council of Trent: [In the interest of fairness - the ‘Protestant’ Bible contained the Apocryphal Books until 1796 when they were expunged in favor of the ‘protocanonical’ books alone.]
[http://www.fairlawnwest.org/apocrypha.html] †This web site has a typographical error in the transposition of numbers - it cites “In 1546 the Council of Trent” - it should read, “In 1564 the Council of Trent”
“Modern Roman Catholic scholars commonly employ a distinction introduced by Sixtus of Sienna in 1566 to designate the two groups of books. The terms "protocanonical" and "deuterocanonical" are used to signify respectively those books of Scripture that were received by the entire Church from the beginning as inspired, and those whose inspiration came to be recognized later, after the matter had been disputed by certain Fathers and local churches. Thus Roman Catholics accept as fully canonical those books and parts of books that Protestants call the Apocrypha (except the Prayer of Manasseh and 1 and 2 Esdras, which both groups regard as apocryphal). In short, as a popular Roman Catholic Catechism puts it, "Deuterocanonical does not mean Apocryphal, but simply 'later added to the canon.' "
I am afraid this only adds fuel to the fire - regarding the interpreter of, and by what authority to view the Bible as the Inspired Word of God. - There are many blogs that would use this information, as ‘Proof’ that the Catholic Church edited the Bible - a position that I adamantly oppose and will hopefully post on soon.
A direct address to the ‘necessity’ of Baptism or ‘transubstantiation’ of the Eucharist in my opinion is ill advised at this time.
By
Unchained Slave, at 8/04/2005 6:42 PM
Hi Gregory and David,
I've got some other stuff I need to be working on, but I'll be following your conversation with a great deal of interest, and might chip in from time to time. You brothers are both rich, first class scholars so I'm going to get me an education. Be blessed.
By
loren, at 8/04/2005 7:40 PM
Wow, Slave, that was insanely formal. I felt as though I was reading an affidavit or something.
I'm curious about your identification as being execrated by the Church as heretical and schismatic, and under the sentence of excommunication--and therefore calling yourself unable to attain salvation.
Two questions spring to mind immediately:
1. What circumstances led to this state of affairs?
2. Is the notion that one who is excommunicated is therefore unable to attain salvation really your view of the concept? I guarantee you it is not the Church's.
I'm confused when you discuss services. Were you ordained, or merely a lay minister of some sort (as I am)?
I am fairly certain that the Vulgate did in fact include the Deutero-canonical books, though with a note of disagreement from St. Jerome. It is true that the Council of Trent officially declared those books as Canon, but that was not done in a vacuum, but rather, because the Books had been in common and undisputed use in the Church for centuries, until Luther and the Reformation caused (or, if you wish to include St. Jerome in the ranks, recaused) the dispute in the 15th century.
Just like issues related to the Divinity of Christ and the Nature of the Holy Spirit, Doctrines of the Church are usually only defined as Dogma when the need arises to settle a disagreement. Because the OT Canon had passed to Christians from the Jews (mainly using the Septuagint or other Greek translations which included the 7 books) the Church used them extensively with the rest of Scripture, not making distinctions.
Even St. Jerome, when pressed, did not deny that they should be used, but said that his seeming earlier denials of their canonicity were not his own concerns, but the probable objection of the Jewish people who themselves had rejected those books in AD 90 at the Council of Jamnia (which itself was a council dealing with the "Christian problem").
That certain passages in the Bible shed light on other, more difficult passages, is not in dispute. That the Holy Spirit guides the attentive and prayerful reader into a greater understanding of the text, of Christ, and of their own hearts, is also not disputed. The dispute is in the final court of appeal when two competing ideas emerge from Scripture, both claiming to be biblical, both claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit, and both mutually contradictory.
How does one determine the truth of the matter? By saying, read it for yourself and decide among the two perspectives? This gets us nowhere, because your asking a third perspective to judge the first two. If the third agrees with neither of the earlier opinions, then we have yet another disagreement and division.
So how does one determine the truth? By denying that the differences are of any great importance, because in the "essentials" all Christians are really united? This is patently false, as demonstrated especially in the debate between TULIP believing Calvinists and Free-will Arminians--who have such a varied view on the issue as to almost seem to be two separate religions!
So I again assert that there must be a higher court of appeal, one that eliminates subjectivity, one whose rulings are binding, and binding precisely because they are infallible and protected from error by that Holy Spirit we all know and love.
By
Gregory, at 8/05/2005 3:29 AM
Loren, going back to our discussion of Matthew 16:16-19, I wanted to make some points.
1. Your exegesis of the Rock passage is lacking in a number of ways. First, the "Petros/petra" difference is easily accounted for as a gender issue. Like French, Greek nouns have gender. Rock, in Greek, "petra", is a female word. For Jesus to name Simon "Petra" would have been about as insulting as me referring to you as "Lauren" or "Lorraine". Thus, in the Greek, Matthew translated the name that Jesus gave from a feminine noun to a Masculine form for Peter, "Petros."
Second, current Greek scholarship for the most part has stated that the "Petra"=big rock, boulder/"Petros"=pebble, stone distinction was a later development of the Greek language that would not have been used in Jesus' day, thus ruling out that interpretation. But even if that is not the case, point 3 clinches it. And that is:
Jesus didn't speak Greek, but Aramaic. Now, if you've seen "The Passion of the Christ", you'll notice that Jesus doesn't call Peter "Petros" but "Kepha", which is the Aramaic word for "rock". This is why, in certain passages, St. Paul transliterates Peter's name, rather than translating it, and we read about "Cephas" at the beginning of 1 Corinthians.
What's the point? Unlike Greek or French, but much like English, Aramaic nouns don't have a set gender. Kepha is kepha is rock. So, to substitute Kepha into the translation, we have, "And I also say to you that you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."
It does great and obvious violence to the text to say that the Rock is anything other than Peter in this context, which is further demonstrated in the next few verses about Keys and binding and loosing.
Did that make Peter perfect? Surely not! You pointed out the very next passage, where Peter completely misses it, and Satan, gaining a foothold, uses Peter to contradict Christ's salvific purpose.
Later, Peter denied even knowing Christ! But what was the end result? Jesus forgives Peter, reinstates him by penitentially giving him the opportunity of a 3-fold statement of love to counter the 3-fold denial (though, looking at the Greek words for love in that passage, Peter still had some growing to do). After each question from Jesus, and Peter's loving response, Jesus tells him to feed and tend His flock.
Later, at Pentecost, the Holy Spirit so infuses Peter with power, that Peter's sermon stirs the hearts of more than 3000 people so that they convert to Christianity! Throughout the rest of Acts, Peter is seen with a prominent leadership position, and the Church has unanimously held that he indeed was the head of the Early Church.
One other thing. Isaiah 22 doesn't make sense as a prophecy of Christ, because Eliakim was made Steward to the house of David, not King, or Prince. The Kingdom of David is a prophetic type of the Kingdom of Heaven. The Son of David (esp. Solomon--notably the wisest man) is a type of Christ, the Prince of Peace (Solomon comes from "shalom" meaning peace), who, as you point out, is Himself the Wisdom of God. Jesus is not the Steward of the Kingdom, He is the King! Of course, then, He would have the Keys to the Kingdom (Rev 3:7)--He is, after all, the King! All authority, even (especially?) the Steward's, comes straight from Him!
Thus, a prophecy about the installation of a new steward in the house of David, while pointing us to Christ ultimately, is more directly about the Church He would establish: the Kingdom of Heaven, and the Steward He would appoint over it--namely, Simeon Kepha Bar-Jonah--better known as St. Peter.
As for mediation being a fundamental element of the Christian family, Christ Himself is the sole mediator, in the sense that He is the only one capable of bringing us to God and restoring that broken relationship, shattered by sin. However, in a subordinate and secondary way, all Christians, as members of the Universal Priesthood, have the task of a) interceding (mediating)on each other's behalves, and b) mediating Christ to the world, through evangelisation and service.
Quoting Peter's own quotation of Exodus 19:6 doesn't help your case any, because God told Moses to declare to the entire Israelite Nation that they were to be a nation of priests! Yet, the Israelites had a specific priestly caste in their community (same chapter, verses 21-22). In one sense, they were all priests, and in another, they had priests.
Why, if Peter quotes that passage, should it necessarily be different for Christians? If that top level of high priest in the Old Testament corresponds to a high priest in the New Testament (Jesus), and if that bottom level of universal priests in the Old Testament corresponds to a universal priesthood in the New Testament (all believers), then the middle, ministerial priesthood in the Old Testament corresponds to a middle, ministerial priesthood in the New Testament as well.
This in no way detracts from the superior mediation of Christ, nor does it somehow close the veil again between us and God! Christ has paved the way for us, and that way is in His Church, which He has established as His Bride, His Body, His Family, and His Kingdom!
By
Gregory, at 8/05/2005 4:24 AM
Gregory,
I presented myself formally so you would be aware of my condition, and ‘where I was coming from’. I did this out of respect for you, as a lay minister in a Roman Catholic Church.
As to the circumstances that led to my ‘state of affairs’, being protestant is enough, without adding further ‘damning’ circumstances. The big difference between me, most protestants, and most Catholics, is that I am aware of what the Code of Canon Law and Catechism state regarding my condition.
I must disagree with your ‘guarantee’ in question 2 based on the following:
These Canons from the Catholic Code of Law explain the ‘sentence’ of excommunication:
Canon Code of Law:
Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication;
crf Canon code of Law: 194 §2:a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church;
Can. 1371 The following are to be punished with a just penalty:
In addition to the case mentioned in can. 1364, §1, a person who teaches a doctrine condemned by the Roman Pontiff or an ecumenical council or who obstinately rejects the doctrine mentioned in can. 750, §2 or in can. 752 and who does not retract after having been admonished by the Apostolic See or an ordinary;
These Canons Define apostasy, heresy, and schism for which the latae sententiae excommunication is imposed:
Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.
§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
This Canon explains the denial of sacraments ‘necessary’ for salvation - with the exception of a ‘Deathbed’ Absolution.
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1463 Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication.
Here I refer to the explanation of the application of the above canons with an excerpt from “Catholic Answers” http://www.catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp
Begin Quote From Source:
“The following quotations from the Church Fathers give the straight story. They show that the early Church held the same position on this as the contemporary Church does—that is, while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847).”
“However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity.”
End Quote From Source: Notation of Authority for source to Publish:
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
This article cites and quotes the works of Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian of Carthage, Lactantius, Jerome, Augustine, and Fulgentius of Ruspe.
As to my services to and for the Catholic Church and some of its Orders, I am not at liberty (Constrained by both the Catholic Church and Civil authorities) to discuss. My services were not within the realm of ‘ministry’ in the context of the Sacrament of Ordination or lay-ministry. The result of these services was a ‘protection of the faithful and the sacred’, the expansion of a missions, and the preservation of some ‘elected’ to ordination…more I cannot say. [The closest explanation I can give is to refer to the movie ‘Tears of the Sun’ starring Bruce Willis - while a work of fiction; it is based loosely on numerous different actual events.]
I agree, conditionally, that the ‘Apocryphal’ books were included in the Vulgate and notated by Jerome as Apocryphal. My condition is that they were not accepted ‘undisputed’.
There is evidence that scholars like, Gregory the Great, Walafrid Strabo, Hugh of St. Victor, Hugh of St. Cher, and Nicholas of Lyra did contest the matter.
Crf [http://www.fairlawnwest.org/apocrypha.html].
I do not disagree, for the most part, with your arguments of the necessity for a ‘court of appeals’ in matters of dissention. The statement, “in the "essentials" all Christians are really united” sounds suspiciously like the quote I defer to by Count Zinzendorf in my articles about statements of faith.
Count Zinzendorf was of the opinion, widely wished, fervently prayed for, and worked diligently to achieve a common unified ‘essentials of doctrine’. It was a statement of what ‘ought to be’ not a statement of ‘what was’. Zinzendorf was a ‘Reformationist’. Like Martin Luther, he did not intend to separate from the Holy Catholic Church. He wanted reforms within the Catholic Church to preserve the Unity of the Church without schism. Martin Luther, before him, states in his ‘prologue’ that he wanted to reform what he ‘believed’ to be abuses of Ecclesiastical Orders, and some of the ‘practices’ common in his time. That their effort failed is a sad indictment of both the ‘Reformers’ and the ‘Catholic Church’.
The necessity of a final arbiter is evidenced in their failure…The question then becomes, whom that ‘final arbiter’ should be. Obviously, the Pope, as the Absolute Authority of the Catholic Church is the Choice of the Catholic Church…
Blessings upon you, and my prayers as you shepherd your flock.
By
Unchained Slave, at 8/05/2005 6:40 AM
Slave, unless you actually were raised or at some point were a part of the Catholic Church, you are not a heretic for believing differently.
If you have always been a Protestant, you are not a schismatic for remaining a Protestant.
To be a heretic, you first had to align yourself with the Church, and then start teaching heterodox opinions.
Thus, a Buddhist, technically speaking, is not a heretic. He is an adherent of another religion.
As far as schismatic churches go, the Catechism says this:
Wounds to Unity
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame." [Unitatis Redintigratio 3:1] The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body--here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism [cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, ca.751.]--do not occur without human sin:
"Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there are also harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers." [Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1:PG 13, 732.]
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers...All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church." [UR 3:1]
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" [Lumen Gentium 8:2.] are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements." [UR 3:2; cf. LG 15.] Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fulness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to Him, [Cf. UR 3.] and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity." [Cf. LG 8.]
I appreciate your prayers, and offer mine for you all here as well.
God bless
By
Gregory, at 8/05/2005 2:24 PM
Hi Gregory,
Unfortunately, your post is a great example of why we should all examine the decrees of the catholic counsels for ourselves, rather than accepting them blindly. For in them, the Scriptures never seem to mean what they actually do say. Once a desired Catholic interpretation is in view, they seem to dance and contradict themselves, or explain themselves away, until the thing that was never intended emerges, and agrees with what the Counsel thought in the first place. And even though you agreed with me that Peter really blew it and is fallible, you have claimed that these counsels are totally free of subjectivity and are infallible, because they derive their ‘authority’ from Peter. Can’t you see how people would just scratch their heads at that?
For example, if everything you’ve said about Aramaic is really the heart of the issue, Jesus simply could have said to Peter, ‘You are Petra/Kepha; and upon you/Petra/Kepha I will build my church’ and it could have been rendered in the Greek itself in that manner, in the first place. But that was not Jesus’ intention. For the context of the whole passage is the great revelation of who Christ is, not who Peter is. And other Scriptures make it clear that the true Rock is Christ Himself, in a train of thought that is sustained even from the Old Testament days. The whole of Scripture agrees with the immediate context, that the rock, which is elsewhere referred to as the foundation, could be none other than Christ (1 Cor 3:11).
I don’t really want to get bogged down in the Sheba/Hilkiah passage, but if you look at the whole context (Is 22:23-25) there is imagery of the crucifixion. It is obviously talking about Christ. But much more simply, the entire matter is settled by Rev 3:7, when Jesus states that He is the one who has the key of the House of David.
Remember that the way God wanted it, was that He would be their king. This has been restored, and He has placed His Son over His house (Is 1:26; Heb 3:6). We may now approach the throne of grace boldly for ourselves without mediators, even middle-level mediators, “For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.” (1 Tim 2:5).
You ended your comments by saying “Christ has paved the way for us, and that way is in His Church.” But Jesus Himself said “I am the Way, the truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” (John 14:6). I sincerely hope your statement was merely a slip of the pen (keyboard), so I invite you to clarify.
By
loren, at 8/05/2005 2:28 PM
First the clarification. I can see how my wording was ill-chosen.
“Christ has paved the way for us, and that way (Christ) is (only fully known) in (through) His Church.”
I was rereading the original post, where you mention Luther setting thing right and all, but Luther himself believed in a literal and real presence in the Eucharist (though "con-substantiation" rather than "transubstantiation" but still, real Jesus in the bread) and in Baptismal Regeneration. It was only a later, anabaptistic, radical reformation interpretation that completely eschewed high sacramentology.
As for authority of the Councils, they derive their infallibility from the Holy Spirit, not from Peter, just as Peter himself derived his authority from Christ.
The grace of infallibility is only present when a Council, in union together and in union with the Pope, makes an official declaration on a subject pertaining to faith and morals. The Pope himelf is only infallibly when declaring something pertaining to faith and morals, and only when he is speaking "ex cathedra" or "from the chair (office)" of Peter. Peter himself was fallible, but when the Holy Spirit led, He prevented Peter from teaching error. Notably, the biblical examples of Peter's supposed fallibility are in personal moral failings (sins) and not in actual teaching. First, Peter wasn't "teaching" Christ (let alone authoritatively!) when he reacted to Jesus's prophetic warning of His Passion. Second, Peter wasn't teaching or declaring anything as doctrine when he denied Christ. Third, when Paul rebuked him for his behaviour with the Judaisers, it wasn't an official declaration that Paul rebuked, but Peter's hypocrisy, since Peter's official teaching on the matter (which Paul referenced) was that salvation was open to the Gentiles as Gentiles (as in Acts 10).
The Pope, just like all Christians, is a sinful man. But he is preserved, by the Holy Spirit, from officially defining error as Catholic doctrine. Even the most horrible popes in history never defined their sinful beliefs or practices as Catholic doctrine.
As for the Rock controversy, it is a Protestant novelty to make a seperation between the person of Peter & his Faith. Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyprian, and Origen all taught Peter's faith was the Rock. They also taught Peter was the Rock as well as Jesus being the Rock. It wasn't until Luther we have the novelty of the Rock being either Jesus or Peter's Faith but never the Person of Peter.
Virtually all the Fathers spoke of Peter being the Rock, however a minority of them only spoke of Peter being the Rock. Also as I mentioned the Fathers didn't make the post-Luther distiction between the Person of Peter & his Faith. The Church doesn't exclude Jesus being the Rock or Peter's Faith being the rock, rather it is the early Protestant polemic that only Peter's Faith (divorced from his Person) or Jesus who are the Rock but never Peter. Almost all the Fathers taught Peter was the Rock and that is all Catholics need. We don't need the the Fathers to teach only Peter is the Rock. After all, if God wasn't Father first, then the Pope couldn't be Father to us. If Jesus wasn't the Rock first, He couldn't give Peter a share in His Rockness.
The Greek thing is a name thing, not a grammar thing. Jesus was renaming Simon, Kepha (to Aramaic speakers). When the Greek speaking Christians referred to Peter, they didn't call him Kepha, but translated it to Greek, namely, Petros (because, really, Lauren, you just don't call a guy by a girl's name, do you? Matthew recorded it as Petros, somewhat ruining the pun, because of the Greek rules for proper names and gender. English Bibles ruin it further with, "You are Peter and on this Rock..." but that doesn't negate the meaning unless you purposely twist it to do so. (That's why the French translation is so cool: "Tu es Pierre, et sur la pierre...")
When the Church for 1500 years affirms one translation as the obvious and sure meaning of the text (and defined it so at Trent precisely because of the Luther authority issues) who is Luther, and who are any of us, to come along thinking we somehow know better?
The Church and the Scriptures must work hand in hand, not contradicting one another, and they do not, rightly understood. But the court of appeal must be the Church, because it cannot be Scripture.
I have seen no clearer witness to this than the recent Gay Marriage debate up here in Canada. Many forms of Protestantism have declared their believe based on Scriptural evidence, no less! that homosexuality is actually not a sin!
Now, you (I hope) and I both know that there is something seriously flawed in their hermeneutic--and yet, many of them, Greek Scholars, present convincing arguments that the Greek words translated as homosexuality are in fact referring to other sins.
Whether they do or not is irrelevant. Whether these liberal theologians are right or not is immaterial (academically speaking). The issue is how do we know who is right when both sides use the same Scriptures to support their arguments (and even, in their case, their sins)?
Sola Scriptura fails here, because convincing arguments are made on both sides. This is precisely why St. Peter warned us:
"So we have confirmation of the words of the prophets; and you will be right to pay attention to it as a lamp for lighting a way through the dark, until the dawn comes and the morning star rises in your minds. At the same time, we must recognise that the interpretation of prophecy is never a matter for the individual. For no prophecy ever came from human initiative. When people spoke for God it was the Holy Spirit that moved them.
"As there were false teachers in the past history of our people, so you too will have your false teachers, who will insinuate their own disruptive views and, by disowning the Lord who bought them freedom, will bring upon themselves speedy destruction. Many will copy their debauched behaviour, and the Way of Truth will be brought into disrepute on their account." (2 Peter 1:19-2:2)
And later he writes,
"In all his [Paul's] letters there are of course some passages which are hard to understand, and these are the ones that uneducated and unbalanced people distort, in the same way as they distort the rest of scripture--to their own destruction. Since you have been forewarned about this, my dear friends, be careful that you do not come to the point of losing the firm ground that you are standing on, carried away by the errors of unprincipled people. Instead, continue to grow in the grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To Him be glory, in time and eternity. Amen." (2 Peter 3:16b-18)
So what is this firm ground that Peter is talking about? The Rock, at once Christ, the faith/Church, and Peter himself. (Matthew 16:18-19; 1 Timothy 3:15; Ephesians 2:19-22)
By the way, no one has adequately explained how we as individual Christians could call into account "the Church of the living God, pillar and support of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15), declaring that it has somehow taught untruth, while still being the pillar and support of the truth.
By
Gregory, at 8/05/2005 4:04 PM
Hi Gregory,
Our of fairness, I did some further checking on your Aramaic theory. Like most languages, Aramaic has two distinct words for a small rock and a larger rock. The word for the larger rock is Shu'a, and for the smaller rock it is Ke'pha.
“A reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac of the passage would properly be: "You are KE'PHA' (a movable stone) and upon this SHU`A' (a large massive rock) I will build my church." This is in exact correspondence to the original inspired Greek text: "You are PETROS (a movable stone) and upon this PETRA (a large massive rock) I will build my church. . . The Greek text does not teach that Peter is the rock. The rock is either Peter's confession of Christ, or Christ Himself, in Peter's answer to Jesus' earlier question "Who do men say that I the Son of man am?"
Here's a link for further elaboration, and for clarification for future readers:
http://www.gpcredding.org/petra.html
By
loren, at 8/05/2005 5:11 PM
Hi Gregory,
I'm glad you gave the explanation above because it does offer relief to the apprehension I was beginning to have. I don't totally agree with it, but at least I see where you're coming from and I think we can reach some common ground if I explain where I'm coming from, too.
First, I want to assure you that I do respect the viewpoints of the earthy church leaders, and I consider them very carefully. There is a world of prayerful thought in them, and this includes catholic counsels. Because I believe that authority is found in the truth itself (Jesus is the truth, so truth represents His authority,) no matter who the person voicing that truth may be. Yet I may also find points over which I disagree, for example, with Luther, if I feel that he has not portrayed Jesus as clearly as might be. If a clearer perspective of Him can be seen, I will always move toward it, and His own authority will naturally show through it.
In saying this, I do not think myself wiser than others in any way. To paraphrase Newton, If I see a little further, it’s because I stand on their shoulders, so I am grateful. And one day soon, others will stand on my shoulders and see further than me. But the real point is in Who we are seeing when we do this. When we are seeing Jesus, we are finding sound doctrine that no man can condemn. In Him are all treasures of wisdom and understanding. When the Bible foretells that we will come to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, it envisions a long, sometimes painful march toward that day, so we all need to be passionate for Him yet humble in ourselves.
The Catholic church as an institution had it’s beginning in the fourth century. Yes, I realize that even so, they would claim an unbroken chain from the days of Christ. But for that matter so would I, simply because I call on the name of Jesus today (Acts 2:39; Eph 3:21). The point being, that belittling reformers as Johnny-come-lately theologians, in itself, is a self-defeating argument. The same points could be made of the Catholic counsels. But I’m not really trying to go there. I really think it’s a non-issue in both cases, since truth and authority are in Christ Himself in a way that defies the ages.
Part of the problem has been that your statements, though I admire your passion, are far too general. You could absolutely win our hearts by being more specific, and pointing to Christ in the things you’re saying. You’ve claimed that each and every Catholic doctrine does this, so let’s hear the specifics. But let’s also stay on topic. This posting, for instance, was supposed to be on baptism, but we’ve used it to discuss a half dozen other issues.
On this blog we’re going to cover all the basic systematically, so have a little patience and present your cases when it’s time for those issue to come up. They eventually will. The table of contents gives the scheduled release dates for each topic, so you can usually use that to prepare yourself in advance.
Gregory, also bear in mind that the vast majority of people who view this blog are going to be Protestants. As a former protestant, you are aware that sweeping statements of Catholic authority and authoritative decrees are only going to send up red flags for them (1 John 2:27). So talk about Jesus. Explain, if you wish, that this is how the Catholic church sees it. And from there, trust the Lord and let Him be the one to win hearts. He will glorify Himself in the church throughout all ages, and I think we can all agree to defer to Him in that.
By
loren, at 8/05/2005 6:06 PM
Deal.
Problem is, though, that I can present nearly a dozen scriptural texts on the truth of baptismal regeneration, and you could produce nearly a dozen to support your view.
The problem is even greater, though, when we realise that more than half of those texts will be the exact same. Case in point would be 1 Peter 3:19-21, which we have both used already to bolster our side of this debate.
That's why the topic shifted to issues of authority. Because when it comes right down to it, the Bible Alone cannot answer the question--because our interpretation of Scripture cannot be corrected by the Scripture that we are interpreting.
All my life, I believed baptism was nothing more than a purely symbolic action that merely affirmed our faith in Christ. I was taught that while it was a good and right thing to do (Jesus was baptised, after all!) that it isn't strictly speaking necessary. That's why, even though I accepted Christ into my life at the young age of 5, I was not baptised until I was 16. Even then, it was out of a direct desire to be obedient to Christ, and not because of any rational explanation of why it was a good thing to do.
A few years later, as I read through the Bible, I was hit by a ton of bricks as I read 1 Peter. I was shocked at how I could have missed such a passage--how I couldn't even recall hearing a sermon on it! "Baptism now saves you" (3:20). I had taken it for granted that Scripture was clear that it was a symbolic gesture--but here it was, possibly not a plainer than day sentence in all the Bible! "Baptism now saves you"!
Puzzled greatly, I undertook a study of baptism--me and my Bibles (NKJV, NASB Gideon NT, and yes, even NIV). I discovered that St. Paul was baptised and his sins were washed away (Acts 22:16), that he refered to the process as the Christian equivalent of circumcision (ie, the entry into the New Covenant, Colossians 2:11ff). He mentions it again as dying with Christ and rising again with Him, thus being set free from sin (Romans 6:1ff). He tells St. Titus that it is the "Bath of rebirth and regeneration in the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5), which echoes Jesus' own statement to Nicodemus that "you must be born of water and of Spirit" (John 3:5). Notably, the first thing John records Jesus doing after this conversation, is baptising (John 3:22ff).
Notably, baptism is a (the?) key element in the Great Commission, both times it is recorded:
And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:18-20).
And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mark 16:15-16).
Unlike you, Loren, I don't see this second verse as a grey area. Belief and baptism are requisite for salvation (Romans 10:9 and 1 Peter 3:20 are neatly tied together in a nice bundle). On the other hand, if you don't believe, why would you be baptised? Or, if you were baptised, but stop believing, baptism alone won't save you.
What about those rare cases (that are always brought up) where a believer doesn't get the opportunity to be baptised? The Church teaches that God in His justice and mercy will still save someone in instance--provided, in His foreknowledge, He knows that, given the chance, they would have been baptised. This is known as the baptism of desire.
This is demonstrated in the famous case of the Thief on the cross, who is pronounced forgiven by Christ, and granted that he would be with Christ in Paradise. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us (forgive me for not being able to reference it--it's at church, as I said) Christ uses the sacraments to give us grace, but He is not bound by them. (I'll get the actual quotation for you Monday).
This has been the teaching of the Church since very early on. I'm not sure where your rationale of its beginnings in the 4th century come from, but the Church called itself Catholic long before Constantine.
The Apostles' Creed (so-called because it was a basic reflection of the core of the Apostles' teaching, not because they wrote it) has its origin in the 2nd century, as an official response to Gnostic heresy in the Church. Just as the Nicaean Creed spends a lot of effort hammering out Jesus' identity because it was combatting the Arian heresy of the day (which denied that Jesus was divine), the Apostles' Creed stresses the physical, historical reality of Christ over against the Gnostic notion of matter=evil, spirit=good. Thus we see very explicit references to Jesus' suffering:
"Born of the Virgin Mary
Suffered under Pontius Pilate
Was crucified, died and was buried."
This Creed (if you'll excuse the brief contextual rabbit trail) was written in the 2nd century to counter Gnosticism, as I said. But even then, it concludes with the words:
"I believe in the Holy Spirit
The Holy Catholic Church
The communion of saints
The forgiveness of sins
The resurrection of the body [another polemic against Gnosticism]
And the life everlasting."
We can split hairs on the definitions of terms in this Creed, but what's important is the self-understanding of the Church in that day. Catholic was synonymous with Christian. As such, the Catholic Church began at least 2 centuries before your claim below. I would argue, of course, that it began at least 2 and 2/3 centuries before (around AD 33, give or take ;) ).
I hope I've been specific enough (at least on the actual topic of baptism).
I have immensely enjoyed our interactions!
God bless you abundantly.
Gregory
By
Gregory, at 8/07/2005 3:15 AM
Just wanted to go back over the many comments in this posting and tie up the loose ends:
1 Peter 3:20-21 is very clear, and I cannot see how you can rationalise that away. Noah and his family were saved by passing through the water (yes, in the boat--but as a type, that is immaterial). St. Peter is very clear that, as a fulfilment of the type, we have baptism, which saves us now. The antitype, or fulfilment, is always greater than the type--and it doesn't always correspond 1-1. Isaac never actually died when Abraham sacrificed him. God stopped Abe from actually killing him. Yet, St. Paul declares that it was a type of Christ's resurrection. As such, just because the boat saved Noah doesn't negate the typology of baptism in that narrative. And because the antitype is always superior to the type, baptism itself is superior to the physical lives that were saved from the flood. Baptism saves our spiritual life. This is seen especially in Titus 3:5, where baptism is called "the bath of regeneration and rebirth"!
My second comment explains this well. But succinctly, Noah and His family were not saved by the water, they were saved by the ark. The water would have killed them! To help in the interpretation, Peter makes a ‘play on words’ six verses later to describe the ‘flood’ of dissipation, to verify that this is what the water signified; and in 2 Peter 2:5 he again equates the water to the destruction of sin.
I hate confrontation and in-your-face replies. I trust you can take the above as I meant it, and not as a harsh or overbearing attack.
Yes, I greatly dislike confrontation as well, so I’m glad we can agree to respect each other in a personal sense, and speak the truth in love.
So the question remains, who has the authority to interpret the Bible? Sola Scriptura does indeed break down into an authority-less system because of this reality. Yes, the Bible is authoritative because it is the Word of God, but words on a page cannot interpret themselves. When there are genuine disagreements over the text of Scripture, who is the final say on the truth of the matter?
When Paul preached the gospel to the Bereans, they searched the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were called ‘noble minded’ for doing this, and when they did, they believed (Acts 17:11,12). It sounds like God met them there (1 Cor 12:3). He seems willing to work with individuals. More on this later.
Saying "I'll examine the issue from Scripture myself, and decide which perspective is true," is not good enough, because now you're adding one more interpretation: your own--and based on your own interpretation you are authoritatively declaring that your interpretation is correct. It's circular and subjective.
For the Catholic church to claim that they have the authority to interpret Scripture is equally subjective, for counsels and popes have contradicted each other often. So the real question is, why accept their interpretation instead of mine? The argument is equally circular, if indeed that's how we see it. More on this later.
For Scripture to be an Authority, it needs to be interpreted. That interpretation needs to be Authoritative. For it to be Authoritative, it needs to come from an Authoritative teacher. And for that teacher to be Authoritative, it has to be set up by Christ, to whom all authority was given--and Christ has to give that teacher, its Tradition, and its Scripture, an infallible quality. Otherwise, its binding authority might cause people to be bound to error.
The only authoritative teacher is Christ Himself. (Matt 23:8-10). Dare we trust Him to glorify Himself in the church through all ages, world without end? (Eph 3:21). When we seek His testimony, we are promised that we will come to the unity of the faith with no more winds of doctrine (Eph 4:13-14). If we seek Him and make a mistake, He has promised to reveal even this to us (Phil 3:15). What can we say to these things? If God is with us, who can be against us? Finally, it is a two edged sword to say that an institution with the power to bind its beliefs on others could bind them with error. Objectively speaking, this could apply equally to the Catholic church if their premise is faulty.
Yes, Jesus is our authority, but He gave His authority to His Apostles, to His Church, when He sent them out. The Church is His body here on earth, and we are His ambassadors. Through Apostolic Succession, the Truth was preserved, pondered, and more fully understood in the Apostolic Tradition, of which Scripture is a part--even the most fundamental part--but not the whole.
Apostolic succession and authority, of course, is the Catholic’s own claim, and my silence should not be interpreted as tacit agreement. In fact, I would caution: “If anyone wants to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority. He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who seeks the glory of the One who sent Him is true, and no unrighteousness is in Him.”
(John 7:17-18). The Bible never says Jesus gave ‘authority’ to anyone in the sense of a power over other Christians (Matt 20:25,26), for no one has dominion over our faith (2 Cor 1:24), and it is to our master that we stand or fall (Rom 14:4). He has placed no mediator between us (1 Tim 2:5). He has also told us that He would teach us personally:
“But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.”
(I Jn 2:27)
I’ve already spoken on the case of the thief on the cross elsewhere.
The term ‘Catholic’ means ‘universal’ and referred to the whole church in the early years. In the fourth century the catholic church (in the sense that we know it today) simply applied this title to themselves; co-opting it, I think is the term. This is similar in concept to how the term ‘liberal’ was formerly a badge of honor in America, but it was successfully co-opted by socialist groups. So to distinguish themselves from them, the true, ‘classical liberals’ were forced to redefine themselves as ‘conservatives’. (FYI).
By
loren, at 8/08/2005 2:00 AM
My second comment explains this well. But succinctly, Noah and His family were not saved by the water, they were saved by the ark. The water would have killed them! To help in the interpretation, Peter makes a ‘play on words’ six verses later to describe the ‘flood’ of dissipation, to verify that this is what the water signified; and in 2 Peter 2:5 he again equates the water to the destruction of sin.
Peter is contrasting the baptised with those who are drowning in the "flood of dissipation". He's basically making the point that if you haven't been delivered through the baptism that saves, then you are stuck in the destructive aspect of the flood. I fail to see logically how "the destruction of sin" is in any way opposite or antithetical to "baptism [as the fulfilment of the typology of the flood] now saves you". Baptism saves precisely because it destroys the sinful nature, the "old man", and makes us born again as a New Creature in Christ.
Haggle over it all you want to, but you still haven't explained how "baptism now saves you" in this passage is actually related to the text and to the flood. If I take your understanding of it, then for one to be water-baptised, it means we are identified with the sinful who perish in the flood, and not with Noah--and that water baptism is a symbol of death.
Well, I've got news for you: it is!. We (or in the case of infant baptism--another discussion I'm not interested in pursuing here and now--our parents) acknowledge that we are in fact sinful. In the water, we do die. But as Paul writes in Romans 6, we die with Christ and also rise with Christ! He calls this the bath of regeneration and rebirth by the Spirit in Titus 3:5, and in so doing relates it right back to Jesus' teaching that we need to be reborn "of water and Spirit."
In the end, though, I have interpreted the passage according to the clear and direct meaning of the text--either that baptism does what is metaphorically (though literally--that's what a type is: a literal, historical reality that sybolises something to come) referred to by Noah's salvation through the flood waters in the Ark--or, on the other hand, that our sinfulness is taken away and obliterated through baptism just as sinful humanity was obliterated in the flood. In fact, both meanings together tell us the full truth: Our sins were obliterated in baptism as sinful men were drowned in the flood, while the New Creature in Christ was saved and lives just as Noah was saved and lived through the Flood.
All you have done is tell me why my interpretation can't possibly be right (but not convincingly) while not actually telling me how your interpretation of baptism can be reconciled with the text.
For the Catholic church to claim that they have the authority to interpret Scripture is equally subjective, for counsels and popes have contradicted each other often. So the real question is, why accept their interpretation instead of mine?
I too would like to go back and stick to the baptism issue, because I've gotten so busy recently (and there's the open forum over at Wayward). But I'll address this paragraph, because it seemed to sum up the heart of the rest of the argument.
Mainly I want to point out that you have just made a vague statement (while having earlier accused me of doing the same thing), that popes and councils have contradicted. The burden of proof is now on you to demonstrate that there has in fact been contradiction between councils, and when Popes have authoritatively defined something.
That's key, by the way, the "authoritatively defining" part. One pope can disagree with another. Not everything they say is graces with infallibility. But when they difinitively rule on something, that's it--and it cannot be contradicted. So the burden is on you to demonstrate where one dogmatic decree has been overturned by a later dogmatic decree.
Short of you actually demonstrating that claim, the short answer to why I should accept their authority over yours is a) They have the authority (based on Matthew 16, and the rulings of Church councils, like, eg. Damasus) to so teach and bind; and b) their interpretation has been the historical interpretation of the Church, unchanging--and that's because it lines up best with Scripture.
(Oh, and Catholic has always meant "universal" as in "in keeping with the whole".
CCC # 830-831:
The word "catholic" means "universal", in the sense of "according to the totality" or "in keeping with the whole." The Church is catholic in a double sense:
First, the Church is catholic because Christ is present in her. "Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church." [St. Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Smyrn. 8, 2: Apostolic Fathers, II/2, 311.] In her subsists the fulness of Christ's body united with its head; this implies that she receives from Him "the fulness of the means of salvation" [UR 3; AG 6; Eph 1:22-23.] which He has willed: correct and complete confession of faith, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession. The Church was, in this fundamental sense, catholic on the day of Pentecost [Cf. AG 4.] and will always be so until the day of the Parousia.
Secondly, the Church is catholic because she has been sent out by Christ on a mission to the whole of the human race: [cf. Mt 28:19.]
>All men are called to belong to the new People of God. This People, therefore, while remaining one and only one, is to be spread throughout the whole world and to all ages in order that the design of God's will may be fulfilled: He made human nature one in the beginning and has decreed that all children who were scattered should be finally gathered together as one....The character of universality which adorns the People of God is a gift from the Lord Himself whereby the Catholic Church ceaselessly and efficaciously seeks for the return of all humanity and all its goods, under Christ the Head in the unity of His Spirit.< [LG13:1-2; cf. Jn 11:52.]
Compare also CCC #832-856.
Notably, in AD 400 there was only one Christian Church, and many heretical groups. The Catholic Church called itself the Catholic Church to distinguish itself from these heresies. Thus, the Catholic Church did not "co-opt" it from anyone, since the heretical churches did not believe "according to the totality" but cut out parts [which is what heresy literally means: cutting away]. The Great Schism resulting in the Orthodox and Catholic Churches did not occur until 1054.)
By
Gregory, at 8/11/2005 4:28 PM
Hi Gregory,
Glad you stopped by again. I think we have a unique relationship where we can speak the truth in love without the other taking offense, and we're both open to hear other views.
There's really no sense haggling on this issue, the lines have been drawn. Let future readers decide. However, in an earlier comment, you did mention the correlation between baptism and circumcision, based on Col 2:11,12, which I forgot to address. So for the sake of future readers, I'd like to clarify by using the same analogy:
Abraham was justified by faith, which was accounted to him for righteousness. How then was it accounted to him? While circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised (Rom 4:10). His circumcision was merely a seal of what he already had through faith(v 11).
In the same way, baptism is a seal of the salvation we already have, even while unbaptized, simply because we have believed the gospel. The gospel, not baptism, is the power of God to salvation for the one who believes (Rom 1:16). This is not to downplay baptism in any way, which you know I would never do. It is only to tell what's what.
In Titus 3:5, I think the 'washing of regeneration', sounds more like Eph 5:26, the 'washing of water by the word' since the context of both is santification. (Titus 3:7 shows us that the person under discussion had already been justified). So the real issue in each passage is whether they are working out their salvation with fear and trembling (Surprise! we agree on something :-)
Peter also specifies that the washing of flesh in baptism is not what he's talking about in his analogy (1 Peter 3:21). So the part about getting wet is not the truly important point. His meaning goes deeper.
Here's the concise explanation: We abide in Christ our savior, and so we pass from death into life, as Noah and His family showed in a metaphoric sense through abiding in the ark (you yourself pointed out that the NT anti-type excels the OT type, which I agree with).
But if your interpretation is correct, it would mean that the ungodly, who perished in the flood, were thereby 'baptized and saved', and the ones in the ark would be the ones who were condemned, because they did not perish in the flood. Of course, everyone can see that can't be the intended meaning.
Speaking of loops, here's the one that I see you offering repeatedly. I have said that Authority is in Christ Himself, and expressed in His word. Whoever represents Him by His word represents His authority, whether it's the pope or the lad who pushes the plow. There is no loop in any of that; authority is not delegated, but represented: the authority remains with Christ throughout:
And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore . . . " (Matt 28:18-19)
However, your opinion is that we must open a loop for Catholicism to interpret the Scriptures for everyone else, and then we must close it again. And who is it that says so? Catholicism itself says so. In itself, that is way too self serving.
Why should we open that loop to allow their interpretations, and not open the same loop to other Christians? Ana-baptists, for example, can trace their roots back to the first century in a continuous line since the days of the apostles. Not that I agree with the belief of apostolic succession, mnd, but here's an ad hominem argument if you will allow it:
Jesus simply prayed for those who would believed through the apostle's word (John 17:20). When I read the Bible for myself, that's what I'm getting. There is a direct 'apostolic succession' from them to me, or to any other Christian who does the same. This is very direct, one step only, and it's the very step that Jesus spoke of. So why would anyone consider it more authoritative if there are many steps in between, spanning hundreds of years? God doesn't have grand children. And for that matter (sorry to bring this up,)some of those popes have excommunicated previous popes. And that doesn't sound like an unbroken chain to me.
Whether or not popes or councils have contradicted each other is not the real point either. Gregory, the point is whether they contradict the Lord Jesus. How can they claim to get their authority from Him, and yet contradict Him? Therein lies the true issue.
I also have to take exception with your interpretation of Ignatius of Antioch, because it includes another loop that the Lord did not intend, no, nor even did Ignatius himself:
Yes, I would fully agree that all of the Lord's fullness is in the church (Eph 1:23). But the church is a universal body of all believers, and this is the sense in which Ignatius offers it. And Jesus Himself is Head over all things to the church (Col 1:18). I'm afraid you've taken an additional and unintended step by identifying the church as an institution with headship over it's individual members. Yet the Bible makes it clear that Jesus Himself is the head of each man - not a church institution (1 Cor 11:3).
Gregory, let me ask you something personal. If you could go straight to Jesus Himself -- would you? If you could trust that He is the real teacher and you could depend on Him, and receive - yes, revelation of who He is and what He means to you -- would you personally do it? If you knew that He was inviting you to this very thing? That desire would set my heart burning within me. How about you?
By
loren, at 8/11/2005 6:22 PM
When Jesus was asked a question, He always answered each part of it. With that as my goal, here are some answers in a 'housekeeping' effort, to the unanswered points in this commentary:
For a site that talks about going back to the basics, and back to an Apostolic, Christ-focused Christianity, you really missed on this issue.
This site is not necessarily focused on going back to the days of the apostles. The apostles thought they were the end time church, and that’s what they strove to be. This site does incorporate their progress, but it does so in the sense of also pressing onward to fulfill their goal.
Catholics do not, and did not teach a regemen of good works in order to be saved.
The intention of the article was to address certain unscriptural practices which the catholic church prescribes, such as saying the rosary (Matt 6:7), lighting candles for the dead, blind submission to authority, the re-sacrifice of Christ through the mass, or doing penance (as opposed to repenting). The Catholic concept of Purgatory is a perfect example that, in their estimation, faith did not save them. But prayers, indulgences and candles make the final difference (Gal 3:3).
I contend that your premise of having a new Reformation in these end times is a false premise, because I sincerely believe that revival is what we need.
A reformation is willing to re-think things, to make sure we have them right. The Bible actually foretells a reformation that will occur in the end times, to spring from ‘the knowledge of the Son of God’. This can be seen at the premise level of Eph 4:13-16.
A revival, on the other hand, merely gets people zealous about the understanding they already have. God answers in favor of the reformation by giving the prophecy I mentioned. Consider that if the present situation was acceptable to Him, no place would have sought for changing it. So He does see the need for change.
So the question remains, who has the authority to interpret the Bible?
When Jesus returned to the Father, He sent the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth (John 16:13).
“But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.” (I Jn 2:27).
Dare we believe that Jesus is telling us the truth? Dare we trust Him for ourselves? When we get things wrong it’s because we have listened to man rather than God – it is never the other way around. Each disagreement in this posting stems from this, so this too must be addressed.
“Who has the authority to interpret the Bible?” contains the concept of “to whom do we owe allegiance?” which is really the main point of the question. It is answered when the Bible tells us that we will give an account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead (1 Pet 4:5), for God will judge the world in righteousness through Jesus Christ (Acts 17:31). So it is not to man that we owe allegiance, but to Jesus; not to the kingdom, but to the King. And I might add, the ever present king (Rom 8:15).
The kingdom of God is a universal body encompassing believers from all ages, including those who have passed on. The church is simply the material element of the kingdom, as it exists in the world at any given moment in history. The question contained a goal that is based on bolstering the worldly element as a mediator between ourselves and God (the church must come in between you), but the true intention of Scripture is to show us God through Jesus Christ.
Saying "I'll examine the issue from Scripture myself, and decide which perspective is true," is not good enough, because now you're adding one more interpretation: your own--and based on your own interpretation you are authoritatively declaring that your interpretation is correct. It's circular and subjective.
According to Ephesians 4:13-16, when we look for Jesus in our understanding of the Scriptures we will come to the unity of the faith without winds of doctrine. We will get it right. When we do this, the subjectivity involved is the Lord’s own subjectivity, a.k.a., the truth, and we will attain to the truth.
In seeking the Lord Himself in this way, we are not adding another layer of interpretation; but rather, it becomes our original understanding in relation to the one to whom we must give an account. So this approach is not circular, it is direct. If, on the other hand, we accept the dogmatic decree of some other body, which we may not even understand or personally agree with, we have then added an extra layer. That is where it becomes circular.
When we reach decisions in this way, it is not meant to be binding on anyone but ourselves, between ourselves and God. However, with this heart we are growing in all things into Him who is the head – Christ – and thus all true hearted Christians will find themselves in a natural harmony (Eph 4:15,16)
. . . a nice, spiritual-sounding touch, but it basically means that none of the previous generations of Christianity mean anything to you if they fail to meet up with your own view of Christ. It's the same autonomy-cleverly-disguised-as-piety that you yourself reject as a model of the end-times heresy!
Yes, it does mean that previous counsels, etc, mean nothing if they do not meet the standard of truly portraying Christ. For how else would their findings be authoritative? (Matt 28:18) If their views do not portray Him as fully as might be, and stand to be improved, they certainly should be. But this is not autonomy in the sense that you describe it, since it is wholly captive to the perspective of Jesus Himself, which is our Christian fealty.
For themselves, the men in those counsels may have been sincere in seeking Christ, and God receives them because He understand their intentions (I’m assuming the best of them, as love would do). But for us to find a flaw and still agree with them blindly, at the expense of seeing Jesus more clearly, which might otherwise be, is to seek autonomy from Christ Himself. A lazy spirituality might want to do that, but a passionate love for the Lord would not. That is closer in line to the description I gave in the end-time heresy module.
Again, do we dare to believe the Lord, and trust Him in teaching us? If not, why would we trust other men to do this for us? Do we consider them more capable than He? For He is the head of the church, not they. Although I have no problem discussing things with other Christians, I still take those thoughts to Jesus for His own thoughts on them, and so should we all. And the Holy Spirit will use the things Jesus said to guide us into the truth.
But when Christians sit and debate over the meaning of Scripture, often reaching irreconcilably opposite conclusions, this is not a testament to the Spirit of Truth guiding us into all truth! It is testament to the subtle seeds of rebellion sown in the hearts of believers by the arch-rebel.
I agree, but only in the context of my remarks from above. When there are differences, the enemy may very well be trying to play a hand. But you can bet your last dollar that his strategy will never be to point us to Jesus! So if disagreement exists, we should remember that the truth is in Christ, and this will help us sort things out.
And by the way, if there is disagreement, it is rather subjective to assume that cathoicism is the standard and others are the deviants. Objectively speaking, this is very self-serving.
in nearly every Catholic Church in every part of the world, you can go and meet with Christ, literally, physically and tangibly present in the Tabernacle--and every day you can receive Him in Holy Communion! Nowhere else is He so honoured!
The reference is to the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, in relation to the mass, dealt with in other comments. Meeting with Christ in this sense means, not literally meeting with Him, but merely touching the bread which represents Him. ‘Receiving Him every day’ was not the Lord’s intention, because this would have to envision an incremental approach. It would mean that somehow Jesus left us in the meantime, whereas He has promised to never leave us nor forsake us (Heb 13:5).
Also, we do not have to go so a specific place, such as a tabernacle, in order to meet with Him, for the Almighty does not dwell in temples made with hands (Acts 7:48,49). But rather, He continually dwells in our own hearts through faith (Eph 3:17)
The incremental approach envisioned in this remark is also dangerous because, in the same way, it produces a spiritual dependency on the ‘tabernacle’ where Jesus may be ‘met’, making them the mediators of His presence. Yet even the newest Christian has access to Jesus directly (1 Pet 2:2-4). The love of Christ Himself prevents me from trading this perspective for that one.
When the Authority that Christ Himself set up is rejected in favour of seeking only Christ, you have begun to seek a disembodied Head. Christ can only fully be known in and through His Church.
Jesus did not ‘set up authority’ in the church, but maintains that all authority is His own, both in heaven and on earth (Matt 28:18). This authority is not delegated to church leaders, but only represented by them, as discussed in other comments.
I do agree that the fullness of Christ is found in the church (Eph 1:23). But the church is the sum of all it’s members, with Jesus Himself as the Head. The remark above, on the other hand, envisions the church as an institution, mediating between the Lord Himself and the individual believers, which is wrong. When church leaders, as mediators, place themselves between the body and the head, this is the true ‘decapitation’. Conversely, when the members connect with the head, they grow into Him directly:
“but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head-- Christ– from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.”
(Eph 4:15-16)
By
loren, at 8/19/2005 2:26 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home