Hard Question for Catholics

Thinkingstuff,

I gave the example of Naaman the Syrian being cured on leprosy as an analogy to the sacrament, in that it involves God's grace, man's response of faith, and a physical act. You replied...

Was not God healing Naaman in the visible act of dipping in the Jordan an act of God's grace?

Again, I think you are splitting hairs. Naaman's dipping himself in the Jordan seven times did in fact accord the grace of healing from his leprosy. And I think sacraments DO work like that. God (Christ) gives a promise to do something in conjunction with a physical act, and the one who faithfully believes that God will do as He promised through that act thus partakes in that action and thus receives the promise.

The Scriptures themselves show the links between what came to be known as the 'sacraments' (particularly Baptism and Communion) and God's grace in Christ.

True, and in theological terms 'sacraments' early on referred to this outward signs of invisible grace (or means of grace). It's sort of like how terms like 'trinity', 'homoousious', 'hypostasis' came to have specific technical meanings for orthodox Christian beliefs.

To the following statements I made:
Quote:
So it's not a matter of being grace being "dispensed", as if it is some pseudo-substance that's divided up and distributed to the believer; it's the believer being united to Christ through faith by the gracious means of the sacraments He ordains.
Quote:
I'd say that Faith does make it in a real sense 'functional', but Christ has ordained the sacrament as the objective gracious means of uniting the believer (or the young child of a believer) to Himself.

You replied...

And I understand that question, coming as I have from a Baptist background and a previous Zwinglian belief regarding Baptism and Communion. That's why I posted that quote and article in my post above, as I think it addresses those concerns.

Perhaps. I think we need to be careful on judging matters like this solely on the basis of 'experience'. Remember there were those who 'believed in' Jesus (ie had some sort of subjective experience regarding Him), but Jesus did not necessarily commit Himself to them (John 2:23-24), and this statement by John was immediately followed by his recording the dialog between Jesus and Nicodemus about being 'born again'/'born of water and the Spirit'. One certainly is justified in wondering if those who have thought they were calling on Christ in salvation (perhaps accompanied by some emotions and even some behavioral changes) yet refuse to be Baptized and then partake of Communion (in disobedience to Christ), really had any objective ontological salvation experience despite some subjective changes (of varying duration).

Yes. There is not some 'well of grace' that is external to Christ ready to be 'divvied' up and distributed mechanistically. Grace is in Christ Himself.

Notice that it says "if a man remain (or abide) in Me and I in him, he will bear much fruit". There is also the case of the those branches in Him that don't bear fruit (and that don't abide) being cut off from the Vine (John 15:2,6). Jesus Himself mentions that a (if not 'the') primary way of abiding in Him is to faithfully eat His flesh and drink His blood (John 6:56). From another perspective is that it is those who keep His commandments who are abiding in Christ (1 john 3:240

It depends on if the child comes to 'abide' or not in the 'specific grace' given (ie being sacramentally joined to the Vine).

How would infants and very young children observeably display 'fruits of righteousness' that would empirically satisfy you given their level of maturity? And is it really fair to compare them to the Incarnate Word who was without a sin nature?

First, did you read the article I linked on my last post? It does in my opinion address some of your concerns, particuarly regarding baptism, both in the case of infants and adults. Second, is your personal observation methodologically adequate to reach a verdict on the objective efficacy of the sacraments in all cases, particularly when: (1)the caveat of the subjective conditions of faith/repentance is recognized, and (2)Christ's specific promises regarding these sacraments are appropriately considered? (ie John 3:3-5, Mark 16:16; John 6, Luke 22:19-20 c/w 1 Cor 10-11; etc)

Wouldn't you agree that as a finite human being your personal observation is limited both in terms of the specific numbers of people you've observed and the specific time frames in which you've observed them?

It depends on what you mean by effective. If one presupposes perhaps subconciously that sacraments somehow work without fail on anyone who mechanically partakes of them irrespective of faith/repentence (or future faith/repentance), then I can see how one can conclude that they don't work, particuarly if one bases this conclusion primarily on anecdotal evidence. However one person's anecdotal evidence may conflict with another one's, who may in fact testify to the personal effectiveness of the sacraments in his own life or in the lives of those he has observed, talked to, or read about. Ultimately one can point to the promises of Christ and the faith of the early undivided church as to the effectiveness of the sacraments in the life of the abiding believer

 

Recently I witnessed a baptism of two little boys. Though both were old enough to walk to the font, their parents still carried them. Have you noticed how we’re seeing more and more baptisms of children, youth and adults—not just babes-in-arms? In a missionary time, in a missionary church, smack dab in a mission field like North America, we can expect to see that sort of thing with greater frequency.

Later in the worship service, the two new “baptizees” got a little wild. Refusing to stay put in the pews, they kept “escaping” into the aisle of the church, making a small scene.

“Oh boy,” I thought to myself. “Those little guys and their parents have some learning to do, about how we ‘do church’ around here.” And almost immediately my own self-righteous words convicted me, making me realize that…. I was 100% correct.

Everyone, mark me, everyone who comes through the waters of Baptism has a whole lifetime to grow into the saving act and the enlivening identity God graciously bestows in the water-wed-to-the-Word. This washing is neither cheap fire insurance nor a precaution to be taken “just in case.” It is for life—full, free and eternal. Baptism and the Eucharist that nourishes the baptized is for life overflowing.

 

"In describing the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist, St. Augustine said that they were “visible words.” That is, the sacraments function in the same way that the bare Word works. The promise embodied in our Lord Jesus, the Word made flesh; the promise that grabs us by the ears in preaching; the promise that overflows from the printed Word,this same promise splashes in the water of Baptism and nourishes in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. God’s claiming, naming promise scrubs our skin, fills our mouths, gets deep down inside of us.

But if Baptism and the Eucharist convey the same Lord, utter the same promise we receive in the bare Word itself—why bother? Isn’t the spoken Word enough? God seems to think we need more--just as a married couple needs to do more than say they love each other. The sacraments are like the hugs, kisses and other wondrous acts that “seal the deal” in marriage. God wants to make sure that we don’t miss his promise, so God wraps the promise in syllables (for our ears) and signs or elements (for our other senses)."

 

Maybe he should have taken some soap with him and he would have accomplished a better job of washing dirt from his body. That is the only washing that water did.

What can wash away my sin?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus!

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Water doesn't take away sin; it never did unless you have the same pagan beliefs as Hindus. It is completely superstitious. Baptism is totally symbolic of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is not sacramental; does not impart grace; does not forgive sins; cannot be a part of salvation; is not for infants or unbelievers, and never was. Only a believer can be baptized according to the Bible. John made sure one had repented first. Only then did he baptize them. So it was in the rest of the NT.

Baptismal regeneration is indeed a heresy.

 

I literally wept when I read this. How can..? This is...? Words fail me.

"Grow into the saving act"...? "Bestows in the water-wed-to-the-word"...? "For life, full, free, and eternal"...? Oh dear God, how can ANYONE think or believe this act of pouring water on a baby's head has ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING to do with salvation?

And you wonder why we consider Catholics lost? It is tripe like this, which is wholly disjointed from the bible and what it teaches, that FORCES us to wonder!

Amen and amen. Baptist does nothing in and of itself. It is a ritual that has absolutely no bearing on salvation. We are to do it in obedience, but we are no less saved if we don't, but are being disobedient. Baptist is an outward show of what God has done for us, the display of our death burial, and resurrection in and through Christ. But that is ALL it is... an outward show. Other that being a ritual we do to show the world who we now are, baptist does nothing but make one wet.

I am beginning to see some of what my former Catholic friends have told me is true. I believed them in that I thought they were telling me their perceptions of things but I didn't actually think that people really believed this stuff. I am now seeing that people not only believe it, but are staking their eternal lives on a man-made notion brought about to help pull pagans in for their gold way back when. I will be calling Rich and Kim tonight to apologize and ask their forgiveness.

 

I don't know if this answers your question. However, here is the Presbyterian position regarding the baptism of infants and it's merit:

"Both believers and their children are included in God's covenant love. Baptism, whether administered to those who profess their faith or to those presented for baptism as children, is one and the same sacrament. The baptism of children witnesses to the truth that God's love claims us before we are able to respond in faith. The baptism of those who enter the covenant upon their own profession of faith witnesses to the truth that God's gift of grace calls for fulfillment in a response of faithfulness.-- New Directory of Worship approved by the 1984 General Assembly."

This would also be a Lutheran, Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox, Methodists position.

 

Did you say "Presbyterian"? Try again.

Pouring, sprinkling and immersion are acceptable, but only after faith in Christ.
The RCC heresy of baptismal regeneration is absolutely rejected.

http://www.freepres.org/fpcarticles.asp?fpcarticles

 

Not a little 'splinter' schismatic Presbyterian sect, DHK, the VAST majority of 'Real' Presbyterian's believe in the sacrament of baptism and the validity of infant baptism.

 

Not quite. If you study their theology carefully enough you begin to understand covenant theology. They believe that baptism takes the place of circumcision (a wrong assumption), and therefore they (like Israel) are admitted into the covenant family. From there Presbyterians vary in their doctrine as do Baptists.

 

Wow, you mean the same covenant theology that the Catholic Church teaches?
I wonder where they got that idea?

 

I would hardly call it little.
And because it stands for the truth, it is not the one that is schismatic. That is the typical way that the RCC has operated ever since its inception. Catholics call Baptists schismatic since they are the ones that stand for the truth, whereas the RCC is full of heresy that even they cannot defend from the Bible such as purgatory and indulgences. The one corrupt act that set Luther off was when he was walking through the streets of Rome and he saw Tetzel selling indulgences and making a profit from doing so. Defend that practice from the Bible. But it wasn't Luther that was the schismatic. It was the heretical doctrines of the RCC that could not and would not be reformed and come back in line to the teachings of the Bible.

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
--Was it Tetzel or Luther that was walking contrary to the doctrine of the Bible, and should be avoided?

 

So will you convert to Presbyterianism now? You just admitted they are the same? You naivete shows.
In fact Rippon who has posted on this forum is a covenant theologian. So is Dr. Bob.
Maybe you should become a fundamental reformed Baptist.

 

DHK said: (Presbyterians) "They believe that baptism takes the place of circumcision (a wrong assumption), and therefore they (like Israel) are admitted into the covenant family."

And how is this different than the Catholic belief?

DHK, you can keep throwing out the 'bait' of purgatory, Mary, etc. Your like a J.W., when they don't like the direction a discussion is going, they they try to change the subject.

 

You decide how it is different:

1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith

THE BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH

(An Introduction to this Baptist Confession)

All of the above was taken from:
http://sovereigngracechurch.com/?page_id=12

It is the church that Dr. Bob, our administrator attends.

 

The following is taken from an 'Orthodox Presbyterian' website:

"Therefore, in the New Testament era, children of believers, since they are church members, are to be given the sign of baptism.

"All this seems to make sense," someone might say, "except—Doesn't our Lord clearly annul this in Mark 16:16 ('He who believes and is baptized shall be saved')? Doesn't he teach that faith has to come before baptism? Don't we have to conclude that since infants cannot believe, therefore they cannot be baptized?" How do you respond to that?

Well, first, note that this objection would also have to apply to infant circumcision. In effect God told Abraham to believe and be circumcised. Personal faith was just as necessary for salvation in the Old Testament as it is in the New. Adult converts to Judaism had to believe first and then be circumcised. And yet, God also commanded infant circumcision!

Second, you can see that this objection is mistaken because it proves too much. The fundamental argument is that because infants cannot believe, they cannot be baptized. However, if you apply this same logic to the rest of the verse, you are forced to conclude that because infants cannot believe they cannot be saved either. This objection not only keeps infants from baptism, it keeps them from heaven.

Third, you can see that this objection is mistaken because it is Pelagian to the core. By making baptism depend on human ability, it assumes that saving faith is a product of the flesh and not a work of God's sovereign grace. But the Bible insists that no one but no one—whether infant or adult—is able to trust Christ until the Holy Spirit supernatually enables him (Ephesians 2:1ff.). Thank God, he's not bound by our inability, or we would all be without hope! But what is impossible with man, is possible with God! The sovereign God can even work faith in an infant (Psalm 22:9, "You made me trust in you even at my mother's breast")! The sovereign God can even work faith in an unborn child. (Trivia question: who was born again before he was even born? John the baptist! See Luke 1:41.) And that's part of what baptism says: "You did not choose me, but I chose you" (John 15:16).

Now DHK, you forget that I followed your discussions with Carson Weber on the Catholic teaching on baptism for a long time. What part of the above statement would a Catholic not agree??

 

I doubt it. It was probably taken from a liberal Presbyterian site.

That is not orthodox, but typical for most Presbyterians today.

That faith must precede baptism. That is what the Bible teaches. There is no instance of any infant being baptized. Infants cannot have faith. It was only 60 years ago that Presbyterians and Baptists stood hand in hand with each other fighting modernism and standing for the fundamentals of the faith. I have showed you the statement of faith of the one group of Presbyterians that still take a fundamental stand. Why don't you accept it?

Furthermore, go back a number of years and look in virtually all the Presbyterian commentaries of the 19th and 18th centuries. Not one of them believe in baptismal regeneration. Every one of them denounce the pope as the antichrist, and the doctrines of the RCC as heresy. They don't mince words. They were the ones that were orthodox. Look up the meaning of orthodox. (ex. Albert Barnes)

Abraham was before the Mosaic covenant; before the Law.

The church did not take the place of Israel. That in itself is a heresy known as Replacement Theology--another heresy of the RCC. But it is not what the Presbyterians believe.

That is an inference that you draw from that passage and that passage only. Since the Bible is silent one must remain silent. It is also heresy to make up such man-made doctrines as "limbo."

You quotes Scripture giving Scriptural evidence, but at the same time you want to deny it by rationalization and philosophy. What's up with that? Does the Holy Spirit have a part in one's salvation or not? A simple yes or no will do.

You choose to believe heresy over and above the Bible. The Bible says a person is saved by grace through faith (Eph.2:8). You deny that. John was not born again until he believed. He had to make a choice. That verse you referred to simply points out that God foreknew John's choice.

This verse speaks of discipleship. He is speaking to his disciples. It has nothing to do with baptism. The topic of baptism is not found in that passage. How do you get baptism out of Jesus speaking to his disciples? You can't.

Catholics post heresy. They take Scripture out of context as you just did. That is the way the J.W.'s post. John 15:16 has nothing to do with baptism, and you know it.
The verse in Mark has nothing to do with infants. He was speaking to his disciples, and his disciples are not infants. What a ridiculous inference you made.
You take scripture after scripture out of context, and then believe Catholic lies like limbo, when you can't explain something from the Scripture. True? Of course it is.

 

Well, DHK, I'll let you read the 'Orthodox Presbyterian' site for yourself.

Did you see the quotation marks around what was posted? It is the Presbyterian view, not mine. You are calling the Orthodox Presbyterians heretical this time.

Take John 15:16 up with the 'Orthodox Presbyterians' that is their position as well.

http://www.opc.org/cce/tracts/WhyInfantBaptism.html

So you think the Orthodox Presbyterian's are liberal?? That is not what you have said in previous posts.

 

It is an interesting site, and they are more conservative than most. I will grant you that. Having said that, if you are going to be fair in your labeling of Presbyterians, you would have to label them as one of those "small schismatic sects," as you said of the Free Presbyterians. The OPC is a "small sect" of the Presbyterians which have only about 200 churches in all of America and not representative of the Presbyterian movement in America today.

Their theology seems to me to be very confused. I could go point by point through their statement, but what good would that do? Neither you nor I are Presbyterians. Suffice it to say that if you became a member of the OPC, you would be closer to the truth than you are now.

I assumed it was liberal as I did not see a link to go to. It is more conservative than most as it claims:

Many liberals don't even know what a professing believer is. So that, at least, is encouraging.
The reasoning behind baptizing children is totally fallacious.
That the church existed in both Old and New testaments is wrong.
That baptism takes the place of circumcision is wrong.
This whole line of reasoning is both unscriptural and wrong:

No Baptist would agree to this. No Catholic would agree to this.
Read the conclusion at the end:

It seems that their infant baptism is not much different than a Baptist dedication after all.

 

Funny how the focus has been shifted from Catholicism to a minor sect of Presbyterians that, although they "baptize" infants, do not believe that infant baptize has diddly squat to do with salvation.