Baptism is NOT symbolic

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, All

Just have to do this:

John Chrysostom : "They said that he who kept not the Law was cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed, and he who kept it not, blessed. Again, they said that he who adhered to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone is blessed." (Commentary on Galatians, 3)

I adhere therefore I am blessed.

For His Glory Alone!!

Bill

 

[Wild_Fan4Christ]

What does what you wrote about Luther have to do with our discussion on baptism? I'm not Luther, but even if I was, pointing out his mistakes doesn't refute what I've written in this thread.

What does Romans 3:28 (who someone else brought in to this discussion) have to do with Baptism?

Protestants don't think that following fallible men is incorrect in itself; it's the teachings of your denomination that are problematic, not its fallibility.

And where have you heard these teachings about the Catholic Church? If they are from fellow Protestants, they are more than likely false as they themselves have been misled. Don't fault the Catholic Church's teachings that appear to be problematic to you by what you hear. Go to the source to get the Truth.

Protestantism hasn't been shown to have lost its credibility from your apologetic; poor argumentation generally doesn't do that. However, a loss of credibility does begin when "37,000+" denominations are cited in a false comparison unrelated to the current discussion.

~Matt

I merely brought that point up as someone else quoted Romans 3:28 as it is not relevant to this discussion.

 

[BBAS 64]

Good day, All

The "faith alone" strawman was brought up back in post 37 or their abouts, I brought up Romans 3:28, for historical context of the understanding of "faith alone" as it appears in some earlier versions of Scripture... and some writtings of the past.

I will stop in this line of posting.. as I think my point is clear. I appologize for the curve from the OP.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Wild_Fan4Christ]

Good Day, All

Just have to do this:

John Chrysostom : "They said that he who kept not the Law was cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed, and he who kept it not, blessed. Again, they said that he who adhered to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone is blessed." (Commentary on Galatians, 3)

I adhere therefore I am blessed.

For His Glory Alone!!

Bill

I honestly don't see the point for you and everyone else who has brought in quotes from Church Fathers (or not) into this discussion. For it is Protestantism that threw out "Tradition of the Church." So why bring in quotes from early Church Fathers if you threw out the Tradition?


And Luther may or may not become the whipping boy. But he did have some interesting quotes regarding what he had done. In the words of Luther...

"This one will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament, another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet" De Wette III, 61. quoted in O'Hare, THE FACTS ABOUT LUTHER, 208.

"Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the Evangelium better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers." Walch XIV, 1360. quoted in O'Hare, Ibid, 209.

"We concede -- as we must -- that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God's word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?" Sermon on the gospel of St. John, chaps. 14 - 16 (1537), in vol. 24 of LUTHER'S WORKS, St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961, 304.

All of this, quoted from the founder of sola-scriptura. This a short time after what he had done, he could not stop. As he said this...

"Once you open the door to error, you cannot close it."

Show me proof that the Bible you (or someone else) quoted was before the Reformation. I further challenge anyone to show me proof that "sola-fide" "sola-scriptura" could have possibly exsisted before the printing press. Before that time, 1450, it took one Monk 20 years of his labor to hand copy a Bible. It would have cost a lot and 95% of the population was illiterate and could not even read. So, then tell me again how it works that sola-scriptura was around before the Reformation time???

Read Mark 7:8-9 - "You disregard God's Commandment but cling to human tradition." He went on to say, "How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition!"

 

[InquisitorKind]

And where have you heard these teachings about the Catholic Church? If they are from fellow Protestants, they are more than likely false as they themselves have been misled. Don't fault the Catholic Church's teachings that appear to be problematic to you by what you hear. Go to the source to get the Truth.

I do. I own and read the Catechism, and I often consult other documents of your denomination's magisterium on a regular basis. However, if you're changing the subject to my personal research habits, I'll take that as an admission that the claim of a double-standard has been refuted.

I merely brought that point up as someone else quoted Romans 3:28 as it is not relevant to this discussion.

You responded to a point I made that wasn't on Romans 3:28, but directly regarding the discussion on baptism. However, if you didn't mean to respond to my remarks on baptism, there's no need for me to write more.

~Matt

 

[BBAS 64]

I honestly don't see the point for you and everyone else who has brought in quotes from Church Fathers (or not) into this discussion. For it is Protestantism that threw out "Tradition of the Church." So why bring in quotes from early Church Fathers if you threw out the Tradition?


And Luther may or may not become the whipping boy. But he did have some interesting quotes regarding what he had done. In the words of Luther...







All of this, quoted from the founder of sola-scriptura. This a short time after what he had done, he could not stop. As he said this...



Show me proof that the Bible you (or someone else) quoted was before the Reformation. I further challenge anyone to show me proof that "sola-fide" "sola-scriptura" could have possibly exsisted before the printing press. Before that time, 1450, it took one Monk 20 years of his labor to hand copy a Bible. It would have cost a lot and 95% of the population was illiterate and could not even read. So, then tell me again how it works that sola-scriptura was around before the Reformation time???

Read Mark 7:8-9 - "You disregard God's Commandment but cling to human tradition." He went on to say, "How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition!"

Good Day, Wild_fan

I will not answer these question here now as they are off topic of the OP. Most of your questions have been answered, here. You may wish to go back and read my posts, along with the sources I have quoted.

This is not easy for me to walk away from, thanks for your time.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Bulldog]

I honestly don't see the point for you and everyone else who has brought in quotes from Church Fathers (or not) into this discussion. For it is Protestantism that threw out "Tradition of the Church." So why bring in quotes from early Church Fathers if you threw out the Tradition?

We don't believe the early church fathers to hold binding doctrinal authority over us. We use the early church fathers to to disporve things like the absurd claim that sola fide was "never believed by anyone until the Reformation."

 

[Borealis]

We don't believe the early church fathers to hold binding doctrinal authority over us. We use the early church fathers to to disporve things like the absurd claim that sola fide was "never believed by anyone until the Reformation."

The Early Church Fathers, as individuals, do not hold binding doctrinal authority. As part of the Magesterium, however, some of them do.

The doctrine of sola fidei was never accepted in the Church; some early Christian writers may have taught such a doctrine, but the Church itself NEVER did. Martin Luther popularized it, and other reformers took up the banner in their eagerness to distance themselves from Rome.

 

[hoser]

Good Day, Hoser

I believe that the two I posted are RC translations that were used in thier time. If you have an other understanding please correct me. I prefaced my comments as such:

This is a false hood and depends on which bible you are using.


I will say the Greek: Demands in context the freely Justified as did Ambrosiaster. By Faith alone freely given as the gift by God.
Rom 3:23pantev gar hmarton kai usterountai thv dochv tou qeou

Rom 3:24dikaioumenoi dwrean th autou xariti dia thv apolutrwsewv thv en xristw ihsou

Rom 3:25on proeqeto o qeov ilasthrion dia athvtsbthv pistewv en tw autou aimati eiv endeicin thv dikaiosunhv autou dia thn paresin twn progegonotwn amarthmatwn

Rom 3:26en th anoxh tou qeou prov athn endeicin thv dikaiosunhv autou en tw nun kairw eiv to einai auton dikaion kai dikaiounta ton ek pistewv ihsou

Rom 3:27pou oun h kauxhsiv ecekleisqh dia poiou nomou twn ergwn ouxi alla dia nomou pistewv

Rom 3:28logizomeqa agar tsboun tsbpistei dikaiousqai apistei anqrwpon xwriv ergwn nomou



Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).

Peace to u,

Bill

Sola Fida is the falsehood. It was never part of Christiandom until Martin Luther made it his doctrine. If the best you can do is bring up some obscure bibles where the word "alone" was inserted to justify the faith alone theology, then I believe there is a sense of desperation on your part. Where does it say "faith alone" in the NIV bible? Where does it say "faith alone" in a RSV bible? Where does it say "faith alone" in the NLT bible? Where does it say "faith alone" in the KJV bible? Where does it say "faith alone" in the NET bible? Where does it say "faith alone" in the ASV bible? Where does it say "faith alone" in the DRB bible? I could go on and on and on and on.....

 

[Wild_Fan4Christ]

Good Day, Wild_fan

I will not answer these question here now as they are off topic of the OP. Most of your questions have been answered, here. You may wish to go back and read my posts, along with the sources I have quoted.

This is not easy for me to walk away from, thanks for your time.

Peace to u,

Bill

Take it as you wish, that is your decision. Follow the man-made doctrine of scripture only. Throw out the tradition handed down from the apostles. Throw out the authority of the Pope and the Church. Don't tell me "thanks for your time." I have defended why all of that is wrong. You choose not to believe it. Are you afraid of the Truth? You say we follow man made fallacies. Wrong, there weren't any fallacies until the Reformation made it ok to follow man's will. And that is when mainstream Christianity said it was the Church's fault. The Church can't change, man has to change to stop the fallacies that have become fashion. I sense desparation on your part that the double standard you follow isn't holding up to your own standards of what Truth has been.

Keep working at it, God will show you the light sooner or later


Also, I notice you have an interesting signature from St. Augustine. With the last part being "...symbolic authority."

It is interesting that Protestants quote Saint Augustine and others to back up their idea of sola-scripture. Not ONCE did Saint Augustine say anthing about "sola-fide" or "sola-scripture." Why then do you use them?

Here are a few more quotes from Saint Augustine that may change your mind about using them if you wish to stay Protestant.

"By the same word, by the same Sacrament you were born, but you will not come to the same inheritance of eternal life, unless you return to the CATHOLIC CHURCH."
St. Augustine, Sermons, 3, 391 A.D.

"This Church is holy, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church, fighting as she does against all heresies. She can fight, but she cannot be beaten. All heresies are expelled from her, like the useless loppings pruned from a vine. She remains fixed in her root, in her vine, in her love. The gates of hell shall NOT conquer her."
St. Augustine, Sermon to Catechumens, on the Creed, 6,14, 395 A.D.

"I believe that this practice comes from apostolic tradition, just as so many other practices NOT FOUND IN THEIR WRITINGS nor in the councils of their successors, but which, because they are kept by the whole Church everywhere, are believed to have been commended and handed down by the Apostles themselves."
St. Augustine, Baptism 1,12,20, 400 A.D.


Hmm, it really is odd then that you use a quote from Augustine saying "...symbolic authority." When at the same time he refers to the Church being Catholic, Tradition handed down to the apostles, etc... What do you suppose this "symbolic authority is St. Augustine is talking about?

Good Day...

 

[Philip]

We don't believe the early church fathers to hold binding doctrinal authority over us. We use the early church fathers to to disporve things like the absurd claim that sola fide was "never believed by anyone until the Reformation."

Certainly you are not suggesting that the above quotation from St John Chrysostrom is to be understood in the same manner which Protestants use the phrase 'faith alone'?

 

[Scholar in training]

1 Peter 3:20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.
1 Peter 3:21Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you,not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Evidence #4 - Baptism is salvific (it saves us), and deals with the interior life of the person (purifying the conscience, like Heb. 10:22), and not the external life (removing dirt from the body). Noah and his family were saved by water as we are in the New Covenant. NOT SYMBOLIC

Clearly this passage IS symbolic, at least to some extent. Baptism doesn't save us because it literally washes our sin away, but because you "appeal to God for a good conscience." Confession also occurs in baptism, which I would say is important.

The Scriptures never refer to baptism as symbolic.

It isn't ALWAYS used literally.

"And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" (Mark 1:4).
I guess this verse means that John was going through the desert shouting, "Lo, behold the water which saves thine spirit! The Lamb is only part of the sacrifice; this water is MOST NECESSARY to following the Lord!"

"Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:4). Now, is this verse literal or symbolic? Hmm, well, let's see. *Rolls dice.* Boo, snake eyes. Well gee, as we can clearly see from the die, baptism is being used literally. So is death; meaning that when we are baptised, we should prepare to die immediately afterwards. And then, we will experience a "newness of life" meaning that we will be raised BEFORE the second judgment! Whee! Aren't we lucky?

...Ahem, no. The passage isn't entirely literal, and if you are going to sit in your high seat and go on about how ignorant Protestants are while you overlook your own mistakes, then I don't have anything more to say to you.

 

[Wild_Fan4Christ]

Scholar in training

Thankyou for going back to the OP of this thread I was going to post something about how this thread has gone astray due to some.

Anyways, so by your account we have a "passage that isn't entierely literal." That is fine and I think you are kind of taking both sides to this. Saying that Baptism is used literally in some passages in the Bible. And others use it as symbolic.

Forgive me if I'm wrong in saying this...

 

[Qoheleth]

Certainly you are not suggesting that the above quotation from St John Chrysostrom is to be understood in the same manner which Protestants use the phrase 'faith alone'?

"Similarly we also, who by His will have been called in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, or our own wisdom or understanding or godliness, nor by such deeds as we have done in holiness of heart, but by that faith through which Almighty God has justified all men since the beginning of time. Glory be to Him, forever and ever, Amen." - St. Clement of Rome (Letter to the Corinthians, par. 32)

"Human beings can be saved from the ancient serpent in no other way than by believing in him who, when he was raised up from the earth on the tree of martyrdom in the likeness of sinful flesh, drew all things to himself and gave life to the dead." - Irenaeus (Against the Heresies, IV, 2, 7).

"Indeed, this is the perfect and complete glorification of God, when one does not exult in his own righteousness, but recognizing oneself as lacking true righteousness to be justified by faith alone in Christ." - St. Basil the Great (Homily on Humility, PG 31.532; TFoTC vol. 9, p. 479)

"They said that he who adhered to faith alone was cursed; but he, Paul, shows that he who adhered to faith alone is blessed." - St. John Chrysostom (First Corinthians, Homily 20, PG 61.164)

"For you believe the faith; why then do you add other things, as if faith were not sufficient to justify? You make yourselves captive, and you subject yourself to the law." - St. John Chrysostom (Epistle to Titus, Homily 3, PG 62.651)

"To declare His righteousness." What is declaring of righteousness? Like the declaring of His riches, not only for Him to be rich Himself, but also to make others rich, or of life, not only that He is Himself living, but also that He makes the dead to live; and of His power, not only that He is Himself powerful, but also that He makes the feeble powerful. So also is the declaring of His righteousness not only that He is Himself righteous, but that He doth also make them that are filled with the putrefying sores (katasapentaj) of sin suddenly righteous. And it is to explain this, viz. what is "declaring," that he has added, "That He might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." Doubt not then: for it is not of works, but of faith: and shun not the righteousness of God, for it is a blessing in two ways; because it is easy, and also open to all men. And be not abashed and shamefaced. For if He Himself openly declareth (endeiknutai) Himself to do so, and He, so to say, findeth a delight and a pride therein, how comest thou to be dejected and to hide thy face at what thy Master glorieth in? - St. John Chrysostom (Homilies on Romans 3)

 

[Qoheleth]

And Grace Alone deserves its place also among the ECFs:

"But when the Lord Jesus came, He forgave all men that sin which none could escape, and blotted out the handwriting against us by the shedding of His own Blood. This then is the Apostle's meaning; sin abounded by the Law, but grace abounded by Jesus; for after that the whole world became guilty, He took away the sin of the whole world, as John bore witness, saying: Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. Wherefore let no man glory in works, for by his works no man shall be justified, for he that is just hath a free gift, for he is justified by the Bath. It is faith then which delivers by the blood of Christ, for Blessed is the man to whom sin is remitted, and, pardon granted. Ambrose (Letter 73, to Irenaeus, a layman)

“After speaking of the wages of sin, in the case of blessings, he has not kept to the same order: for he does not say, the wages of your good deeds, but the gift of God: to show, that it was not of themselves that they were freed, nor was it a due they received, neither yet a return, nor a recompense of labors, but by grace all these things came about. And so there was superiority for this cause also, in that He did not free them only, or change their condition for the better, but that He did it without any labor or trouble upon their part: and that He not only freed them, but also gave them more than before, and that through His Son.” - St. John Chrysostom (Epistle to the Romans, Homily 12, Rom 6:23)

And he well said, "a righteousness of mine own," not that which I gained by labor and toil, but that which I found from grace. If then he who was so excellent is saved by grace, much more are you. For since it was likely they would say that the righteousness which comes from toil is the greater, he shows that it is dung in comparison with the other. For otherwise I, who was so excellent in it, would not have cast it away, and run to the other. But what is that other? That which is from the faith of God, i.e. it too is given by God. This is the righteousness of God; this is altogether a gift. And the gifts of God far exceed those worthless good deeds, which are due to our own diligence. Chrysostom (Homily on Philippians 3)

Suppose someone should be caught in the act of adultery and the foulest crimes and then be thrown into prison. Suppose, next, that judgment was going to be passed against him and that he would be condemned. Suppose that just at that moment a letter should come from the Emperor setting free from any accounting or examination all those detained in prison. If the prisoner should refuse to take advantage of the pardon, remain obstinate and choose to be brought to trial, to give an account, and to undergo punishment, he will not be able thereafter to avail himself of the Emperor's favor. For when he made himself accountable to the court, examination, and sentence, he chose of his own accord to deprive himself of the imperial gift. This is what happened in the case of the Jews. Look how it is. All human nature was taken in the foulest evils. "All have sinned," says Paul. They were locked, as it were, in a prison by the curse of their transgression of the Law. The sentence of the judge was going to be passed against them. A letter from the King came down from heaven. Rather, the King himself came. Without examination, without exacting an account, he set all men free from the chains of their sins. All, then, who run to Christ are saved by his grace and profit from his gift. Bu those who wish to find justification from the Law will also fall from grace. They will not be able to enjoy the King's loving-kindness because they are striving to gain salvation by their own efforts; they will draw down on themselves the curse of the Law because by the works of the Law no flesh will find justification. Chrysostom (Discourses Against Judaizing Christians. Discourse I:6-II:1)


Q

 

[Philip]

Qoheleth,

I am not sure of your point. Have you read Chrysostrom's Homily on Galatians? It is quite clear that St John believed that St Paul was pointing out that the Jewish Law does not make one righteous. Abraham was righteous before he became a Jew. That is, before he was circumcized. John explains that Paul's use of 'faith alone' was to establish that salvation was for gentiles too. This is not how Protestants use the phrase.

 

[Philip]

I find it ironic that when many Protestants quote St John Chrysostrom in support of their theology, they often choose Schaff's translation. In the introduction to that volume, Schaff states

We look in vain in Chrysostom’s writings for the Augustinian and Calvinistic doctrines of absolute predestination, total depravity, hereditary guilt, irresistible grace, perseverance of saints, or for the Lutheran theory of forensic and solifidian justification. He teaches that God foreordained all men to holiness and salvation, and that Christ died for all and is both willing and able to save all, but not against their will and without their free consent. The vessels of mercy were prepared by God unto glory, the vessels of wrath were not intended by God, but fitted by their own sin, for destruction. The will of man, though injured by the Fall, has still the power to accept or to reject the offer of salvation. It must first obey the divine call.​

 

[SPALATIN]

Qoheleth,

I am not sure of your point. Have you read Chrysostrom's Homily on Galatians? It is quite clear that St John believed that St Paul was pointing out that the Jewish Law does not make one righteous. Abraham was righteous before he became a Jew. That is, before he was circumcized. John explains that Paul's use of 'faith alone' was to establish that salvation was for gentiles too. This is not how Protestants use the phrase.

Abraham was not a Jew but the forefather of the Jewish clan. God's chosen in the Old testament were not called Jews until after Jacob and even then not until after Judah his 4th son through whom the Messiah comes.

Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness.

Besides Paul pointed out in verse 21 of Galatians 2.

21I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”

It is not our righteousness, but Christ's righteousness that is imputed to us through the Holy Spirit upon Baptism. He paid the ultimate price to give us that righteousness.

 

[InquisitorKind]

I find it ironic that when many Protestants quote St John Chrysostrom in support of their theology, they often choose Schaff's translation.

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. Haven't you ever read Catholic apologetics quoting Schaff's translations in support of an early papacy? Your rhetorical point is rather weak.

~Matt

 

[Philip]

Abraham was not a Jew but the forefather of the Jewish clan. God's chosen in the Old testament were not called Jews until after Jacob and even then not until after Judah his 4th son through whom the Messiah comes.

By the time St. Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, the term Jew was used to describe anyone who practiced the Jewish religion. It was not restricted to the tribe of Judah. Indeed, Paul identifies himself as a Jew (Acts 22.3) but of the tribe of Benjamin (Romans 11.1). Throughout the Book of Romans, St Paul identifies being a Jew with circumcision. This is consistant with the dispute in Antioch (Acts 15). So, I maintain my assertion that St Paul's contrast between faith and law is the contrast between uncircumcised and circumcised, between Gentile and Jew.

Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness.

And, of course, St James explains that this faithfulness was Abraham's action.

It is not our righteousness, but Christ's righteousness that is imputed to us through the Holy Spirit upon Baptism. He paid the ultimate price to give us that righteousness.

While we can discuss the Western understanding of justification if you want to, I fail to see what this has to do with the misquotation of St John Chrysostrom.