How important is it to be baptized by water?

Qnts2 said:

Baptism isn't about perfection, but it is also not the entry point into Christ. Salvation is by grace thru faith in Jesus. That is the entry point. So, a refusal to be baptised is not a salvific issue. Nor is it listed anywhere as an indicator that a person is not saved. Nor is it something which is in the list for believers to reject that person as a member of the body.

As far as tough decisions, or sacrifice, there I would strongly disagree. It can very much require a huge sacrifice, including the loss of family and community, when a person comes to faith in Jesus from a family or community which is not Christian. Or from a family which is devoutly Roman Catholic. Baptism has different connotations to different people. Being declared dead by mother and/or father, is a sacrifice and a tough decision.

But, since so many question the need for Baptism, since it is not a salvific issue, there is more to it. And whatever that more is, is part of the training process for that individual. Again, a process of being conformed to Jesus.

In the Mosaic law, baptism was a command and a requirement to enter the assembly. Without the ritual baptism (mikvah) as commanded in the law, people were not allowed to enter the assembly. The New Covenant baptism does not make a person saved, so a saved person prior to Baptism is spiritually a member of the assembly/body of Messiah. In the Mosaic law, a person who has become ritually unclean, goes thru whatever it takes to become ritually clean (like the healing of an oozing sore becoming healed), and then goes to the baptism bath, prior to being allowed to enter the assembly. Baptism is only for a person already saved/clean.

So what would be the equivalent today? A person is saved, made clean by the blood and then becomes baptised, which is a symbol of what has occurred and is also a recognition by the assembly which baptises the person that this person is clean and a member of the body.

Click to expand...

Your understanding of baptism and its role in the church and how it has always been viewed is incorrect - faith for salvation and baptism have always been linked. I don't expect to change your mind, so I'll leave it here with Scripture for you to wrestle with:

Mark 16:16 “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved ”

jamadan said:

Your understanding of baptism and its role in the church and how it has always been viewed is incorrect - faith for salvation and baptism have always been linked. I don't expect to change your mind, so I'll leave it here with Scripture for you to wrestle with:

Mark 16:16 “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved ”

Acts 2:38 “Then Peter said unto them, repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”​

Romans 6:3-6 “Do you not know that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?”​

Galatians 3:27 “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”​

1 Peter 3:21 "Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ"​

Baptism is the act (works) that completes the faith (belief) resulting in salvation and entry into the Kingdom of God. It is to the New Covenant what circumcision was the Old Covenant. Faith without works is dead.​

Click to expand...

From my understanding, the belief that salvation includes a required Baptism is limited to certain denominations theology, including the RCC, Episcopal (Liturgical churches) and Oneness Pentacostals. Lutherans include baptism as having a role in salvation but also will state that there are those who are saved without baptism and those who are baptised but not saved. So, I would say that linking salvation and baptism as a doctrine of the church would be incorrect. It is a doctrine of a subset of churches, but generally in Charismatic churches, this view is rejected.

Baptism is properly defined as a work, and a works based salvation, faith plus works is not a doctrine of most Protestant churches. Including Charismatic, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Vineyard, Calvary Chapel, Evangelical Free and Reformed churches among others.




While Jesus said He came to give life, and we were dead in our sins, in need of life, salvation is the receipt of Jesus and His life. Water baptism symbolizes what occurs at salvation but does not accomplish death to life. Rather death is the co-crucifixion of the old man, and life is the receiving of the Holy Spirit, or Spiritual life, the New Creation.

added just for example:

The doctrines of Calvary Chapel:

V. Holy Spirit

We believe the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead who seals, indwells, sanctifies, baptizes, teaches, empowers, reveals, and guides the believer into all truth. The Holy Spirit gives gifts to whom He wills, which are valid for today, and ought to be exercised within scriptural guidelines. We as believers are to earnestly desire the best gifts, seeking to exercise them in love that the whole Body of Christ might be edified. We believe that love is more important than the most spectacular gifts, and without this love all exercise of spiritual gifts is worthless.

VII. Salvation

Salvation is initiated, attained, and procured by God through the death of Christ on the cross for our sins and His resurrection from the dead. The salvation Christ offers is available to all, and is received freely by grace alone and through faith in Christ alone, apart from good works, thereby justifying and indwelling the believer.

Qnts2 said:

From my understanding, the belief that salvation includes a required Baptism is limited to certain denominations theology, including the RCC, Episcopal (Liturgical churches) and Oneness Pentacostals. Lutherans include baptism as having a role in salvation but also will state that there are those who are saved without baptism and those who are baptised but not saved.

Click to expand...

It didn't start with denominations, it started with Scripture and the early Church, as I demonstrated.

. . . but generally in Charismatic churches, this view is rejected.

Click to expand...

Using the theology and practices as accepted by charismatic churches is probably more of the problem rather than a valid argument for your position. Charismatics aren't exactly solid in theological terms - and as someone who's been in charismatic churches for the past 30 years, I say this with regret.

The tragedy of the modern Church is that is somehow substituted the altar call for water baptism. Scripture doesn't recognize an altar call; it recognizes baptism.

Now, given that there are too many who do not adhere to the Lord's command and tell new converts that baptism is optional or something to be done later when they mature or get around to it, it's not the fault of that new convert - though I would not want to be in the shoes of a pastor who teaches those unScriptural things. And as I explained before, there is 'baptism of desire' which essentially means the person who completely surrenders to Christ in their heart is basically baptized even though they were not physically baptized through ignorance of not beng correctly taught. But someone who is taught that the Lord commands water baptism and then refuses to yield themselves, well, that's demonstrating that they really haven't accepted Christ as Lord and thus are not saved.

Baptism is properly defined as a work, and a works based salvation, faith plus works is not a doctrine of most Protestant churches.

Click to expand...

Again, you're fighting Scripture here. Faith without works is dead. You can't separate them.

And what was Peter's instruction with respect to the Gentiles after they were baptized in the Spirit? 'Get these people baptized in water'. He knew they lacked something and acted to complete them. He did the reverse for those Samarians that heard Philip and were baptized in water after they believed, laying hands on them to get filled with the Holy Spirit.​

The idea being salvation and entering into Christ is more than just the moment you believed. If that were true, the rich young ruler and many others would have been saved because they also merely believed. As Scripture tells us, it's not just belief, for even demons believe yet are not saved. Salvation is made complete when we understand the cost of discipleship (laying down our lives and letting Christ live through us) and willingly yield ourselves to it . . . this yielding of will is demonstrated through water baptism.​

Our modern churches' failure to understand this Covenant and what it means to make Christ Lord of our lives has resulted in a superficial, anemic Church.​

Click to expand...

jamadan said:

It didn't start with denominations, it started with Scripture and the early Church, as I demonstrated.



Using the theology and practices as accepted by charismatic churches is probably more of the problem rather than a valid argument for your position. Charismatics aren't exactly solid in theological terms - and as someone who's been in charismatic churches for the past 30 years, I say this with regret.

The tragedy of the modern Church is that is somehow substituted the altar call for water baptism. Scripture doesn't recognize an altar call; it recognizes baptism.

Now, given that there are too many who do not adhere to the Lord's command and tell new converts that baptism is optional or something to be done later when they mature or get around to it, it's not the fault of that new convert - though I would not want to be in the shoes of a pastor who teaches those unScriptural things. And as I explained before, there is 'baptism of desire' which essentially means the person who completely surrenders to Christ in their heart is basically baptized even though they were not physically baptized through ignorance of not beng correctly taught. But someone who is taught that the Lord commands water baptism and then refuses to yield themselves, well, that's demonstrating that they really haven't accepted Christ as Lord and thus are not saved.



Again, you're fighting Scripture here. Faith without works is dead. You can't separate them.

And what was Peter's instruction with respect to the Gentiles after they were baptized in the Spirit? 'Get these people baptized in water'. He knew they lacked something and acted to complete them. He did the reverse for those Samarians that heard Philip and were baptized in water after they believed, laying hands on them to get filled with the Holy Spirit.​

The idea being salvation and entering into Christ is more than just the moment you believed. If that were true, the rich young ruler and many others would have been saved because they also merely believed. As Scripture tells us, it's not just belief, for even demons believe yet are not saved. Salvation is made complete when we understand the cost of discipleship (laying down our lives and letting Christ live through us) and willingly yield ourselves to it . . . this yielding of will is demonstrated through water baptism.​

Our modern churches' failure to understand this Covenant and what it means to make Christ Lord of our lives has resulted in a superficial, anemic Church.​

Click to expand...

Qnts2 said:

So when you say it is standard church doctrine, you are excluding Charismatics, Baptists, etc and appealing to the early church.​

Well, the early church isn't so early. Baptism viewed as salvific actually started when the church shifted to Rome from Jerusalem, to a Gentile church from a Jewish church.

Click to expand...

jamadan said:

'Early' as in the Church established by the apostles while the New Testament was still being written, which is why it is affirmed so strongly and clearly in the Scriptures I quoted, which are irrefutable. By the time the church shifted to Rome, there was actually a strange de-emphasis on baptism due to the way the Church taught mortal and venial sins. Baptism was viewed as wiping out all sin and was a once in a lifetime event. Mortal sin committed after that (murder, adultery, fornication, homosexuality, apostasy) was only allowed once per lifetime repentence. So people started postponing water baptism until they felt like they were near the end of the life, then they got baptized to wash away all of their sins and clean the slate Funny when you think about it. Augustine wrote about it in early 400's.​

In the very beginning, the Church baptized converts instantly. After a few decades, particularly for the pagan cultures, they started requiring catechism classes for several years where the faith was taught, understood and accepted before being allowed to be baptized and accept the Eucharist. This was because they believed people didn't know what exactly they were committing to if they were baptized and treated as members of the Church and only later discovered they weren't in agreement with certain practices or doctrines. It was also used to protect people from the Eucharist. Ever since Paul explained that the Corinthians were sick and dying for not recognizing the Body of Christ in the Eucharist, they treated it much more reverently and didn't want just anyone to be able to partake in it.​

Anyway, the point is that baptism was and still is viewed as having completed the entry into salvation process that started with that initial grain of faith.​

Click to expand...

In the shift to Rome, you say Baptism was de-emphasize while I say it was then viewed as salvific. A person was saved by faith and water baptism was the teaching.

It is true that once the Roman church (pre-Roman Catholic) became the center of Christianity, water Baptism was often delayed. So, why would people delay their baptism? It was believed that once a person sinned, there was no more sacrifice for sin, so a saved person who subsequently sinned, lost their salvation and could not re-gain salvation. So, people would wait until they were old, or on their death beds to be water baptised. That way, between the water baptism which supposedly saved and death, there was little time and less likelihood the person would sin and eternally lose their salvation and any hope of salvation. This was not a de-emphasis on water baptism, but raising the emphasis of water baptism. This showed not only a mis-understanding of the entry in to the New Covenant, and how to achieve salvation plus how salvation is kept. The emphasis turned to the works of people as opposed to faith in Jesus and His completed work.

Jamadan, it sounds like you are a Charismatic Catholic?

Qnts2 said:

In the shift to Rome, you say Baptism was de-emphasize while I say it was then viewed as salvific. A person was saved by faith and water baptism was the teaching.

It is true that once the Roman church (pre-Roman Catholic) became the center of Christianity, water Baptism was often delayed. So, why would people delay their baptism? It was believed that once a person sinned, there was no more sacrifice for sin, so a saved person who subsequently sinned, lost their salvation and could not re-gain salvation. So, people would wait until they were old, or on their death beds to be water baptised. That way, between the water baptism which supposedly saved and death, there was little time and less likelihood the person would sin and eternally lose their salvation and any hope of salvation. This was not a de-emphasis on water baptism, but raising the emphasis of water baptism. This showed not only a mis-understanding of the entry in to the New Covenant, and how to achieve salvation plus how salvation is kept. The emphasis turned to the works of people as opposed to faith in Jesus and His completed work.

Click to expand...

Close. First, it wasn't just any sin that inspired the delay of baptism, it was mortal sin, which was a relatively short list in those days (murder, apostasy, adultery, fornication, homosexuality). They believed venial (regular) sins could be forgiven with just praying to God (see Ambrose), but mortal sins required public confession and reconciliation (a 2-7 year process that was allowed only once in a lifetime). Second, the willingness to forego baptism was also representative of losing the link to salvation that previously existed in the first few centuries. In my opinion, that changed the perception of baptism from being automatic into something that was "optional" and planned/scheduled strategically.

Jamadan, it sounds like you are a Charismatic Catholic?

Click to expand...

No - I'm a student of the early church. I find many charismatics who are motivated to return to what the early church was like, but in reality, most of them don't have a clue what that church was really like. I did grow up Catholic, but got filled with the Spirit in college and spent 20 years in the Assemblies of God. Now I'm in the Charismatic Episcopal Church (CEC), which is not affiliated with the Episcopal Church. I find the CEC to be the communion that is most closely aligned with what the early church must have been like.

jamadan said:

Close. First, it wasn't just any sin that inspired the delay of baptism, it was mortal sin, which was a relatively short list in those days (murder, apostasy, adultery, fornication, homosexuality). They believed venial (regular) sins could be forgiven with just praying to God (see Ambrose), but mortal sins required public confession and reconciliation (a 2-7 year process that was allowed only once in a lifetime). Second, the willingness to forego baptism was also representative of losing the link to salvation that previously existed in the first few centuries. In my opinion, that changed the perception of baptism from being automatic into something that was "optional" and planned/scheduled strategically.



No - I'm a student of the early church. I find many charismatics who are motivated to return to what the early church was like, but in reality, most of them don't have a clue what that church was really like. I did grow up Catholic, but got filled with the Spirit in college and spent 20 years in the Assemblies of God. Now I'm in the Charismatic Episcopal Church (CEC), which is not affiliated with the Episcopal Church. I find the CEC to be the communion that is most closely aligned with what the early church must have been like.

Click to expand...

Ok, the only use of the terms mortal and venial sin I am aware of is in the Catholic church but I will admit to a lack of knowledge of liturgical churches.

In my view, the early church was Jewish, so I would go earlier then you are in defining the early church. In my view, there were already getting a clutter of false understandings and definitely moving away from the Jewish views rather intentionally. That is why I believe the church, post Jerusalem centered, confused circumcision with baptism. What you attribute to Baptism, I attribute to circumcision/spiritual circumcision. Without the circumcision of the heart, a person is not saved. Circumcision is the sign of coming under a covenant. Circumcision of the heart is the sign of coming under the New Covenant, which includes the benefit of salvation. Water baptism (Mikvah was done because of something. Like a person went to the Mikvah because they were healed, or went to the Mikvah because they had repented, or any of a lot of other reasons).

The origins of baptism are Jewish. Complete immersion in water.

Romans 6, one of the most important chapters in the NT, was not about water, we actually literally were placed, planted KJV, into Christ, we literally died and rose spiritually IN HIM, there is no room for symbolism in 6, and the born again experience described in 6, can happen, and does happen without a body of water.

3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

Baptism (mikveh) in Judaism is also required for converts. Even in ancient times this was considered a form of death: he emerged a 'new creature,' no longer Gentile but Jew.

This is said of Abraham in the Midrash Rabbah:

AND I WILL MAKE OF THEE A GREAT NATION (XII, 2). Said he to Him: `Yet hast Thou not caused the seventy nations to spring from Noah?'3 He replied: `That nation of which it is written, For what great nation is there, that hath God so nigh unto them (Deut. IV, 7), them will I raise up from thee. ' R. Berekiah said: It is not written, ' And I will give thee,' or `And I will set thee,'4 but, AND I WlLL MAKE THEE: i.e. after I have created thee as a new creation thou wilt be fruitful and multiply.

Genesis Rabbah 39:11

Click to expand...

This was published by Torah.org in 2002. There is an element here that many Christians will be familiar with:


Subject: Beyond-Pshat - Parshas Haazinu (2) - Are We the Role Model to the
From: "Rabbi Yosef Kalatsky" <kalatsky@torah.org>
Date: Fri, September 13, 2002 8:53 am

____________
2. What is the Ultimate Rehabilitative Process of Teshuvah?
The Torah states in the beginning of Sefer Bereishis, "Bereishis bara
Elokeem es ha'shamaiyim v'es ha'aretz: v'ha'aretz hoysa tohu v'vohu
v'choshech al panei tahom v'ruach Elokeem merachefes al panei ha'maiyim
- In the beginning of G-d's creating the heavens and the earth - when
the earth was empty, with darkness upon the surface of the deep, and
the Divine Presence hovered upon the surface of the waters." The
Midrash explains that each of the words in this opening verse of the
Torah alludes to events that will take place in the future. Meaning,
when G-d created existence, He preordained that certain events will
happen.
The Midrash explains that "v'ha'aretz hoysa tohu - earth was empty,"
refers to the Babylonian exile. "Choshech - darkness," refers to the
Greek exile; as the Talmud tells us, "they blackened our eyes with
their decrees." "Al panei tahom- surface of the deep" alludes to the
Roman exile, which is seemingly as endless as the "deep" source of
water. (We are still experiencing the Roman exile after more than 2,000
years.) "V'ruach Elokeem merachefes al panei ha'maiyim - the Divine
Presence hovered upon the surface of the waters" is ascribed to the
spirit of Moshiach who will come only in the merit of teshuvah
(repentance) which is compared to water (maiyim). As it is stated in
Eicha, "Your heart should gush forth water when you stand before
Hashem." Rambam states in Hilchos Teshuvah (The Laws of Teshuvah) that
the confession that one makes during teshuvah must be in the presence
of Hashem. The question is what relevance does teshuvah have to water?
Why is the statement "hovered upon the surface of the waters" an
allusion to teshuvah?
Rambam states that if one attempts to do teshuvah but does not totally
sever himself from his sinful past, then his teshuvah process is
equivalent to immersing in a mikva (ritual pool) for the sake of
purification, while still holding on to a rodent, which is the source
of his spiritual contamination. Rambam is comparing the teshuvah
process to the mikva itself. However, the verse from Eicha, which is
cited by the Midrash, is indicating that the water itself is not the
teshuvah but rather a consequence of the teshuvah. As it says, "your
heart will gush forth water."
If one is spiritually contaminated, he must immerse himself completely
in a mikvah in order to achieve spiritual purity. The Halacha (law)
dictates that if there is as much as one hair of his body that is not
under water, he is not purified. The desired result is only achieved
when one totally dunks himself. How do we understand the purification
process of the mikva? The Maharal of Prague (in his work on Chanukah)
explains that humanity exists on dry land and not under water;
therefore, the latter represents non-existence. When a person immerses
himself in a body of water, in essence, he enters into a state of
non-being. When he emerges, he enters a state of existence and is
considered a "bria chadasha - a new being". As such, whatever
contamination he had prior to the immersion, no longer applies to him.
Dovid HaMelech says in Tehillim (Psalms), "A broken and shattered heart
Elokeem (G-d) will not disgrace." Rabbeinu Yona explains in his work
Shaarei Teshuvah - The Gates of Repentance that the teshuvah process
only has meaning because of the Attribute of Mercy (Midas HaRachamim).
However, within the context of Midas HaDin (The attribute of Justice)
there is no place for teshuvah. Dovid revealed to us that if the person
is truly broken and shattered, as a result of the teshuvah process,
even Elokeem (the Attribute of Justice) will not disgrace (reject) this
person's teshuvah.
The Torah tells us that an earthenware vessel (after becoming
contaminated) cannot be purified in a mikva. In order for it to become
uncontaminated, it must be broken or shattered so it loses its function
as a vessel. If it is reassembled, it is considered a new creation that
does not have relevance to the original vessel - and therefore it is
pure. The same holds true for a person. If he is broken and remorseful
because of his sins and does teshuvah, he is forgiven because when he
is broken he is the equivalent of the non-existent person. Therefore,
after the process of teshuvah, the individual is a new person. Thus,
because the sinner no longer exists, even the Attribute of Justice
cannot prosecute the penitent.
We say in the tefillah of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur that we are
likened to a broken shard - "earthenware vessel". We identify with the
purification process of the earthenware vessel because - "A broken heart
Elokeem (G-d) will not disgrace."
We can now understand why the Midrash compares the process of teshuvah
with water. Just as when one immerses into the water, entering into a
non-existent state and he emerges pure, so too does one need to be
broken and remorseful to the point that one's heart gushes forth water
(tears) to indicate that he is totally broken. Thus, the "water"
referred to in the Torah "hovered upon the surface of the waters" is
synonymous with the broken state of man when he is in a process of
teshuvah.
______________
Beyond-Pshat, Copyright © 2002 by Rabbi Yosef Kalatsky and Torah.org.
Join the Jewish Learning Revolution! Torah.org: The Judaism Site brings
this and a host of other classes to you every week. Visit
Torah.org - The Judaism Site or email learn@torah.org to get your own free copy of
this mailing.
Project Genesis - Torah.org is a recognized charity and depends upon
your support. Please help us by visiting http://torah.org/support/ for
information on class dedications, memorials, annual giving and more.
Need to change or stop your subscription? Please visit our subscription
center, Subscription Center - Torah.org -- see the links on that page.
Permission is granted to redistribute, but please give proper
attribution and copyright to the author and Torah.org. Both the author
and Torah.org reserve certain rights. Email copyrights@torah.org for
full information.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Torah.org: The Judaism Site
Torah.org - The Judaism Site Project Genesis, Inc.
learn@torah.org 122 Slade Avenue, Suite 203
(410) 602-1350 Baltimore, MD 21208
FAX: (410) 510-1053
Compare this with Paul:

2 Cor 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
Gal 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

Steve Petersen said:

Baptism (mikveh) in Judaism is also required for converts. Even in ancient times this was considered a form of death: he emerged a 'new creature,' no longer Gentile but Jew.

This is said of Abraham in the Midrash Rabbah:

Click to expand...

sorry, but the new creation we are in now, is not jewish, Col 3:11.

No longer according to the flesh. Scripture trumps the midrash.


2 Cor 5:16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer.

it's not about flesh.


1 cor 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves[d] or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

Frogster said:

sorry, but the new creation we are in now, is not jewish, Col 3:11.

No longer according to the flesh. Scripture trumps the midrash.


2 Cor 5:16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer.

Click to expand...

Paul used the concept to show believers now are sons of Abraham by faith even though they are not physically descended from Abraham.

Steve Petersen said:

I did not mean to imply that we become Jewish. It was just an illustration of the concept of baptism and identity change.

Paul used the concept to show believers now are children of Abraham by faith.

Click to expand...

jamadan said:

Close. First, it wasn't just any sin that inspired the delay of baptism, it was mortal sin, which was a relatively short list in those days (murder, apostasy, adultery, fornication, homosexuality). They believed venial (regular) sins could be forgiven with just praying to God (see Ambrose), but mortal sins required public confession and reconciliation (a 2-7 year process that was allowed only once in a lifetime). Second, the willingness to forego baptism was also representative of losing the link to salvation that previously existed in the first few centuries. In my opinion, that changed the perception of baptism from being automatic into something that was "optional" and planned/scheduled strategically.

Click to expand...

Ok, I looked up Ambrose and he lived from about 330 ad to 397 ad. His entire life was after a very dramatic shift in the church.

The center of power had shifted to the church in Rome. There was an argument about the Deity of Jesus and the Trinity. To resolve this conflict, Constantine funded the 1st Council of Nicea. As the benefactor he asked for one change to be placed in the doctrines put in place by this council.

From the 1st council of Nicea.

We further proclaim to you the good news of the agreement concerning the holy Easter, that this particular also has through your prayers been rightly settled; so that all our brethren in the East who formerly followed the custom of the Jews are henceforth to celebrate the said most sacred feast of Easter at the same time with the Romans and yourselves and all those who have observed Easter from the beginning.

So, the Roman church was intentionally moving away from the Jewish apostles understanding of scripture. That caused several changes. Jesus death and resurrection ceased to be celebrated in relation to the OT holidays which are the days these actually occurred on, to a Roman timing and renamed Easter. So, from my view, Ambrose lived in a time when dramatic changes had already occurred and continued to occur in church doctrine, so his view would not reflect the early church.

plural.


heb 6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

Qnts2 said:

Ok, I looked up Ambrose and he lived from about 330 ad to 397 ad. His entire life was after a very dramatic shift in the church.

The center of power had shifted to the church in Rome. There was an argument about the Deity of Jesus and the Trinity. To resolve this conflict, Constantine funded the 1st Council of Nicea. As the benefactor he asked for one change to be placed in the doctrines put in place by this council.

From the 1st council of Nicea.

We further proclaim to you the good news of the agreement concerning the holy Easter, that this particular also has through your prayers been rightly settled; so that all our brethren in the East who formerly followed the custom of the Jews are henceforth to celebrate the said most sacred feast of Easter at the same time with the Romans and yourselves and all those who have observed Easter from the beginning.

So, the Roman church was intentionally moving away from the Jewish apostles understanding of scripture. That caused several changes. Jesus death and resurrection ceased to be celebrated in relation to the OT holidays which are the days these actually occurred on, to a Roman timing and renamed Easter. So, from my view, Ambrose lived in a time when dramatic changes had already occurred and continued to occur in church doctrine, so his view would not reflect the early church.

Click to expand...

I was using Ambrose's statements regarding confession of mortal vs venial sins to cite the beliefs I am referring to. The timing is at the beginning of the Constantine changes, which really begin what most people consider as the Roman era of the Church. No doubt about it though, once the Temple was detroyed in 70 AD and the Church scattered, it began the shift to Roman centered due to the size of that Church (30,000), the infuence of the Roman culture in the world, and the fact that both Peter and Paul travelled to Rome at the end of their lives to provide leadership for the entire Church from that base of operations. But let's not lose cite that the maturing of the Church from those formative years migrating away from Jewish centric was not necessarily a bad thing. Paul's theology and oral traditions paved the way there. The liturgical nature of the Church, with bishops, priests and deacons, the liturgy of the Eucharistic service (the Mass), etc were all birthed while the apostles were presiding over the Church and were modelled from Jewish practices (the Passover, Temple priests, etc), as well as the visions that John experienced of Heaven (Revelation). John was known to be the first to have worn the bishop's mitre and his teachings and influence were a tremendous influence of bringing some uniformity across East and West in the form the liturgy of the Eucharistic Mass. So much of what people think of as "Catholic" actually had it's root right there with the Apostles.

Frogster said:

plural.


heb 6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

Click to expand...

Yup, there is more then one baptism.

Just because, I will say that Hebrews 6 begins with:

1 Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

So the doctrines of baptisms is an elementary teaching. It was settled early, and from the elementary teachings, we were to go on to becoming whole and mature believers.