The myth of sacraments.

[Bill the Cat]

No. There are only two sacraments within some versions of Protestantism.

Not true. They just aren't called that.

There are seven sacraments according to Catholicism. As the Catholic faith is the historical faith,

No. The catholic faith (SMALL "c") is the historical faith. The Roman Church is part of it. Any church that teaches the foundations of our faith is catholic.

then there are seven and not two sacraments. The sacramental theology of Protestantism is a humanized version of the true sacramental system.

Then you know very little about Protestantism.

[One Bad Pig]

Which is why I refer to them as ordinances.

Well, if you don't want the Holy Spirit involved....

[Bill the Cat]

Well, if you don't want the Holy Spirit involved....

That's not helpful OBP... An ordinance is nothing more than a man-made word to describe an event. Same as the word "sacrament". They are words. The act behind it is not changed by calling it سر مقدس

[One Bad Pig]

A term which carries with it a false view of Christian ordinances, baptism (immersion) and observance of the remembrance of Christ's death depicted from the Passover observance. Typically Protestants who use the term mean the same thing as symbolic ordinance which plays no roll in salvation. But because of the false views associated with the use of the term most baptists do not use the term regarding the two ordinances of the Christian faith.

Besides in regards to baptism - believers immersion and the observance of the remembrance of Christ's death in metaphor in the Lord's supper they are not in any way to be considered a sacrament as to the words origin and use.

Interesting. I like to think of sacraments as points where earth and heaven intersect or manifested grace.

For a more full understanding of the Orthodox view of sacraments, see here.

[One Bad Pig]

That's not helpful OBP... An ordinance is nothing more than a man-made word to describe an event. Same as the word "sacrament". They are words. The act behind it is not changed by calling it سر مقدس

This is untrue. The intent behind an act is not inconsequential. Faber said he did not want there to be an element of the supernatural involved. That desire has meaning.

[Bill the Cat]

This is untrue. The intent behind an act is not inconsequential. Faber said he did not want there to be an element of the supernatural involved. That desire has meaning.

Well, that's just silly. Ordinances are not Holy Spirit-less... Not sure why he would say that.

[Faber]

I disagree. The Papacy is traceable back to St Peter. There is also early witness to the real presence in the Eucharist, and baptismal regeneration, which most Protestant denominations reject. Church history is consistent with Catholic belief and not the inventions of the many and various Protestant denominations.

JM

If you're talking about the pontiff (=pontifex maximus), I can trace that back to Numa Pompilius, the second king of Rome, about 715 BC. I reject it because there is simply no Biblical basis for it. Nor is there any evidence that the Lords's Supper, or whatever you call it, was anything more than matzo and wine. It was symbolic of the Lord's body and blood, nothing more. There were no platelets, hemoglobin or red blood cells in it at all. And baptism doesn't do anything more than get you wet. (And the word meant to submerge.)

[Faber]

Well, if you don't want the Holy Spirit involved....

I really have no say in the matter.

[37818]

Here's what the Bible has to say about baptism:

Source: Romans 6:4-6 ESV

4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self[a] was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.

© Copyright Original Source

In other words, through baptism "our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin." No amount of rationalization is going to make this passage go away.

It does not say it is the believer's immersion is what does that.

The believer's immersion is the believer's burial with Christ in His death. It does not cause the Christian to be dead with Christ.

Source: Colossians 2:8-15

8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

© Copyright Original Source

In baptism we "were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands" and "raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God".

You fail to see the contrast being made. Believer's immersion is done with hands. What is not done with hands is the circumcision in the heart of the believer.
One of the prophecies of this is found in Jeremiah 31:33. A fulfillment of this is cited in 2 Corinthians 5:17. And case in point can be read in Acts 10:43-48.

And finally:

Source: 1 Peter 3:18-22

18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 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. 21 Baptism, 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

© Copyright Original Source

So, according to Scripture, in baptism God crucifies our old self so that we are no longer enslaved to sin, circumcises us with a circumcision not made by hands (I.e the circumcision spoken of in Romans 2:29) and raises us to a new life. Oh right, He also saves us.

Again you are reading into the text what it does not say. The believer's immersion which "now saves" the believer is literally an antitype of the type being Noah and his family being delivered through the water of the very flood which destroyed world that was. How was Noah and his family brought to safety by that water?

"But baptism saving us would imply that we have to do something to be saved, which would be works salvation!".

Not really. Getting baptised is an expression of our faith, and it is not we who work in the act of baptising, but God.

Baptism is not part of the gospel. ". . . For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: . . ." -- 1 Corinthians 1:17 the Apostle argues.

[JonathanL]

It does not say it is the believer's immersion is what does that.

"by baptism into death"

That's exactly what is says. Or rather, the Spirit working through baptism.

The believer's immersion is the believer's burial with Christ in His death. It does not cause the Christian to be dead with Christ.

Baptism by itself doesn't do anything, agreed. It's the Holy Spirit working (putting our sinful nature to death) in baptism who does all the work.

You fail to see the contrast being made. Believer's immersion is done with hands. What is not done with hands is the circumcision in the heart of the believer.
One of the prophecies of this is found in Jeremiah 31:33. A fulfillment of this is cited in 2 Corinthians 5:17. And case in point can be read in Acts 10:43-48.

But I'm not, nor are anyone else, claiming that it is the act of immersion that causes the "circumcision in the heart of the believer". Rather, it is the Holy Spirit, working in baptism, who circumcises the heart".

2 Corinthians 5:17 reads:

Source: 2 Corinthians 5:17

17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

© Copyright Original Source

I see nothing there that goes against what I've said in this thread. Through baptism we enter into Christ and become a new creation. And the events described in Acts 10:43-48 was an exception in order to let Peter and the rest of the Jewish Christians know that even Gentiles was to be offered salvation. The norm is and has always been the following, namely:



That is "Repent and be baptized . . . and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Cornelius and his household were special case, an exception to show that Gentiles were also to be invited to the Kingdom of God, but the rest of us has not received any promise that we can do so apart from baptism. It's possible of course, because nothing is impossible with God, but it is not the rule.

Again you are reading into the text what it does not say. The believer's immersion which "now saves" the believer is literally an antitype of the type being Noah and his family being delivered through the water of the very flood which destroyed world that was. How was Noah and his family brought to safety by that water?

But the text still says "baptism, . . ., now saves you". That fact does not change. Noah and his family was brought to safety from the flood through the ark, we are brought to safety through baptism.

Baptism is not part of the gospel. ". . . For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: . . ." -- 1 Corinthians 1:17 the Apostle argues.

That text does not say that baptism is not a part of the gospel. He simply says that he himself did not baptize anyone but those that he mentions by name later on in the passage. But presumably someone else baptized them, and Paul when preaching the gospel would have told them something similar as what Peter did in Acts 2:38, namely "repent and be baptized and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit".

[One Bad Pig]

I really have no say in the matter.

Yes, you do. You cannot, of course, order God, but you can invite Him.

[37818]

It does not say it is the believer's immersion is what does that.

The believer's immersion is the believer's burial with Christ in His death. It does not cause the Christian to be dead with Christ.
You fail to see the contrast being made. Believer's immersion is done with hands. What is not done with hands is the circumcision in the heart of the believer.
One of the prophecies of this is found in Jeremiah 31:33. A fulfillment of this is cited in 2 Corinthians 5:17. And case in point can be read in Acts 10:43-48.
Again you are reading into the text what it does not say. The believer's immersion which "now saves" the believer is literally an antitype of the type being Noah and his family being delivered through the water of the very flood which destroyed world that was. How was Noah and his family brought to safety by that water?

Baptism is not part of the gospel. ". . . For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: . . ." -- 1 Corinthians 1:17 the Apostle argues.

Nowhere does holy scripture teach believer's immersion is needed in order to be into Christ's death. Nowhere does the holy scripture teach believer's immersion is needed in order to be saved.

Romans 6:4, ". . . baptism into death . . . " refers to the previous statement, ". . . Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? . . ." The Greek eis does not mean "in order to." See "unto Moses," 1 Corinthians 10:2.

Christian apologist Matt Slick wrote, see here >> http://carm.org/baptism-and-romans-63-5

[Cow Poke]

Yes, you do. You cannot, of course, order God, but you can invite Him.

I tend to agree with this. Not only "invite" Him, but prepare a place for Him to work. A "Solemn Assembly" comes to mind.

[37818]

"by baptism into death"

That's exactly what is says. Or rather, the Spirit working through baptism.



Baptism by itself doesn't do anything, agreed. It's the Holy Spirit working (putting our sinful nature to death) in baptism who does all the work.



But I'm not, nor are anyone else, claiming that it is the act of immersion that causes the "circumcision in the heart of the believer". Rather, it is the Holy Spirit, working in baptism, who circumcises the heart".

2 Corinthians 5:17 reads:

Source: 2 Corinthians 5:17

17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

© Copyright Original Source

I see nothing there that goes against what I've said in this thread. Through baptism we enter into Christ and become a new creation. And the events described in Acts 10:43-48 was an exception in order to let Peter and the rest of the Jewish Christians know that even Gentiles was to be offered salvation. The norm is and has always been the following, namely:



That is "Repent and be baptized . . . and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Cornelius and his household were special case, an exception to show that Gentiles were also to be invited to the Kingdom of God, but the rest of us has not received any promise that we can do so apart from baptism. It's possible of course, because nothing is impossible with God, but it is not the rule.



But the text still says "baptism, . . ., now saves you". That fact does not change. Noah and his family was brought to safety from the flood through the ark, we are brought to safety through baptism.



That text does not say that baptism is not a part of the gospel. He simply says that he himself did not baptize anyone but those that he mentions by name later on in the passage. But presumably someone else baptized them, and Paul when preaching the gospel would have told them something similar as what Peter did in Acts 2:38, namely "repent and be baptized and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit".

Nowhere does holy scripture teach believer's immersion is needed in order to be into Christ's death. Nowhere does the holy scripture teach believer's immersion is needed in order to be saved.

Romans 6:4, ". . . baptism into death . . . " refers to the previous statement, ". . . Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? . . ." The Greek eis does not mean "in order to." See "unto Moses," 1 Corinthians 10:2.

Christian apologist Matt Slick wrote, see here >> http://carm.org/baptism-and-romans-63-5

[Rushing Jaws]

I disagree. The Papacy is traceable back to St Peter. There is also early witness to the real presence in the Eucharist, and baptismal regeneration, which most Protestant denominations reject. Church history is consistent with Catholic belief and not the inventions of the many and various Protestant denominations.

JM

STM these disagreements are a matter of: words, definition, perspective, "personal equation", and how one puts the *data* together. There a lot of different St Augustines of Hippo, a lot of St Pauls - and a lot of Jesuses.