I noticed there wasn’t a dedicated space for religious talk on here, so I thought I’d make one. I’m doing this because I like talking/thinking about religious stuff. What religious stuff has been on you all’s minds lately?
I have been thinking about sacraments a lot recently. Mostly because I had to write a paper about baptism for a class I’m taking. What does your Church/tradition teach about sacraments/baptism? Do you agree with the official teaching, or are you a filthy rebel?
“All you who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. . .”
That’s it, pretty much. Forgiveness of sin, adopted sonship, initation into the Church, etc. For us it’s what we mean by being “born again.” The old baptismal fonts looked like graves on purpose, because you die to your old life and are reborn in Christ.
What issues do you have? I’m happy to believe what the Church teaches.
I’m coming at it from a Protestant tradition. The paper was on paedobaptism vs credobaptism. I had always been taught the very benign and boring Zwinglian view; that sacraments are symbolic actions that don’t do anything. Over the the past few years, I’ve started to reject the position held by my own tradition, and lean towards a more historical understanding of the sacrament.
If it is true that baptism is a symbolic action that reflects one’s faith, then paedobaptism is an absurdity. If it is not true, and baptism is an effective means of conferring saving grace, then paedobaptism becomes a necessity. I understand the objections to ex opere operato as “magical” thinking born out of medieval superstitions, and I think those objections are bunk. No one is married without being married. It is being married that makes one become married. How is is not the same as ex opere operato? Marriage and baptism are both sacraments, therefore we can expect them to function similarly.
Am I making sense? I fear I’m rambling.
What exactly is a paedobaptism and credobaptism? I don’t think I can say much without that knowledge.
I come from the Roman Catholic tradition and trying to make up for a period of being lapsed in college. I am not a filthy rebel, if I misstate I hope for correction, if I have an issue I expect the problem is mine not the 2,000 year old traditions. That disclaimer being said, we are baptized to reestablish our connection with God, that was broken by the original sin of our First Parents. It helps to heal the wound of sin, concupiscence, that encourages us to desire to sin. It also acts as an exorcism, with the rejection of Satan and all of his works, that was my favorite part at my daughter’s baptism. Our Lord was baptized by John the Baptist in the first Luminous Mystery, showing us the way we need to go to be in right relation with God.
My thinking is the sacraments all help get us in right relation with God; I especially think of Penance and Reconciliation where I have had powerful experiences of God’s love.
Lately I’ve been thinking about the intertwined-ness of things. Phrases like “just a symbol” make less sense to me now than they did before. Since we are talking about bride and bridegrooms as God relates to his church, let me make a possibly scandalous extension of that analogy. The act that brides and bridegrooms do, is a symbol of their love, but there is a real inward change from which new life is created. At least in one of them, if all goes right.
I have been thinking of the spookiness of things lately. Came across this quote from Aquinas:
"It is impossible for any created intellect to see the essence of God by its own natural power. For the knowledge of every knower is ruled according to the mode of its own substance. Now the divine essence surpasses every created substance, as was shown above. Therefore, no created intellect can see the essence of God, unless God by His grace unites Himself to the created intellect, as an object made intelligible to it." Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 12, Article 4.
I don’t have any “position” on this quote I’d want to share at the moment. Other than the phrase “we gaze upon him with his own eyes” that popped in my head right now and is likely nonsense. But, I think this is the deep end of the pool.
Regarding Baptism, lately I’ve been thinking about the intertwined-ness of things. Phrases like “just a symbol” make less sense to me now than they did before. Since we are talking about bride and bridegrooms as God relates to his church, let me make a possibly scandalous extension of that analogy. The act that brides and bridegrooms do, is a symbol of their love, but there is a real inward change from which new life is created. At least in one of them, if all goes right.
@jpschorsch credobaptism is also referred to as believers baptism. It is a position on baptism that affirms baptism as a personal choice. Generally, credobaptists will affirm sola scriptura . In addition, they usually believe salvation is by faith alone; faith is primarily understood as conscious accent to the teachings of Christ/Christianity. Baptism is an outward symbol of a person’s internal faith in Christ.Therefore, credobaptists think baptizing infants is inappropriate. This view is held by Baptists, non-denominational types, many Pentecostal groups, and so on.
Paedobaptism is fancy talk for the practice of infant baptism.
I totally get where the credobaptists are coming from in their own theological systems, but I’m increasingly convinced that they’ve got it all wrong. If baptism is a symbol of personal faith, and faith is the same as conscious belief, then infants cannot legitimately receive baptism. But if baptism is a means of conferring grace, and infants are in need of grace, then infants must be baptized. Not to mention their conflation of faith with belief sounding a whole lot more like 2nd century Gnosticism than anything resembling traditional Christianity.
I would be interested to know how the credo perspective gets through the admonishment to baptize others. If it is a personal choice, reflection of an inward reality, how do we baptize someone else? Genuinely interested. From my perspective, baptism is a symbol of a real new life after a spiritual death. Not a symbol of faith. Again, I think we’re overly prudish about what the full implications of the bridegroom/ bride analogy is in the modern West. It might be the case we do really have new life in us, given to us by another. Hence it makes sense that the lord commands us to baptize others, not, to get them to baptize themselves. Seems like there are two subjects, not one, in the injunction. A doer, and a done-to. A relational harmony.
@Eolson I don’t know that I can steelman the credobaptist position for you. I was raised with it, and believed it myself until carefully thinking about things compelled me to believe otherwise. That said, I think a credobaptist would take umbridge with your division of faith and new life. The credobaptist usually believed that our new life starts with an action of faith. The evangelical has this idea of the “sinner’s prayer.” A ministerman will have a sermon, that ends with a call to action, which is usually an invitation to “dedicate your life to Christ by repeating this prayer after me.” If you asked a credobaptist/evangelical when do you become saved/born again, they would point to that moment when you repeated the ministerman’s prayer. The act of faith/response to grace is what causes the new life in the believer in their thinking (notice, there is still an implicit affirmation of ex opere operato, only the work done is a prayer instead of baptism). I’m under the impression that the Catholic understanding would say that new life begins in baptism, not in a prayerful moment. Is that correct, Catholic bros?
In another response, you said you’ve been thinking about the “spookiness of everything.” Could you elaborate on that a bit for me? I’m curious what you’ve been finding spooky.
I think, regarding spookiness, that I get nervous when theology starts to make too much rational sense. There seems to be a difference between faith being contra to reason, and being intelligible. Baptism, sanctification, sacraments…I get nervous when I feel I understand them, as in, have my mind around them. I dont want these things to be “Just” anything…
The word “just” is probably the word I hate the most at the moment. I dont want salvation to be “just” a divine hall pass for sins, Sacraments…“Just” a symbol…“Just” poetic device… Ect. In a great irony, it seems like we take the literal stuff in scripture as poetry and the poetic as literal.
It seems these mysterious, of theosis, beautification, “heaven,” are both farther away from us that we can imagine, yet, also, nearer to our most inner being than we dare believe.
Hi Will, I meant to respond to this sooner but life got busy. I looked at my copy of The Catechism of the Catholic Church and in the section on The Seven Sacraments of the Church it goes into details.
The beginning of Article 1:
1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: “Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.”
Then in Section VII. The Grace of Baptism
“A new creature”
1265 Baptism not only purifies all sins, but also makes the neophyte “a new creature,” an adopted son of God, who has become a “partaker of the divine nature,” member of Christ and co-heir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit.
1266 The Most Holy Trinity give the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification:
Thus the whole organism of the Christian’s supernatural life has its roots in Baptism.
I pulled out what I thought were the relevant sections to your question above. My understanding is that Baptism heals the break caused by the First Sin of Adam and Eve, allowing their children to reconnect with the divine. We are first born as children of Man, burdened with the effects of sin. In Baptism we are reborn as sons of God healed of original sin, though not all the consequences of that sin. While I might be a baptized believer I still have the wound that makes me want to engage in sins. I might be wandering a bit here.
@Eolson I think I see what you mean. People will sometimes use “just” to simplify their theology. Theosis sure is weird to think about, but if theosis is “just” a metaphor for moral behavior, then the theological heavy lifting evaporates. It strikes me as lazy, cowardly, and dishonest.
If someone were to throw “just” around wantonly enough, God’s own self could quickly be reduced to a mere poetic device meant to metaphorically goad persons into meaningful loving communities that uplift one another every Sunday by listening to Pastoress Rainy McSunshine’s sermons on the virtues of inclusion. This is certainly easier to understand than us being invited into God’s own inner-triune life that does not need to include you, but has made it possible for you to be included. You are to put on God’s own righteousness, as Christ put on our infirmities.
@jpschorsch I appreciate you taking the time to look this up directly in the Catechism.
I have a heavy question that may not have a good answer, and I promise I’m not being pejorative. This is, however, a real critique some Protestants will levy against the Catholic understanding of baptism; isn’t this magical thinking? One goes into the water with the proper words recited, and something suddenly (magically?) happens to the baptized.
I do not think this is a good critique, because our entire faith is based on God somehow becoming a human, infinity putting on finitude. And this infinity in finitude would routinely say a word, or raise His hand, or otherwise bend reality in ways that very much seem magical. Perhaps the magical is not so far off from the spiritual?
Of course, what we usually consider magical practices involves imposing something of the magic user’s will on reality. The practice of baptism (and the other sacraments) involve a submission of the human will to the divine. It wasn’t our idea to baptize as a means of conferring grace. It was Christ’s command that we baptize.
@Will I haven’t really heard that one before, and I am not offended. In the Old Testament ritual purity and doing things in the proper way is very important. Why would the sacraments be different? If you do something you need to do it right, Christ was baptized and I am a little fish following the big fish.
My understanding of magic is that it is like technology a way to expand ones capacity to impose your will in the world. The sacraments are there so you submit yourself to God. This may be an aside from your point.
The scandal of particularity: that God, the eternal God, who dwells in unapproachable light, would care about you. Or anyone else for that matter.
Religion Bros, I come seeking wisdom and input. I recently accepted a new job at my local (filthy Protestant) church as the middle school pastor (a position I am not entirely convinced should exist, but I’d hate to talk myself out of work). The students are a pretty mixed bag from a lot of different backgrounds. Several of them are openly atheists. As you can imagine, their mommies still make them come to church on account of them being children.
I want to do right by my students, including the atheist ones. I don’t know how. How much time is wise to invest in students that quite frankly do not give a care when there are other students that do? Do I kick people out when they create problems? Do I use syllogisms in my lesson? Can you argue someone to God, or is it like weight loss or sobriety - you have to want it for yourself?
On one hand, I feel like the Spiritual development of these kids (their soul-steading) is my responsibility. But I can’t make them care. I can’t make them believe. I don’t want to be negligent to those that have little faith and overbearing on those who are already on board. I have no idea what I’m supposed to do. If you were in my shoes, how would you navigate this balancing act between evangelism for the students that need it, and discipleship for the students that want it?
Let me address “Do I use syllogisms in my lesson? Can you argue someone to God?”
THe answer is ‘sort of’. What you can do is remove apparent contradictions. It’s not irrational to believe. Then you can do what you can to awaken love for beauty, truth, and goodness. It’s there in them somewhere. They, of course, have to come to faith on their own with God’s help.
Remember that the goal is not to win an argument, but to introduce them to a Person.
Karl, what you have said here is good, beautiful, and true. I greatly appreciate your response. I think it’d be wise to lean into the “introducing” side over the “argumentation” side going forward.