Jesus's "Brothers" and "Sisters"

"Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband" (Augustine, Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).



When Catholics call Mary the "Blessed Virgin," they mean she remained a virgin throughout her life. When Protestants refer to Mary as "virgin," they mean she was a virgin only until Jesus’ birth. They believe that she and Joseph later had children whom Scripture refers to as "the brethren of the Lord." The disagreement arises over biblical verses that use the terms "brethren," "brother," and "sister."

There are about ten instances in the New Testament where "brothers" and "sisters" of the Lord are mentioned (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).

When trying to understand these verses, note that the term "brother" (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for "sister" (adelphe) and the plural form "brothers" (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that "brother" had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as "fathers") and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your "sons"), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s "brother" (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their "brethren," the sons of Kish. These "brethren" were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

The terms "brothers," "brother," and "sister" did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two "brethren" of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14).

See link for full article.

10 steps on the Refutation of Sola Scriptura

Click on title to get whole article. It's short don't worry.

1. Sola Scriptura is Not Taught in the Bible

Scripture certainly is a "standard of truth" (we agree fully with Protestants), even the preeminent one, but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn't teach that. Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is materially sufficient. In other words, every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or Rule of Faith for the Christian (formal sufficiency), in isolation from the Church and Apostolic Tradition. Sola Scriptura can't even be deduced from implicit passages. Protestants try to make that argument, but (with all due respect) I think the effort is doomed to failure. I've never seen it, and I've discussed the issue with Protestants many, many times in the 13 years since my conversion.

sola scriptura

Is the doctrine of sola scriptura self-defeating since it can't be found in scripture?

Mary

The Second Council of Nicaea (787), the seventh Ecumenical Council, which is fully accepted by the Orthodox, declared:

The Lord, the apostles and the prophets have taught us that we must venerate in the first place the Holy Mother of God, who is above all the heavenly powers . . . If any one does not confess that the holy, ever virgin Mary, really and truly the Mother of God, is higher than all creatures visible and invisible, and does not implore, with a sincere faith, her intercession, given her powerful access (parrhésia) to our God born of her, let him be anathema.

Book Review

The two most important books I have read regarding Catholic theology are Jesus, Peter, and the Keys- A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy

and

The Hidden Manna- A Theology of the Eucharist

Check out the linked title to read a review of the first one.

and check out this page to read a description and review of the second one.

http://www.ignatius.com/ViewProduct.aspx?SID=1&Product_ID=2450&AFID=12&

Transubstantiation

The daunting word "transubstantiation" is easily understood when broken down: "trans" means "change." Therefore, the term is defined literally as the process of change of substance. The Catholic Church, in seeking to understand the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist, a doctrine delivered directly by our Lord and St. Paul, gradually developed an explanation as to the exact nature of this miraculous and mysterious transformation.

Contrary to the common misconception, transubstantiation is not dependent upon Aristotelian philosophy, since some notion of the concept goes back to the earliest days of the Church when Aristotle’s philosophy was not known. The eastern Fathers, before the sixth century, used the Greek expression metaousiosis, or "change of being," which is essentially the same idea. The Church did, however, draw upon prevalent philosophical categories, such as substance and accidents. In all ages, Christians have sought to defend Christianity by means of philosophy and human learning (wherever the individual intellectual categories utilized were consistent with Christian faith). St. Paul, for instance, did this in his sermon on Mars Hill in Athens, where he made reference to pagan poets and philosophers (Acts 17:22-31). St. Augustine incorporated elements of Platonic thought into his theology, and St. Thomas Aquinas synthesized Aristotle and Christianity into a unified, consistent system of Christian thought (Scholasticism or Thomism).

Transubstantiation is predicated upon the distinction between two sorts of change: accidental and substantial. Accidental change occurs when non-essential outward properties are transformed in some fashion. Thus, water can take on the properties of solidity (ice) and gas (steam), all the while remaining chemically the same. A substantial change, on the other hand, produces something else altogether. An example of this is the metabolism of food, which becomes part of our bodies as a result of chemical and biological processes initiated by digestion. In our everyday experience, a change of substance is always accompanied by a corresponding transition of accidents, or properties.

In the Eucharist—a supernatural transformation—a substantial change occurs without accidental alteration. Thus, the properties of bread and wine continue after consecration, but their essence and substance cease to exist, replaced by the substance of the true and actual Body and Blood of Christ. It is this disjunction from the natural laws of physics which causes many to stumble (see John 6:60-69). See chart below.

Indeed, transubstantiation is difficult for the natural mind (especially with its modern excessively skeptical bent) to grasp and clearly requires a great deal of faith. Yet many aspects of Christianity which conservative, evangelical, orthodox Christians have no difficulty believing transcend reason and must ultimately be accepted on faith, such as: the Incarnation (in which a helpless infant in Bethlehem is God!), the Resurrection, the omniscience of God, the paradox of grace versus free will, eternity, the Union of the Human and Divine Natures in Christ (the Hypostatic Union), the Fall of Man and original sin, and the Virgin Birth, among many other beliefs. Transubstantiation may be considered beyond reason, yet it is not opposed to reason; suprarational, but not irrational, much like Christian theology in general.

If one accepts the fact that God became Man, then it cannot consistently be deemed impossible (as many casually assume) for Him to become truly and really present under the appearances of bread and wine. Jesus, after His Resurrection, could apparently walk through walls while remaining in His physical (glorified) body (John 20:26-27). How, then, can transubstantiation reasonably be regarded as intrinsically implausible by supernaturalist Christians?

Likewise, much of the objection to this doctrine seems to arise out of a pitting of matter against spirit, or, more specifically, an a priori hostility to the idea that grace can be conveyed through matter. This is exceedingly curious, since precisely this notion is fundamental to the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus. If God did not take on matter and human flesh, no one would have been saved. Such a prejudice is neither logical (given belief in the miraculous and Christian precepts) nor scriptural, as we shall see.

John Henry Cardinal Newman, whom very few would accuse of being unreasonable or credulous, had this to say about the "difficulties" of transubstantiation:

People say that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is difficult to believe . . . It is difficult, impossible to imagine, I grant - but how is it difficult to believe? . . . For myself, I cannot indeed prove it, I cannot tell how it is; but I say, "Why should it not be? What’s to hinder it? What do I know of substance or matter? Just as much as the greatest philosophers, and that is nothing at all;" . . . And, in like manner: . . . the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity. What do I know of the Essence of the Divine Being? In know that my abstract idea of three is simply incompatible with my idea of one; but when I come to question the concrete fact, I have no means of proving that there is not a sense in which one and three can equally be predicated of the Inommunicable God. (23)

Once one realizes that transubstantiation is a miracle of God, any notion of impossibility vanishes, since God is omnipotent (all-powerful) and the sovereign Lord over all creation (Matthew 19:26, Philippians 3:20-21, Hebrews 1:3). If mere men can change accidental properties without changing substance (for example, turning iron into molten liquid or even vapor), then God is certainly able to change substance without outward transmutation.

Therefore, after these weak philosophical objections are disposed of, we can proceed to objectively and fairly examine the clear and indisputable biblical data which reveals to us that God does in fact perform (through the agency of priests) the supernatural act of transubstantiation.

Real Presence

Ignatius of Antioch

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr

"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

The Eucharist

What is the eucharist? Is it plausible that it is actually the body and blood of Christ.

I found this article from Catholic Answers to sum up a lot of important evidences from the bible.

What did the people who saw and spoke with Jesus think he was saying? Did they think he was using symbolic language? If they misunderstood him, why didn't he correct them? Christ repeats himself to three different groups to emphasize his point. He does not withdraw it.

When Jesus first made his claim, his hearers began to argue with one another. "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" They thought he was saying to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood. And so they rejected this teaching and left. Did Christ change his teaching? Did he tell his hearers, "No, no, you've misunderstood, here is what I really meant"? He did not.

Many of the disciples who followed Christ-like many people of today-had this to say about the Eucharist: "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" When they left Christ, did he try to correct their thinking? It is unlikely that he would have allowed them to remain in error. Unlike the Jewish leaders he would later stand before, these were his followers, the ones favorably disposed to him. But even to them he repeated rather than retracted this hard teaching (John 6:60-66).

Next, he challenged the Twelve Apostles on the issue: "Do you also wish to go away?" He did not correct the "misconception" of his audience or the Twelve. Why? Because their understanding was true. They had not heard him wrong. There was no misconception. Just like he didn't correct the members of the Sanhedrain when confronted over his Messiah-ship, he did not correct even the thinking of those who loved him most because there was nothing to correct. There was no misunderstanding; the teaching was true and to be accepted. The disciples responded, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the holy one of God" (John 6:67-69). They were saying in essence, "Yes, this is a hard teaching, but we will take it on faith, for you are the Christ."

When we look at how his audience, disciples, and the Twelve interpreted the teaching of Christ, we soon discover that there was no other option left open to them other than the literal teaching of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. The merely symbolic reading wasn't left open to them, and it isn't left open to us.

When John wrote his gospel, receiving the Eucharist was already a common practice. The readers of this gospel account would have understood that the above passage of John referred to the Eucharist. He deliberately included words to emphasize the literal interpretation of the Eucharist. In fact, John uses types from the Old Testament to make his point stronger.

Old Testament Typology

It is said that the New Testament is concealed in the Old and the Old Testament is revealed in the New. This is never clearer than when studying the Eucharist throughout Scripture. Doing so will help us defend our faith to others as well as lead us to a greater appreciation of this sacrament.

"Typology" is the study of things from the Old Testament that foreshadow or prefigure things in the New Testament. There are numerous "types" in the Old Testament. For example, Abraham's uncompleted sacrifice of his son, Isaac, to the completed sacrifice of God's only begotten son, Jesus. Typology can help show us that eating Christ's body and blood was God's intention throughout time and was later fulfilled. There are many types that could be examined in depth, but for the sake of space four examples will suffice.

"Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine, and being a priest of God Most High, he blessed Abram" (Genesis 14:18).

Melchizedek is referred to only twice in the Old Testament, but his meaning should not be overlooked. Paul writes extensively about him in chapter seven of his letter to the Hebrews. He compares Melchizedek to Christ and shows that Christ is a non-Levitical priest of the same sort as Melchizedek, and thus not in the order of Aaron. Thus, the law of the Levitical priesthood does not lead to salvation. As Melchizedek went out to bless Abram he brought bread and wine instead of a bull or a lamb. Melchizedek was a priest prefiguring the Christ to come, and the bread and the wine prefigures the Eucharist.

"'Now then, what do you have on hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever you can find.' But the priest answered David, 'I don't have any ordinary bread on hand; however, there is some consecrated bread here.' . . . So the priest gave him the consecrated bread, since there was no bread there except the bread of the Presence that had been removed from before the Lord and replaced by hot bread on the day it was taken away" (1 Samuel 21:3-6).

Here David, leading his soldiers, stopped to request some food. The priest did not have regular bread and so gave David and his men consecrated bread. This bread was known as the Bread of the Presence. This bread is an example of the "Bread of Life" to come in Christ Jesus as well as the Eucharistic meal. We see here that consecration of bread is not a Catholic invention starting at New Testament times, but an ancient tradition going back thousands of years, long before Christ was born.

"Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a day's portion every day, that I will prove them, whether they will walk in my law or not' . . . And when the dew had gone up, there was on the face of the wilderness a fine, flake-like thing, fine as hoarfrost on the ground. When the people of Israel saw it, they said to one another, 'What is it?' For they did not know what it was. And Moses said to them, 'It is the bread which the Lord has given you to eat.' . . . And the people of Israel ate the manna forty years . . . till they came to the border of the land of Canaan" (Exodus 16:4, 14-15, 35).

This is type from the Old Testament prefiguring the manna to come, Christ Jesus. Jesus refers to himself as the "Bread of Life" and then compares himself to the manna that his audience's forefathers ate (John 6:25-40). John places this teaching directly before he writes Christ's teaching of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Those who read this account would understand the comparison John is drawing. Notice that the Israelites ate this bread out of obedience to God and in order to survive. Likewise, we need Christ to survive our daily lives.

"Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old; you shall take it from the sheep or from the goats. . . . Then they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat them. They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it. . . . And you shall let none of it remain until the morning, anything that remains until the morning you shall burn. In this manner you shall eat it: your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it in haste. It is the Lord's passover" (Exodus 12:5, 7-8, 10-11).

Christ's passion began with the Last Supper, the beginning of Passover. Christ is the Lamb of the greatest Passover of all time, the human race. John the Baptist called Jesus "the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). This lamb is our sacrifice. He died for our sins so that we might have life. It is by consuming his flesh through the Eucharist that we partake in the Christian Passover. This is no accident. When Christ says, "It is finished," he is saying that the Passover of the human race has been accomplished, the Law fulfilled, and communion with God restored. The Eucharist then becomes the sign of this New Covenant and also the means of building communion with God not just once, but continually (Matt. 26:27; Luke 22: 19).

Melchizedek

Who was Melchizedek?

Rabbinic texts (midrashs and targums) view Melchizedek as Shem.

What do you think?

Unconscious Baptism?

"For a long time my [adult] friend suffered from a high fever and lay unconscious in a sweat that looked like death. When they despaired of his recovery, he was baptized. He knew nothing of this himself, and I paid little attention to the fact of his baptism. I assumed that his soul... would not be affected by something done to his body while he was unconscious. But it turned out very differently." (The Confessions of St. Augustine, Book IV, Chapter 4)

What do think of this?

Given the historical view of baptism remitting sins in and of its self I think Augustine acted properly in this situation. However I wouldn't say it is a good rule to go by.

Here is what Aquinas had to say about it in his Summa Theologica the section on baptism


Objection 3: Further, the use of reason is suspended in madmen and imbeciles more than it is in one who sleeps. But it is not customary to baptize people while they sleep. Therefore it should not be given to madmen and imbeciles.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Confess. iv) of his friend that "he was baptized when his recovery was despaired of": and yet Baptism was efficacious with him. Therefore Baptism should sometimes be given to those who lack the use of reason.

Reply to Objection 3: A person should not be baptized while asleep, except he be threatened with the danger of death. In which case he should be baptized, if previously he has manifested a desire to receive Baptism, as we have stated in reference to imbeciles: thus Augustine relates of his friend that "he was baptized while unconscious," because he was in danger of death (Confess. iv).

Why didn't Jesus write something?

I was asked this question last night in a discussion I was having.

I didn't really know a good answer.

The link above is a short answer to this question.

Switch

I had to switch the template I was using because the other one broke somehow. I don't know, I'm not very proficient with computers. I was lucky to get my picture up and add links. That took me about 10 hours to figure out.

I think the new look is a "lighter" approach.

By the way, I usually post a lot of articles with their links because I don't have time to reinvent the wheel. I will usually try to reply with my own brain power and opinion though.

Defending the Deuterocanonicals

During the first century, the Jews disagreed as to what constituted the canon of Scripture. In fact, there were a large number of different canons in use, including the growing canon used by Christians. In order to combat the spreading Christian cult, rabbis met at the city of Jamnia or Javneh in A.D. 90 to determine which books were truly the Word of God. They pronounced many books, including the Gospels, to be unfit as scriptures. This canon also excluded seven books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel) that Christians considered part of the Old Testament.

The group of Jews which met at Javneh became the dominant group for later Jewish history, and today most Jews accept the canon of Javneh. However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).

Needless to say, the Church disregarded the results of Javneh. First, a Jewish council after the time of Christ is not binding on the followers of Christ. Second, Javneh rejected precisely those documents which are foundational for the Christian Church -- the Gospels and the other documents of the New Testament. Third, by rejecting the deuterocanonicals, Javneh rejected books which had been used by Jesus and the apostles and which were in the edition of the Bible that the apostles used in everyday life -- the Septuagint.

It is ironic that Protestants reject the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals at councils such as Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), because these are the very same early Church councils that Protestants appeal to for the canon of the New Testament. Prior to the councils of the late 300s, there was a wide range of disagreement over exactly what books belonged in the New Testament. Certain books, such as the gospels, acts, and most of the epistles of Paul had long been agreed upon. However a number of the books of the New Testament, most notably Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation remained hotly disputed until the canon was settled. They are, in effect, "New Testament deuterocanonicals."

While Protestants are willing to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage (the councils they most commonly cite) for the canonicity of the New Testament deuterocanonicals, they are unwilling to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage for the canonicity of the Old Testament deuterocanonicals.

taken from an article by jimmy akin linked above

1 Corinthians 3:9 and John Calvin's Distorted Understanding of the Council of Trent's Doctrine of Grace

The following is from John Calvin's commentary on Corinthians:

9. For we are fellow-laborers with God. Here is the best argument. It is the Lord's work that we are employed in, and it is to him that we have devoted our labors: hence, as he is faithful and just, he will not disappoint us of our reward. That man, accordingly, is mistaken who looks to men, or depends merely on their remuneration. Here we have an admirable commendation of the ministry -- that while God could accomplish the work entirely himself, he calls us, puny mortals, to be as it were his coadjutors, and makes use of us as instruments. As to the perversion of this statement by the Papists, for supporting their system of free-will, it is beyond measure silly, for Paul shows here, not what men can effect by their natural powers, but what the Lord accomplishes through means of them by his grace. (emphasis added)

Of course, Calvin's caricature is not Catholic teaching at all. Catholics don't believe men can do any good "by their natural powers," nor do we deny sola gratia in the slightest. Simply cooperating with the grace is not "human generation"; it is "God generation." The Council of Trent is very clear on this:

for the whole article click on post title

Infant Baptism

Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.
This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ"—that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.

To see the Catholic Argument for infant baptism click on title.

Augustine

Protestants love to quote this early church father.

One thing that we need to keep in mind is that Augustine was 100% Catholic.

I will keep posting these from time to time as I come across them, and hopefully provide some balance in quoting this Catholic.

Here are a few quotes from Augustine that you won't read in Protestant sources.

For MY PART, I should NOT BELEIVE the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to beleive in the gospel tell me not to beleive in Manicheus, how can I BUT CONSENT?"
C. Epis Mani 5,6


"I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by...and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate."
Augustine,Against the Letter of Mani,5(A.D. 395),in GCC,78


"Carthage was also near the countries over the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown,so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard a number of conspiring enemies because he saw himself joined by letters of communion to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished"
Augustine,To Glorius et.al,Epistle 43:7(A.D. 397),in NPNF1,I:278


"Number the priests even from that seat of Peter. And in that order of fathers see to whom succeeded: that is the rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer."
Augustine,Psalmus contr Partem Donati(A.D. 393),in GILES,182


"All mortal sins are to be submitted to the keys of the Church and all can be forgiven; but recourse to these keys is the only, the necessary, and the certain way to forgiveness. Unless those who are guilty of grevious sin have recourse to the power of the keys, they cannot hope for eternal salvation. Open your lips, them, and confess your sins to the priest. Confession alone is the true gate to Heaven."
Augustine,Christian Combat(A.D. 397)


" 'And was carried in His Own Hands:' how 'carried in His Own Hands'? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, 'This is My Body.' "
Augustine,On the Psalms,33:1,10(A.D. 392-418),in NPNF1,VIII:73


"It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated through the agency of another's will when that infant is brought to Baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn...'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.' The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was in one Adam."
Augustine,To Boniface,Epistle 98:2(A.D. 408),in JUR,III:4


"And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision, which was received by God's earlier people, and before receiving which Abraham was justified, as Cornelius also was enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized."
Augustine,On Baptism against the Donatist,4:24:31(A.D. 400),in NPNF1,IV:461

Immersion Only

Some christians believe that immersion is the only way to baptize. In reply I would like to state a few things.

Immersion is not the only meaning of baptizo. Sometimes it just means washing up. Thus Luke 11:38 reports that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee’s house, "[t]he Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash [baptizo] before dinner." They did not practice immersion before dinner, but, according to Mark, the Pharisees "do not eat unless they wash [nipto] their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they wash themselves [baptizo]" (Mark 7:3–4a, emphasis added). So baptizo can mean cleansing or ritual washing as well as immersion.

A similar range of meanings can be seen when baptizo is used metaphorically. Sometimes a figurative "baptism" is a sort of "immersion"; but not always. For example, speaking of his future suffering and death, Jesus said, "I have a baptism [baptisma] to be baptized [baptizo] with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished!" (Luke 12:50) This might suggest that Christ would be "immersed" in suffering. On the other hand, consider the case of being "baptized with the Holy Spirit."

In Acts 1:4–5 Jesus charged his disciples "not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, ‘you heard from me, for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’" Did this mean they would be "immersed" in the Spirit? No: three times Acts 2 states that the Holy Spirit was poured out on them when Pentecost came (2:17, 18, 33, emphasis added). Later Peter referred to the Spirit falling upon them, and also on others after Pentecost, explicitly identifying these events with the promise of being "baptized with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 11:15–17). These passages demonstrate that the meaning of baptizo is broad enough to include "pouring."

Also throughout the history of Christianity other modes of baptism have been used. Evidence the Didache and also much of the earliest Christian artwork depicts baptism—but not baptism by immersion! If the recipient of the sacrament is in a river, he is shown standing in the river while water is poured over his head from a cup or shell. Tile mosaics in ancient churches and paintings in the catacombs depict baptism by pouring. Baptisteries in early cemeteries are clear witnesses to baptisms by infusion. The entire record of the early Church—as shown in the New Testament, in other writings, and in monumental evidence—indicates the mode of baptism was not restricted to immersion.

I believe all three modes are viable ie. immersion, sprinkling, pouring
but the best way to symbolize death and resurrection is immersion. But this is not neccesary to be a member of the universal Church.

Church members should be baptized, but not limited to immersion.

Another question for all you baptists out there.

Does it really matter if its only a symbol?

Baptism

What is Baptism?

What does it do?

Is it just a symbol?

Can infants get baptized?

Darwin's Doubt

"the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"-Darwin

for Alvin Plantinga's "Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism"
check out this link

Isaac

Isaac
Originally uploaded by summavitae.

Bets & Isaac

Bets & Isaac
Originally uploaded by summavitae.

Sean & Isaac

Sean & Isaac
Originally uploaded by summavitae.