Episode #5 Saint Paul on Baptism and being Born Again

By

Taylor Marshall

Published: 22 June 2009 8:28 PM PDT

• Comments [7]
• Digg it!
• Facebook
• Edit Post

 

Click on the triangular “play” button above.
34 minutes.

Subscribe to “PaulCast” via iTunes | Subscribe to RSS feed | Download the mp3 file directly

“Are you a born again Christian?”

In this episode we examine what Paul taught about being “born again” in the context of the sacrament of baptism – as the Apostle calls it “the washing of regeneration” (Titus 3:5). We also find in Paul the doctrine of original sin, the custom of infant baptism, and also the relationship of the sacrament of baptism to the sacrament of confirmation. Join us as we plow through about 25 Scriptural passages in the works of Saint Paul as they touch upon the sacraments of baptism and confirmation.

               

• Comments [7]
• Digg it!
• Facebook
• Edit Post

About the Author

Taylor was an Episcopal priest in Fort Worth, Texas before being received into the Catholic Church by Bishop Kevin Vann of Fort Worth. Taylor was also formerly the Assistant Director of the Catholic Information Center in Washington, D.C., located three blocks north of the White House, where he lectured regularly. He was served under Archbishop John J. Myers and Msgr. William Stetson for the Pastoral Provision of John Paul II, the canonical structure by which Anglican clergy are received into the Catholic Church and then go on to pursue Holy Orders in the Catholic Church. He is a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary (M.A.R. Theology), Nashotah Theological House (Certificate in Anglican Studies), and University of Dallas (M.A. Philosophy). He is currently a Ph.D. student in Philosophy at the University of Dallas where he studies the Natural Law theory of Saint Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae Ia Iaa qq. 94-108). Taylor and his wife live in Dallas, Texas with their five children. He is the author of The Catholic Perspective on Paul (forthcoming). Visit his personal site at: www.taylormarshall.com Taylor is also the Editor of Christian and American at: www.christianandamerican.com.

7 Comments

1. Ken

   Posted November 17, 2009 at 8:48 AM

   Taylor,
   I think I may have met you a few years back at the CIC on K Street. I used to alternate between St. Matthew’s and CIC for Mass at noon when my office was at Farragut Square. I stumbled upon this podcast on iTunes. I really appreciate your work on this. I blazed through the first 4 episodes taking in all the Scripture as well. I’ve had to listen to this episode several times just to grasp it all. This is due in part to distractions as the parent of a 5 year old, but also, trying to find time to listen to the episode in its entirety and read the Scripture passages has been difficult. Just wanted to let you know that I am finding this series useful. Thanks again.
2. Emil Anton

   Posted December 7, 2009 at 10:48 AM

   The best part for me was how you dealt with infant baptism, I somehow omitted that in my book (because I organized the chapters differently, none for sacraments as such, rather: Paul and God, Paul and Salvation, Paul and the Church).

   Confirmation is more tricky. I mean is there anyone today among the exegetes who would seriously hold that Paul in his letters refers to the sacrament of confirmation? The references to the seal of the Spirit in 2 Cor and Eph are commonly taken to refer to baptism if any sacrament. The problem would be much smaller if baptism and confirmation were administered together, but in the west they aren’t. The problem with separating them is that you’ll always end up having to downplay one of them because the more you exalt the other, the less the other one will have to contribute. Would Paul call an 8 year old Christian sealed with the Spirit if baptized but not confirmed? That sort of sets the stage for what I mean… either way, we Western Catholics are in trouble. Any helpful thoughts here?
3. Emil Anton

   Posted December 7, 2009 at 10:49 AM

   Btw, the podcast on this site suddenly ended after about 18 minutes. I had to use QuickTime to hear the whole thing. I wonder if you have the same problem or if it’s just my computer or something.
4. Taylor Marshall

   Posted December 7, 2009 at 11:04 AM

   The apostolic church was already struggling with the relationship of baptism to confirmation. Acts shows a separation already.

   I think Paul would take the same position of Peter and John in Acts. The Samaritans were baptized, but not yet confirmed. They were deemed as greatly lacking in their Christian identity. So, yes, I think “being sealed” is for Paul a sign of being both baptized and confirmed.

   As to your good question: “I mean is there anyone today among the exegetes who would seriously hold that Paul in his letters refers to the sacrament of confirmation?”

   I reply with a cheeky answer: “Who cares about the modern exegetes?” The Fathers were united in their teaching that Paul uses “seal” in this way. St Thomas Aquinas teaches the same. There is a legitimate argument over the necessity of chrism. I think modern exegetes typically have a prejudice against sacramental readings because: a) they are Protestant or, in the case of Catholics, trained by Protestants or with Protestant texts; and b) they are academics and not priests and mystagogical catechists like the Fathers who lived liturgical lives.
5. Emil Anton

   Posted December 7, 2009 at 12:05 PM

   I’m not sure if Acts 8 can serve as a model for a baptized bun non-confirmed Christian. It seems to have been a special settlement – the Gospel went to Samaria (!) but not through the apostles, so God wanted to wait and give the Holy Spirit to the Samaritans through the Apostles’ hands. Note it says they hadn’t even received the Holy Spirit, something strange, because baptism should ordinarily give it. It’s not that they didn’t have the “fullness” or “seal”.
6. Taylor Marshall

   Posted December 7, 2009 at 2:46 PM

   Acts 8 is a locus classicus for confirmation as distinct from baptism. It’s not a “model” but it is a witness, that’s all I’m saying.

   Pope Melchiades wrote (Ep. ad Episc. Hispan.): “The Holy Ghost bestows at the font the fullness of innocence; but in Confirmation He confers an increase of grace.”

   Thomas Aquinas says that baptism confers the Holy Ghost, but confirmation confers the “fullness of the Holy Ghost.” He also states that confirmation makes one a “perfect Christian” (ST III, q. 72, a. 11):

   Hence Pope Urban I says: “All the faithful should after Baptism, receive the Holy Ghost by the imposition of the bishop’s hand, that they may become perfect Christians.”

   I think Paul would agree with this. The Gospel of Luke and the Acts (which I consider to be deeply Pauline) have a high view of the Holy Spirit and how His power is conferred as distinct from baptism. This is a Lucan-Pauline doctrine.
7. Emil Anton

   Posted December 8, 2009 at 4:46 AM

   Thanks for the quotes! Could you provide the centuries for the Popes, please?

   The problem I mentioned is seen in the above quotes as well. The first downplays confirmation by saying it’s simply an increase – Acts 8 is not about an increase but receiving the Spirit. Aquinas downplays both because baptism thus makes less-than-perfect and confirmation is only a fullness, what is lacking, not the thing itself as in Acts 8.

   Urban on the other hand says one receives the Holy Ghost in confirmation, which downplays baptism, unless one says one has received the Spirit in baptism already and confirmation is only the perfection, which then again downplays confirmation and baptism as well…

   Plus there is the empirical problem of absolutely nothing happening to confirmed Catholics, at least I’ve never seen anything like what the NT describes the Holy Spirit’s effects to be take place in Catholic confirmation. And mostly these people aren’t putting an obstacle in the way themselves. Contrast eg the “baptism in the Spirit” of the charismatics.