Baptism

[Jake Huether]

Does Ezekiel 36 prophesy about Baptism?


[quote]25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.[/quote]

If so, how do Protestants reconcile the notion of full body immersion with this "sprinkling"?

[Semperviva]

Not sure. Maybe this text.

Philip was directed by an angel of the Lord to go to the road that led to Gaza where he met an Ethiopian and "preached Jesus to him" (Acts 8:26-35). As they continued on their way, they came to water and the Ethiopian asked, "Here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" (v. 36). Told he must believe, he stated, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God," (v. 37), and "[b]both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him," [/b](v. 38).
--and pretty sure it was done in early church practise, tambien.

Edited June 27, 2005 by Semperviva

[Pilgrim]

Keep in mind that Catholics actually [b]prefer [/b]full-body immersion as well.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 628:
[quote]628: Baptism, [b]the original and full sign of which is immersion[/b], efficaciously signifies the descent into the tomb by the Christian who dies to sin with Christ in order to live a new life. "We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life."[/quote]

Remember, Jesus was baptized by immersion.

Edited June 27, 2005 by Pilgrim

[Pilgrim]

A couple more points from the Catechism for consideration:

[quote][b]1262[/b]: The different effects of Baptism are signified by the perceptible elements of the sacramental rite. [i]Immersion in water symbolizes not only death and purification, but also regeneration and renewal. [/i]Thus the two principal effects are purification from sins and new birth in the Holy Spirit. [/quote]


[quote][b]1239 [/b]: The essential rite of the sacrament follows: Baptism properly speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to the Paschal mystery of Christ. [i]Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water.[/i] However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate's head.[/quote]

[Mateo el Feo]

Just FYI:

I wanted to double check what the Church teaches about sprinkling (i.e. aspersion). While sprinkling is valid, Canon Law ([url="http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/canon/c0840-1165.htm#par1797"]see Canon 854[/url]) requires Sacramental Baptism be conferred by pouring or immersion.

Regarding the symbolism of pouring, I found the following quote interesting ([url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp"]Catholic.com link[/url]):
[quote]It is true that immersion best represents death and resurrection, bringing out more fully the meaning of the sacrament than pouring or sprinkling (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 1239). (Immersion is actually the usual mode of baptizing in the Catholic Church’s Eastern rites.) On the other hand, pouring best represents the infusion of the Holy Spirit also associated with water baptism. And all three modes adequately suggest the sense of cleansing signified by baptism. No one mode has exclusive symbolical validity over the others. [/quote]

[Guest JeffCR07]

As others have already noted, Baptism via immersion is the preferred manner, as it is the most ancient and in line with Tradition, though the other ways are acceptable.

[Quietfire]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Jun 27 2005, 02:52 PM']Does Ezekiel 36 prophesy about Baptism? 

[right][snapback]625377[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

From a book by John Salza in reference to the verse mentioned,
Yes.

[Briguy]

The Ez. quote does not matter as what is valid now is what is taught in the New Testement, as before the Holy Spirit had not been poured out and we were not in an age of Grace. I am not saying I know what Ez. was talking about as I have never studied the context and what the Hebrew words mean or anything like that but I do know that the death and ressurection of Jesus changed everything and opened up a whole new way to be "clean".

Also, I find it interesting how the Catechism uses the word symbolical and symbolism in regards to Baptism. The idea that Baptism is a symbol in one sentance and actually takes away sin literally in another sentance seem not to fit together very well. I see baptism as symbolic and more important to the early church then it is now in 2005. I won't expand on that unless someone really wants me to.

In Christ,
Brian

[Pilgrim]

[quote name='Briguy' date='Jun 29 2005, 07:31 AM']The Ez. quote does not matter as what is valid now is what is taught in the New Testement, as before the Holy Spirit had not been poured out and we were not in an age of Grace.[/quote]
I'm not sure I agree. Mother Church regards the New Testament as a [i]fulfillment [/i]of the Old Testament, and holds that a great many things in the OT [i]prefigure [/i]people and actions in the NT. Your logic would seem to suppose that the OT is no longer valid now that we have the NT, which couldn't be further from the truth.

Here is a small list of prophesies in the OT that are considered to have been fulfilled by Jesus in the NT: [url="http://www.whoami.us/proph.htm"]http://www.whoami.us/proph.htm[/url]

[quote name='Briguy' date='Jun 29 2005, 07:31 AM']Also, I find it interesting how the Catechism uses the word symbolic and symbolism in regards to Baptism. The idea that Baptism is a symbol in one sentance and actually takes away sin literally in another sentance seem not to fit together very well. I see baptism as symbolic and more important to the early church then it is now in 2005. I won't expand on that unless someone really wants me to.[/quote]
The CCC isn't referring to baptism itself as symbolic, but rather is referring to the different [i]signs [/i]under which baptism can be accomplished. It is saying that immersion is a more complete [i]sign [/i]of the very real and efficacious action of baptism than, say, sprinkling. But the fullness of the sacrament, which is not itself symbolic, remains the same in both instances.

Edited June 29, 2005 by Pilgrim

[Pilgrim]

Another point to ponder: In extreme circumstances, water is not even required for the full effects of baptism to occur. See these excerpts from the CCC referring to [i]baptism of blood[/i] and [i]baptism of desire[/i].

[quote][b]1258 [/b]The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This [i]Baptism of blood[/i], like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

[b]1259 [/b]For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament. [/quote]

[Briguy]

Howdy Pilgrim (hey, I feel like John Wayne),

First I made a typo above and "not" should have been "now" as I believe we are in an age of grace.

Anyway, I am not doing away with the OT. I am saying that for this doctrine the clear NT teaching would trump what the OT said. The OT is a wonderful history of God and His dealings with His people and it does set up the coming of Christ for us. The rules of the Law, we know no longer apply to us. Circimsisson is no longer a covenant sign. Isreal is no longer God's chosen, as the Gentiles were grafted in to the vine. I am simply saying that with doctrine, what the NT offers the "body of Christ" is what is needed in this dispensation.

Also, the word symbol in any other form is still one thing representing something else. The USA flag is a symbol of freedom, it is not however, freedom itself. Your explanation of this was good but still seems to miss the target especially above in the first use that the CCC makes of the word "symbolizes". It seems to me that the CCC writers didn't really mean symbol but may have meant something different.

One final point. If desire for baptism equals Baptism then Baptism becomes less valid because it does not require a priest to perform it and the act of the heart becaomes the important thing and not the physical action of water. The act of the heart is what I see as the main issue and so maybe in that way we are not that different. Now what happens when the person that dies before baptism is a child not able to have a desire of his/her own???

In Christ,
Brian

Edited June 30, 2005 by Briguy

[Pilgrim]

[quote name='Briguy' date='Jun 30 2005, 07:49 AM']Also, the word symbol in any other form is still one thing representing something else. The USA flag is a symbol of freedom, it is not however, freedom itself. Your explanation of this was good but still seems to miss the target especially above in the first use that the CCC makes of the word "symbolizes". It seems to me that the CCC writers didn't really mean symbol but may have meant something different. [/quote]
I think you might be missing the forest for the trees. The CCC is extremely precise in its use of language and there isn't a single word in that paragraph that isn't intentional. Water is a symbol in the sense that the water itself doesn't accomplish the act of baptism, but rather, [i]God does[/i], with the aid of the priest. Yet baptism itself is not a symbol.

[quote name='Briguy' date='Jun 30 2005, 07:49 AM']One final point. If desire for baptism equals Baptism then Baptism becomes less valid because it does not require a priest to perform it and the act of the heart becaomes the important thing and not the physical action of water. [/quote]
Again, the point is being missed. The logic goes like this:
Baptism is [i]required [/i]to enter heaven. So, say a person seeks baptism, thus indicating that they are earnestly seeking heaven. Yet say they should die before receiving baptism. Well then, we must logically conclude that they will not enter heaven. So they're damned, right? Wait... that doesn't seem merciful or just, does it? And God is, above all, [i]merciful [/i]and [i]just[/i]. We must then conclude that God in his mercy has arranged a plan for that soul to enter heaven. We don't know exactly how, but that doesn't matter; God will not turn his back on someone who earnestly seeks him yet who isn't given the adequate means of accomplishing it (i.e. dying before baptism).

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Briguy' date='Jun 30 2005, 05:49 AM'][. . .]

Also, the word symbol in any other form is still one thing representing something else. The USA flag is a symbol of freedom, it is not however, freedom itself. Your explanation of this was good but still seems to miss the target especially above in the first use that the CCC makes of the word "symbolizes". It seems to me that the CCC writers didn't really mean symbol but may have meant something different.

[. . .][right][snapback]628135[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The Catholic Church uses the word [i]symbol[/i] in its original and ancient sense, while you are using the word in the modern sense, which is derived from the Cartesian revolution in philosophy. The word symbol in the original Greek is derived from the word [i]sym-ballein[/i], which means to bring together. Thus, as Carlo Siri pointed out, "The [i]symbolon[/i] was originally the broken half of an object which, when brought together with its other half, could serve as sign of recognition." [Carlo Siri, [u]Images of Truth: From Sign to Symbol[/u], translated by Massimo Verdicchio, New Jersey: Humanities Press International, Inc., 1993, page 105] In other words, the symbol and the thing symbolized are mystically one and the same reality.

In fact even the Protestant scholar Adolf von Harnack recognized this truth, and that is why in reference to the Eucharist he said that, "The symbol is the mystery and the mystery was not conceivable without a symbol,” and then he went on to say that, “What we now-a-days understand by symbol is a thing which is not that which it represents; at that time [i.e., in the ancient Church] symbol denoted a thing which, in some kind of way, really is what it signifies." [Adolph von Harnack, [u]History of Dogma[/u], New York: Dover Publications, 1961, volume 2, page 144] Consequently, the sacraments in Catholic theology are symbols in the ancient sense of the word, and not in the modern Cartesian sense, because they render present the mystery that they signify.

[Guest JeffCR07]

dang it, you got to it before me.

[jmjtina]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 30 2005, 09:15 AM']The Catholic Church uses the word [i]symbol[/i] in its original and ancient sense, while you are using the word in the modern sense, which is derived from the Cartesian revolution in philosophy. The word symbol in the original Greek is derived from the word [i]sym-ballein[/i], which means to bring together. Thus, as Carlo Siri pointed out, "The [i]symbolon[/i] was originally the broken half of an object which, when brought together with its other half, could serve as sign of recognition." [Carlo Siri, [u]Images of Truth: From Sign to Symbol[/u], translated by Massimo Verdicchio, New Jersey: Humanities Press International, Inc., 1993, page 105] In other words, the symbol and the thing symbolized are mystically one and the same reality.

In fact even the Protestant scholar Adolf von Harnack recognized this truth, and that is why in reference to the Eucharist he said that, "The symbol is the mystery and the mystery was not conceivable without a symbol,” and then he went on to say that, “What we now-a-days understand by symbol is a thing which is not that which it represents; at that time [i.e., in the ancient Church] symbol denoted a thing which, in some kind of way, really is what it signifies." [Adolph von Harnack, [u]History of Dogma[/u], New York: Dover Publications, 1961, volume 2, page 144] Consequently, the sacraments in Catholic theology are symbols in the ancient sense of the word, and not in the modern Cartesian sense, because they render present the mystery that they signify.
[right][snapback]628220[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I wish I had your brain.