In the ecumenical spirit of Evangelicals and Catholics Together, Tim from Christus Victor and I have been debating doctrinal issues in order to better understand each others beliefs. This is the second discussion following the three part series on Salvation. These posts will probably be of little interest to those who are bored by theological arguments but for anyone else, we welcome you to jump in and add your opinion.
This is my initial response to Tim’s post on baptism:
The wording of this argument, in my opinion, is somewhat misleading and sets up a false dilemma. Tim appears to be framing the argument in a way that implies that if baptism is symbolic then it is not “for the forgiveness of sins.” The evangelical belief is that it is both.
In my view, the real question shouldn’t be whether baptism is “symbolic” but rather what does is it that baptism does for a believer. Both Catholics and evangelicals believe that baptism is “necessary” but for different reasons.
If I understand it correctly the Catholic view of baptism can be explained by the following syllogism:
1) All are born with Original Sin
2) Original Sin prevents us from doing God’s will.
3) Baptism removes Original Sin.
4) Therefore, baptism is necessary in order to be able to do God’s will.
Catholics believe that justification is a process and that baptism is the necessary first step on that path. Since the question of how we are justified would extend beyond the bounds of a discussion of baptism and there it is likely that I am misrepresenting the Catholic view, I’ll stop here and allow Tim the opportunity to correct me.
1
A few thoughts off the top of my head. In the baptisms of John the Baptist the key word is repentance of sin not water. The thief on the cross who asked Jesus to remember him when He came into his kingdom was certainly baptized by the Holy Spirit for his confession of sinfulness and faith in Jesus but no water. While Peter had Cornelious baptized with water, it came after the Holy Spirit had already come to Cornelious. These seem to support the evangelical view that baptism with water is symbolic. Now let's get to the real meat, infant baptism. Find me a Bible quote to support water baptism of someone who is incapable of repentence providing salvation.
posted on 01.31.2004 1:00 PM2
I think that representing the evangelical view in merely symbolic terms is perhaps unfair; just as there are differences of opinion in any non-hierarchial system (unlike the rigid system of Catholicism) so in the world of evangelicals there will be a wide gamut of opinions. The fact that Tim seems to feel fine with essentially stereotyping all evangelicals is a bit unsettling. There are, in my opninion, more issues of subtlety here (see paragraph on infant baptism below) that may or may not be adequately expressed by the use of the term "symbolic".
Also, I found Mike's comments (as opposed to Tim's) to be much more to the point- it seems that the real argument should be about the issue of infant baptism- but then again, that leads less to an argument between Catholicism and Evangelicalism and more about Catholicism versus much of Evangelicalism- after all, there are those few denominations that do practice infant baptism (reformed, Presbyterian, etc.)
Interesting debates though- keep it up!
-Curtis Schweitzer
posted on 01.31.2004 9:01 PM3
A few distinctions will help clarify the Catholic idea of Baptism, especially for Evangelicals.
A key difference is how the end, salvation and entering Heaven, are understood. There is a similar problem with Purgatory: Catholic Faith says no one enters heaven who is not a Saint, perfect and perfectly free of sin and its effects. And Catholic Faith says we are to be perfect and sinless in this life. The saints we venerate are Christians who achieved this (by grace, by grace...don't be leaping at my throat so fast)in their lifetimes, or by martyrdom at their death.
There is a grat and profound theology of sin, and a big Catholic focus on it, for these reasons, e.g. about mortal and venial sins. Some Christians are thought never to have committed a mortal sin, St. Thomas Aquinas for example. From Original sin we all take a share of personal darkness, confusion about holy things, and weakness before all temptation; except for the Mother of God, who was born with the special privilege of having no share in original sin. She had no sin and committed no sin from her conception. This was a necessary preparation for the birth of the Christ because Christ's humanity was taken from his mother, and it was necessary that there be a sinless source for that humanity.
Baptism, sorry to take so long to get here, is necessary to allow every other Christian the sinless beginning which he or she would not otherwise have, and then has the opportunity and duty to continue forever. All are called to be holy, perfect before God.
I believe that Evangelicals do not hold that we are to be truly perfect in this life and the next. As I understand it, Evangelicals with Luther and others, hold that human nature itself is tainted by sin.
Somehow, to be without sin would be to be inhuman. This difference is a nearly insurmountable obstacle to reconcilation.
Another important distinction is between the ordinary course of life and the emergency parts of our existence. The good thief is not in a position to leaf through an impressively bound copy of the King James or any other bible and to grow mournful contempating his misspent life. He is in an emergency situation. Salvation is immediate, by faith, and his perhaps the greatest example for all of us.
If salvation is by faith, then what about baptism? Baptism makes us innocent and restores a lot of our native sense of good and strength against temptaion. Daily life offers all of us plenty of occasions to diminish and finally destroy that innocence. To destroy our innocence is to destroy our salvation. We are not then without recourse and God still loves us when we commit sins, even great sins. But if we sin against God we are also rejecting him and there is an accounting to be made. But at the outset of life (for infants) and from the moment of first action in faith for adults, Baptism gives us the innocence which allows us to grow always closer and be ever more powerful in God's love. From our baptism begisn the great work of salvation, our own and helping in others. Of course God's grace is prior to all this. Grace for grace, as Augustine says. But that doesn't diminish our responsibility. We pray for that grace, we use it, we fall on our knees in gratitude for it on those many occasions when we see that we have been easily (or fortunately) able to pass through a time of trial. For the vigilent Christian, this can be hourly.
The other sacraments are to support and extend the grace of Baptism.
The baptism of John is a symbolic baptism, which is made clear in the New Testament (if I were a Protestant I'd have the citation at my fingertips - but is a grace you bible thumpers have been give, so help me out. (If someone wants to call me a body-sercant of a foreign potentate, be my guest, as long as we can talk about it.
Baptism is how the normal course of Christian life is designed by Christ to be carried out. But life is long and often horrible and generations of millions will always have to live outside the blessed round He designed for us. So it is all the more right that there be 'emergency' means. When the Chinese Communists lock you away in a basement to die, and you do, and never have a chance at formal baptism, there is always simple faith, from a chance hearing of the name of Christ perhaps, to allow faith to form in a soul. Perhaps even in a soul that has never heard of Christ. It is impossible for the Beast to take from Christ's grasp any of the souls given to him by his Father.
So Catholics recognize both ways to heaven. We pray to avoid an unprovided death, that is a death without a holy priest to send us off with the assistance of the last sacraments. The other way, the emergncy way, exists, but it is not a secure or regular way. All who must travel that path should be prayed for especially. The Spirit may be with them, but there no promises on that score.
If this sounds mechanical and like 'cheap grace', well that is because in a way it is. Why not? None of us is going to the Father in Heaven on our own, by our own efforts. Baptism is a vehicle for gathering in masses and masses of not very motivated or perfected souls, of giving the best path to the most people. It is also a way to allow us to begin to strive in our own behalf, to do the works that will save us (again, always, by and with and through the grace of God).
St. Paul said we must work out our salvation with fear and trembling (someone please can help me with which letter and perhaps a better rendering of his words).
Cordially, in Christ,
Douglas Alexander
Camarillo, California
4
Simply put sin is anything out of God's will. Anyone who thinks that they can live without sinning is kidding themselves and has no understanding about how holy God is and how sinful man is. Remember when Jesus talking about anger said: Matt 5:21 ¶ "You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' 22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. Angry with your brother and you're a murder by God's standards. The anger was where the murder stemmed from and the rest is just a mater of degrees.
You might not be a sinner by man's standards, but you certainly sin with regularity by God's standards.
As for the mother of our Lord being sinless, I can find in the Bible that she was a virgin and it was necessary that she be to fulfil prophecy. I find nothing in the Bible to substantiate all the rest of the characteristics ascribed to her by the previous writer. They are simply the traditions of men. In todays age the question might reasonably be asked: Do we realy know if there was any genetic link between Jesus and Mary at all or did she just carry the baby that the Holy Spirit placed in her. Mary certainly deserves to be honored, God already honored her by choosing her to the earthly mother of God the Son born in a human body, but not deified.
5
Did I miss something or did you give the "Evangelical position" on Baptism in some detail elsewhere? Or are you saying Symbols are Necessary? What does it accomplish, i.e. how is the believer different after Baptism?
Also, Catholics belive pouring is adequate, and in baptism of infants. Some belive only immersion is valid, and only of someone at least of the age of reason. I ask this because it might be relevant to or focus the first question though I don't want to start another debate thread.
posted on 02.02.2004 9:02 AM6
Haven't found the evangelical postition either, so I'll give you my evangelical postition. Water baptism is a public affermation of a believers faith in Christ. The symbolism involved is death to sin symbolized by immersion and rebirth in Christ symbolized by the rising from the water. Sprinkling or pouring kind of looses the picture, but it is still the same public affermation.
The baptism of the Holy Spirit is the one that deals with cleansing from sin.
As for the infants, if we look at the different responses of David to the death of his child by Bathsheba and to the death of Absolom his adult son who had rebelled against God's anointed (David). In the first he got up right after the death and said I can go to him but he cannot come to me and in the second he was inconsolable. He believed that he would meet the infant again after this life but feared that Absolom was lost
7
It sounds to me like Catholics are the ones
who are being stereotyped here, and I think
you need to learn a bit more about Catholocism
before posting- we do practice infant Baptism, and our system is not always "rigid" as you say.