Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Emmaus | 51569 | ||
Hank, I apologize for being so slow in responding to your post. I have been delayed by more pressing domestic concerns and pleasures. I must admit that I am loathe to enter into the current debate, since it seems to be going nowhere just fine without my excess energy input. I believe I saw a post by you asking if anyone's position on the question had been changed. There was not a single answer in the positive, which was no surprise since your question must have at some level been rhetorical. That being said, I will offer my thoughts on the points and questions you raised. "But the real issue about water baptism, Emmaus is, or so it seems to me, is it salvific? Is it an act, a ritual, a sacrament -- call it what you will -- without which salvation is impossible? ..The Bible clearly exalts Christ and his redemption through His shed blood on the cross as being our one and only means for justification. ...., how does all this hue and cry about the salvific properites of water baptism set with you from your perspective as a Catholic? "--Hank If one acknowledges Christ and his redemption through His shed blood on the cross as being our one and only means for justification, does that of necessity rule out water baptism as an effective and ordinary means of transmitting the grace of justification won by Christ's sacrifice on the cross? I think not. I think a case can be made for baptism as the ordinary means of the transmission of that grace in light of Jesus' own command and other verses supporting that position which have already been cited ad infinitum. But I sense something more at work here. I sense a particular priciple at work in this debate, which I have followed in only a cursory manner. That principle is the principle of exclusion or separation; the principle of "either or." It is the priciple of "faith or works", "Scripture or Tradition", "spiritual or physical." It is the principle of "alone", "faith alone", "scripture alone", "grace alone". This jumps out at me because I come from place where the inclusive principle, the "both and" is allowed to exist. "Faith and works" (properly understood), "Scripture and Tradition", "spiritual and physical" are not seen as always incompatible and always mutually exclusive, but rather integrated and inseparable, like two sides of the same coin. This is seen especially in the sacraments which we see as encounters with Christ, where God's grace is transmitted through man and matter even as it was in the Incarnation, in a certain sense the ultimate sacrament, Jesus, from whom all sacraments derive. Even the Church is a sacrament in this sense. But these are mysteries of faith that must be seen through the eyes of faith, like we see the greatest mystery, Jesus Christ, true God and true man. Not to mention the Trinity. If God would choose flesh as the means of our redemption, should we flinch to think He might choose to use matter like water as a means of tramitting the grace He secured on the cross by his physical flesh and blood? I sense a fear of the physical or created matter in the debate. As if the water would dilute or corrupt the grace flowing through it. If the Incarnation was not taken for granted in the debate, I suspect some might fear the corruption of Jesus' spirit by his flesh. I suspect some might have feared Jesus' spit and the earth he mixed it with would have corrupted his healing grace when he placed it on the eyes of the blind man. But I think this fear is all at an intuitive level that is not being articulated. I think that both sides sense that there is more at stake in this debate than just water, but just can not get past the water issue. I have already expressed my thought that baptism is not a work of man, but a work of Christ applying his saving grace to us as we encounter him in his Church. Having expressed my personal thoughts on the matter (no pun intended), I will now provide an example of the inclusive, "both and" princple in the form of offical magisterial teaching from the Catechism. The last sentence of the paragraph is as essential as the beginning and sums the paragraph. "1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.[John 3:5] He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.[Matt 28:19-20] Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.[Mark 16:16] The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments." Emmaus |
||||||
2 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 51584 | ||
Emmaus: I was wondering where you were during this discussion! Just to encourage you, my prayers have been with the Catholic church a great deal lately in light of the current crisis. You wrote: "If one acknowledges Christ and his redemption through His shed blood on the cross as being our one and only means for justification, does that of necessity rule out water baptism as an effective and ordinary means of transmitting the grace of justification won by Christ's sacrifice on the cross?" There are two main problems I have with that orientation: 1. The case of the Old Testaments saints (especially the case of Abraham) being clearly declared righteous on the basis of belief. 2. When one says that baptism is an "ordinary" means of justifying grace, that leaves the door open to saying that there are a number of ways that we can be justified. I am not saying that it is impossible for God to work that way, only that there doesn't seem to be any biblical support to suggest He does. I see that the work of Christ on the Cross as the grounds of my justification (the reason why I am justified). God's grace is the cause and my faith is the means by which I am declared righteous. You wrote: 'But I sense something more at work here. I sense a particular priciple at work in this debate, which I have followed in only a cursory manner. That principle is the principle of exclusion or separation; the principle of "either or." It is the priciple of "faith or works", "Scripture or Tradition", "spiritual or physical."' At least in my case, it is not one to the exclusion of the other. It is putting everything in its proper place. Tradition encapsulated in and grounded in Scripture. Works of obedience as a result of justifying faith. Physical elements of the sacraments pointing to and sealing spiritual realities rather than being/causing them ex opare operato. I take a much more sacramental view of baptism and the Lord's Supper than many other Protestants do. While I obviously disagree with you on transubstantiation, I also believe that the Lord's Supper is not just a bare memorial, but is a sacrament that conveys "confirming grace." Likewise, baptism is a mystery that is inextricably linked to our justification but not to be confused as an element of it. We see this in other aspects of our common beliefs as well, such as in the Definition of Chalcedon. Is Christ God or man? He is both. However, he is not a mix of the two. The physical nature of Jesus Christ is forever united to His divinity, but distinct from it. No separation between the two natures, even communication between the two natures, but still two distinct natures. That is similar to how I view the sacraments: linked by virtue of the words of institution to the spiritual realities to which they are connected, but not the same thing. I do agree that many Protestants have a much too Platonic/gnostic view toward the physical. The fact is, however, that Jesus was very physical not only in the incarnation, but in His ministry. He constantly made use of matter to convey truths about Himself. The feeding of the five thousand in John 6 and His subsequent comments is one of my favorites. --Joe! |
||||||
3 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Emmaus | 51603 | ||
Joe, Thanks for the response. I did have to smile, when, after sending my post I saw your post only two slots below mine and addressing the "alone" principle on another thread. I have stayed out of the debate for a number of reasons. One being that I am not aware of exactly what the theology of the Church of Christ is on baptism other than the fact that they obviously believe it is necessary and regenerative. How they believe that is effected I do not know. Emmaus |
||||||