Man Made Traditions

"Making void the word of God by your own tradition, which you have given forth. And many other such like things you do." - Mark 7:13

FOR EXAMPLE:

1. Baptism that does nothing on the inside. - 1 Peter 3:21

2. A Eucharist that is a mere symbol. - Luke 22:19

3. Marriage that confers no grace. - Verses

4. Pastors without Holy Orders. - 1 Corinthians 11:24

5. Singles struggling without the religious life. - Matthew 19:12

6. Ministers who will not hear confessions. - John 20:22

7. Prayer without the belief in healing. - James 5:15

8. Demoniacs without a rite to deliver them. - Mark 16:17

Just to name a few...

New Media Godfather

Stubbs & Vogt Families

Besides being a new media guru, did you know that Brandon Vogt is a godfather? That's right! That's his crew next to mine. We figured out we lived close to each other about two years ago and developed an on-ground friendship. Brandon and Kathleen both are great people, and we are confident they will be prayerful support for Luke's journey to heaven.

Catholic Dads On Tap: First Podcast!

Devin Rose and I decided to start a podcast called "Catholic Dads On Tap". In our first episode, we talk about "Religion Vs. Relationship" and baptismal regeneration. Tell me what you think!



You can subscribe to the podcast here.

Tertullian and Infant Baptism

This concludes my three part (four post) series on infant baptism. First, we considered how the belief resonates with a general Christian ethos. Then, as an important qualifier, we considered what baptism does in general. Second, we looked at infant baptism in the scriptures. Last but not least, we will now look to Church history and consider the almost universal Christian practice of infant baptism.

I want to think through this issue with two ideas in mind:

1. Only one theologian challenged infant baptism for 1,500 years

2. If you want some evidence for infant baptism in Church history you can have a field day reading St. Polycarp, Origen, St. Augustine, early Church Councils, writings in the catacombs...

You might ask, "Who was the knuckle-headed theologian who opposed infant baptism?"

Tertullian was the object of my intense study during my undergraduate thesis work. That being said, it is not surprising at all that he would want to keep baptism from children. To understand why, let's consider some of the background.

First, Tertullian was not a trained theologian. He was a trained lawyer and rhetorician. In Carthage, he would be heavily influenced by Stoic philosophy, particularly in how the soul is related to the body (see De Anima). It is this anthropology that informs his understanding of the sacrament of baptism and is the likely cause for both his dualism and his insistence on the simplicity of faith (he was also a physicalist).

Tertullian taught the orthodox belief that confessio, satisfacto, and contritio to be the essential components of any forgiveness granted for post-baptismal sins. However, these concepts for Tertullian functioned within a legal systematic context. Let's focus on the words "satisfacto" and "contritio" which correspond to a series of actions prescribed by a priest that would clear the conscious of a believer and the penance paid by the penitent (see De Paenitentia). Tertullian viewed baptism as the focal point of grace and the means by which complete holiness could be obtained, and even more, that satisfacto and contritio were long legal processes (lex tingendi), therefore, he encouraged Christians to postpone baptism as long as possible in an effort to limit the opportunity for losing grace upon the potential commitment of future sin. 

As such, Tertullian can be understood as a fearful rigorist. A rigorist is basically anyone who holds that absolute extremes are necessary for salvation--meaning only those who obtain to that (extreme/rigorous) level of practice/belief will be saved. For example, Tertullian condemned women who married pagans, used makeup, hair dye, fancy clothes or jewelry. St. Augustine noticed this when studying Tertullian and was critical of the World--Church dualism prevalent in his writings.

The Take Away...

Tertullian shows us the dangers of rigorism. He would not only prescribe the delay of infant baptism, he would likely discourage you or I from being baptized! Yikes!

Even more, he does not make a compelling case for the Anabaptists. Imagine a baptismal line at a geriatrics facility--the Tertullian ideal. And may they all pray for an expedient and timely death!

That aside, what Tertullian does evidence is the basic Patristic notion that baptism is salvific. In addition, we must remember that the infusion of grace is as much an empowerment to a Godly life as it is a cleansing from sin--an idea less emphasized in Tertullian. In short, we can take away from Tertullian the basic assumption that baptism is salvific without getting caught up in his rigorist errors.

(Next up: Confession--Is It Against Christian Sensibilities?)

Secondary Literature:
Phillip S. Watson, Concept of Grace, London: Epworth Press, 75.
Chalres Norris Cochrane, Christianity and Classical Culture, NY: Oxford University Press, 223.
B.J. Kidd, A History of the Church, NY: Oxford University Press, 372.
Edward Fortman, The Theology of Man and Grace, Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Co, 107.
Arthur McGiffert, A History of Christian Thought, v.2, London: University of London Press, 20.
R.A. Markus, Saeculum: History and Society in the Theology of St. Augustine, London: Cambridge University Press, p.106.

Infant Baptism in the Bible

My daughter Gemma Grace after baptismal regeneration

"For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."

Collosians 2:9-12

This is part 3 of 4 on infant baptism. If you haven't, I suggest you read the first and second posts here and here. In the above passage, St. Paul--the Catholic theologian--does a lot of work in a few words. The key is to look at how the clauses are linked.

He is the head over all rule and authority
AND
in Him we are circumcised with a [circumcision made without hands]
IN
The removal of the body of the flesh
HAVING BEEN
buried with Him in baptism
IN WHICH
we are also raised up with Him
THROUGH
faith in the working of God
WHO
raised Him from the dead

1. Christ can do what He wants and He has a circumcision that doesn't involve, well you know "hands" (see here for more info). Let's just say a Jew in the 1st century would know what that meant.

2. His Circumcision is about the "body of the flesh". This has nothing to do with the body as evidenced by #1. It does have to do with our sin nature (think works of the flesh).

3. How does this happen? St. Paul says that it was a "having been" experience. (See picture of my daughter). However it is not enough that through baptism we enter into the covenant of his death and burial.

4. We must have faith in the working of God who raised Him (and us) from the dead.

I see water. I see Gemma. I see water. I see Gemma. I see by faith the unseen Resurrection of the soul.

I see picture of my daughter above. So, if you've been to a baptism and realized, "I didn't see anything change, hmm?" Oh you of little faith, we walk by faith and not by sight.

So, why offer this to infants?

I think there are three solid Biblical reasons (besides the reason that the Church teaches it):

1. Baptism is the New Covenant Circumcision

When do you circumcise someone? How do parents "place" their children into the family of God? The direct link between O.T. circumcision and baptism is a strong witness to its rightful New Covenant context.

2. Baptism was offered to everyone in the family of the jailer in Acts 16:33.

"He took them in at that hour of the night and bathed their wounds; then he and all his family were baptized at once."

It's unconscionable that the disciples, who had been chastised by our Lord for resisting the children (Matt 19:14), would now walk into a 1st century home and according to Scripture baptize "all his family" EXCEPT THE CHILDREN. No my friend, that is called adding to the text what is not there. It is not conjecture to assume the children were baptized, but it is conjecture to ADD to the text by saying that all = everyone but the children.

3. Christ taught that the faith of the Church (others) could save someone.

We are all familiar with story of some friends who lowered their paralyzed friend through the roof to see Jesus. "When he saw their faith, he said, "As for you, your sins are forgiven." (Luke 5:20).

So, next time you see a picture of this:

THINK THIS:

Cloud Baptism and Baptism in the Bible

Before I continue considering the reasons for the Catholic teaching of infant baptism, I wanted to try to explain more thoroughly from Scripture what is taught regarding baptism in general. My next two posts after this will deal with infant baptism in the Scriptures and Tradition.

St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:2, makes an allusion to an Old Testament baptism. I think this is very important because St. Paul takes note of two baptisms: water (the sea) and cloud. We are all familiar with the water baptism. What is cloud baptism?

A friend of mine has instructed me that cloud baptism has traditionally been understood to reference the cloud of fire and as an analogy to the sacrament of Confirmation.

However, in Exodus 40:35 and other places, the cloud signifies that the glory of God. A cloud descended upon the mountain of God when He revealed His covenant (the Law). The cloud was where Moses would "appear...over the atonement cover" (Lev 16:2). A pillar of cloud concealed the revelation of God from the people when Moses was on the mountain (Ex 33:9). This of course was after God had ordained that the cloud would help the people "hear when I speak with you (Moses) and may believe in you forever", but the people would respond by worshiping a golden calf (Ex 19 and 32).  In Numbers 16 we learn that during Korah's rebellion, the cloud descends to bring justice, but the Priest who has been given authority by God (despite the people's objections) makes atonement for the people; yet many die.

Fast-forward to the New Covenant.

When Jesus is baptized we see our first instantiation of the Holy Trinity. The Father speaks, the Spirit descends, and the Son is present. Of course the Eternal Logos (Christ) had been in the water before John that day, so what is especial to this moment is the dove (The Father's Word was already present before he said "This is my son..."). It hearkens back to Noah and reminds us that "peace and goodwill has come to humanity" and that God has come again, like in the first garden, to reconcile with us. Let us take note that it is the Spirit that descends this time in approval and this time to show (not conceal) to the people the definitive Revelation of God--Jesus Christ. Yet this act in time will gain its ultimate existential meaning a few years later.

So it is that in Romans 6:4, St. Paul declares, "Therefore we have been buried with him through baptism into death through the glory of the Father (the cloud) so we too might walk in newness of life." (see also Col 2:22).

John's baptism foreshadowed what would come. It prepared the way for the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." Through Christ's death and glorious resurrection, baptism is transformed beyond mere symbol or theatric. The sea and the cloud--water and The glory of God--are now one in the One who has come to make all things new, and it is that baptism that He will commission His disciples to go and do. Grafted into the Holy Trinity, we enter into the Way of the Father, through the passion and death of the Son, and rise again to new life by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Look at Romans 6:4 again. Notice that it is the "glory of God" that allows us to "walk" in newness of life. This glory is not set aside for the eschaton, the end, but rather is meant to come to us now. While our bodies certainly groan for their redemption, what then is redeemed if not our bodies? Unlike Christ, our resurrection does not include (yet) a new body, but what is made new "through baptism"?

So then St. Peter teaches us, "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" (I Pet 3:21). Let's consider then what we can learn from this passage and from what has preceded:

• Our baptism is salvific in that it is our participation in the life, death and resurrection of Christ
• It cleans us, but not externally but internally by the power of the Holy Spirit in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (the glory of the Father)--Phil 3:10
• Whereas the cloud and water were distinct in the Old Covenant; In Christ the Glory of God is manifest in the waters of baptism.
• Thus in Baptism, the glory of God descends upon the baptized making them a new creature; the water is not mere symbol but is the means by which Christ transmits his supernatural power. What was foreshadowed by the O.T. acts is realized in New Covenant Baptism.

[Note: When the glory of God comes you are either (1) purified or (2) destroyed/punished not (3) legally accounted as righteous. This is alien to all of the Old Testament imagery of baptism and the manifest glory of God.]

Korah's Rebellion

Interestingly enough, it is in Jude 1:11 that we learn I think about those who will reject the Church's teaching on baptism. Of course I do not mean those who happen to believe that infant baptism is not true, but rather those who originally espoused that doctrine.

"Woe to them! For they have gone the way of Cain, and for pay they have rushed headlong into the error of Balaam, and perished in the rebellion of Korah..." Who are these that "care (only) for themselves" and are "carried along by winds" and are "without fruit" (Jude 1:12)?

So, I'll stop for now and start again considering infant baptism in the Scriptures and how a rejection of it is un-Biblical.

Infant Baptism: Is it Against Christian Sensibilities?

This starts another 3-part series on a Catholic doctrinal position. Lucky for me, most Christians practice infant baptism. For a list go here. The next two posts--infant baptism in the Scripture and in Church history--seem most germane to this topic since how you feel about infant baptism has a lot to do about what you think about baptism in general (what it is and it's effect) and how you received your baptismal tradition.

Setting those two issues aside for a moment, I'll bullet some considerations that illumine why infant baptism is not against Christian sensibilities:

• We are born with original sin
• Original sin makes us guilty from the get-go
• We are all in need of a savior
• Every person has dignity
• Babies are persons
• They have dignity
• They also are in need of a savior because of original sin
• If baptism washes us, it washes us of something
• It isn't dirt; it is the stain of original sin in the soul

Why would we deprive this of a child? Didn't Jesus say "such are the kingdom of heaven"? I think we do two possibly very damaging things when we don't baptise our infant children. First, we don't acknowledge original sin. Second, we devalue the unique and dignified personhood of the child. This, I think, is the most damaging effect sociologically. In an age where the unborn has no value, what does it mean when the first religious act we make is to say, "Your personal relationship with God needs to be put off." Why? Does it imply that they are less than persons? I'm not sure, but I think there is something enlivened in the heart when you offer your newborn to the Church to be baptized. Conversely, it is not enlivened when you don't (I know because I've done it both ways).

When you offer your child for baptism, you give him or her to God. It is the circumcision of Christ. As a parent I am not helpless as to the spiritual destiny of my child, yet neither is my child passive as to their cooperation with the grace of Christ. That will come later. However, in infant baptism the inestimable value of the baby as person is recognized. Would we deprive baptism to an adult who is in a vegetative state or mentally handicapped to such an extent that they are like an infant? Of course not, I don't think anyone with a heart would. Yet, why do some refuse a newborn baby baptism? I'm not sure. Maybe try here or here.

At least for what it's worth, infant baptism isn't against Christian sensibilities.

Baptism

The word baptism comes from the Greek "to wash". As a Protestant, who believed that baptism was an external sign of an internal reality, I never stopped to ask myself why our Lord gave the sacrament such a name. If in fact it was meant to wash, wash what?

If anyone has ever been to a baptism, they might notice that afterwords (an evangelical baptism or otherwise), no one has been sufficiently cleansed externally by the ritual. In the case of the SB, the fresh smell of the chlorine might actually leave one in need of a bath following the ritual. If done in the Jordan river the afore is even more obvious. Yes, this cleansing cannot be external, which leaves us with only another option:

Baptism transforms the inner man. It washes us clean, from the inside-out.

I guess one still might argue that the washing was a metaphor for the symbolic nature of the salvific act of Christ that had already been accomplished. However, a reading of the end of Matthew, "Go make disciples, washing them (baptizing) in the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit...", makes no real sense with that reading. Instead, I am content to now have a coherent view of the sacrament of baptism. When Christ washes you, beware, he is coming for your soul!