Baptism is NOT symbolic

[Philip]

Why do you find that ironic? All sorts of people quote from Schaff's translations, including many who disagree with his conclusions regarding those translations.

I find it ironic that if they actually read the book, rather than just repeating the same quotations they have seen elsewhere, they might actually understand what Chrysostrom wrote.

Haven't you ever read Catholic apologetics quoting Schaff's translations in support of an early papacy?

Yes. Why do you presume that I don't find that ironic either?

 

[InquisitorKind]

I find it ironic that if they actually read the book, rather than just repeating the same quotations they have seen elsewhere, they might actually understand what Chrysostrom wrote.

That's different then the criticism you communicated before.

Yes. Why do you presume that I don't find that ironic either?

It's reasonable not to view that as ironic, but since you are suggesting otherwise, I will not assume anything.

~Matt

 

[mrcrow]

could be related to the mikva and the treasure method of removing sin used by the priests of the second temple...
the blood was the sin.

 

[Philip]

That's different then the criticism you communicated before.

I sometimes do not express myself well, especially late at night.

 

[InquisitorKind]

I sometimes do not express myself well, especially late at night.

I understand that. I post terribly in the early morning, which is why I don't do it anymore!

~Matt

 

[Ave Maria]

Amen hoser! Baptism truly is not symbolic! It washes away our sins praise be to God!

 

[Lynn73]

Nope. I don't care how many times you baptize someone. If they don't truly believe in Christ is Savior, the water will NOT wash away their sins. I believe you're very mistaken in thinking that just putting someone in water gets rid of their sin. In light of Scripture, how can anyone believe that?

 

[Bingle]

Well I'm glad you catholics think you have your sins washed away by baptism. I'm just worried you might not be using enough water. Notice when John the Baptist baptized he used the Jordan 'because there was much water there.' Jesus baptized in the rivers also 'not him but his disciples.' Phillip the evangelist baptized the Ethiopian eunoch when he came to a pool of water.'

I know the argument. Yes the Baptist bloodline thing is untenable but the point is the early church practiced immersion. If you believe baptism saves then I would hope you did it the right way.

 

[katherine2001]

Well I'm glad you catholics think you have your sins washed away by baptism. I'm just worried you might not be using enough water. Notice when John the Baptist baptized he used the Jordan 'because there was much water there.' Jesus baptized in the rivers also 'not him but his disciples.' Phillip the evangelist baptized the Ethiopian eunoch when he came to a pool of water.'

I know the argument. Yes the Baptist bloodline thing is untenable but the point is the early church practiced immersion. If you believe baptism saves then I would hope you did it the right way.

Peter himself believed that baptism washed away the sins. Acts 2:38 says:
"Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Also, EO believe that baptism does wash away sins. We also practice immersion--in fact, the person is immersed three times, once for each Person in the Trinity.

 

[InquisitorKind]

Peter himself believed that baptism washed away the sins. Acts 2:38 says:
"Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

The same Greek word used to denote "for" (eis) in Acts 2:38 is used in Matthew 3:11 to denote the meaning "because of". Acts 2:38 can be read as either "be baptized to attain the remission of sins" or, in light of Matthew 3:11, "be baptized because of the remission of sins". The passage is inconclusive by itself.

~Matt

 

[Philip]

The same Greek word used to denote "for" (eis) in Acts 2:38 is used in Matthew 3:11 to denote the meaning "because of". Acts 2:38 can be read as either "be baptized to attain the remission of sins" or, in light of Matthew 3:11, "be baptized because of the remission of sins". The passage is inconclusive by itself.

The vast majority of the time, it is used to mean 'to cause'. In fact, the KJV translates eis in Matthew 3:11 as 'unto'. In general, the Greek preposition for 'because of' is en. See Luke 1:44.

If we keep the phrase 'for the remission of sins' as one unit, we have phrases verses like:

Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for[eis] the remission of sins.​

Certainly, 'for' means 'to cause' in that passage, right? Now, consider

Luke 1:77
To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by[en] the remission of their sins,​

Here, we see that Luke uses en, not eis to mean 'because of'.

 

[LLC3GUYS]

Seldom have I read so much legalism in one place. No matter how you try to disguise it, it 's still insidious. The baptism referred to is the "baptism of the Holy Spirit". Not my opinion, Jesus said so Himself. Please, say you remember reading it (in the Bible). Water baptism is an outward showing of an inward committment. Special, not mystical. Jesus (God) says, the only way to be saved is through Him. I don't see where the confusion exists except in the minds of those who are locked into an indoctrination with no discernment left to weigh the evidence and follow the Truth. You can never reason with illogic, especially scriptural, as they will revert to defense rather than analysis. GBY

 

[Philip]

Why do you separate baptism with water from baptism with the Holy Spirit? Christ says they are the same -- that we must be born of water and Spirit.

 

[Bingle]

He said be born of the water (that is be born physically by your mum) and by the spirit (that is be converted by the Spirit of God). He's talking about Holy Ghost conversion here (by the way notice how we receive it John 3:16) not baptism.

 

[LLC3GUYS]

Why do you separate baptism with water from baptism with the Holy Spirit? Christ says they are the same -- that we must be born of water and Spirit.

Oh, c'mon! This is so basic. Being "born of water" is a colloquial reference to the simple breaking of a mother's water so the child can be born. "Not only must you be born of water, you must also be born of the Holy Spirit." Ergo, the origin of the meaning to be "born-again".

 

[Philip]

Oh, c'mon! This is so basic. Being "born of water" is a colloquial reference to the simple breaking of a mother's water so the child can be born.

If it is a colloquialism, I am sure that you can provide me with another example of its use. Know of any?

"Not only must you be born of water, you must also be born of the Holy Spirit." Ergo, the origin of the meaning to be "born-again".

John 3:5
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God​

This verse speaks of one birth, from water and Spirit. There is no indication of two separate births within this verse.

 

[Patristic]

If it is a colloquialism, I am sure that you can provide me with another example of its use. Know of any?

John 3:5
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God​

This verse speaks of one birth, from water and Spirit. There is no indication of two separate births within this verse.

Precisely, if Christ were referring to two separate births in sequence, one happening first and the other occurring later, it would make more sense to say, one must be born of water then the Spirit. This would show a break in the connection between the two events and place them in contradistinction to one another. Instead, He joins the two with a conjunctive and illustrating that they are connected to one another and therefore two elements of one event.

 

[Philip]

It is also interesting to note that immediately after recounting this dialogue, St John records that Christ's disciples were baptizing people with water. Certainly this is no accident.

 

[Scholar in training]

Why do you separate baptism with water from baptism with the Holy Spirit? Christ says they are the same -- that we must be born of water and Spirit.

One might say that "and" is used to mean "in addition to"... Not that they are the same thing. While I don't quite know what Jesus meant when he said that we have to be born of water and the Spirit, he does make a differenciation between physical and spiritual baptism:

On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 1:4-5).
​

Da dum!

 

[LLC3GUYS]

If it is a colloquialism, I am sure that you can provide me with another example of its use. Know of any?

John 3:5

Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God
​

This verse speaks of one birth, from water and Spirit. There is no indication of two separate births within this verse.

I hope you like the taste of your own shoe leather. You've just, sarcastically, put your foot in it. History is replete with references to "waters of birth", "birth waters", "founts of birth", and a plethera of other "symbolic" analogies. Do a search on it sometimes. Or, will you deny the authenticity of the references of every civilization since the beginning. They did leave a massive amount of writings, you know. Or, can you even weigh the proof beyond the end of your nose? They are two seperate births, Jesus did say so, it's there for you to read. He does not agree with you.