In Part I (here) I described how I came to see that the unanimous testimony of the early Church thoroughly supported a Catholic and sacramental view of Baptism.
In his Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, the great Church historian Jaroslav Pelikan summarizes the early Church’s view of what occurs in Baptism. The early Church believed, Pelikan explains, that Baptism effects “the remission of sins, deliverance from death, regeneration, and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit.”
Being a Baptist minister at the time, who, along with Baptists everywhere, held to a purely symbolic view of Baptism, this realization rattled my theological bones.
I immediately turned to the New Testament. I wanted to read it again in the light of what I had seen in the early Church Fathers, to read what it had to say about Baptism as though for the first time. I wanted to see if viewing the pertinent passages through the lens of Church Tradition I might not see something I missed before.
Water and Spirit in John’s Gospel
I began with John 3:3-5, a passage the early Fathers insisted was about Baptism and that Baptists insisted was about anything but Baptism. “I tell you the truth,” Jesus said to Nicodemus, “unless a man is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God … unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Was Jesus talking about baptism in this passage?
Baptist theologians generally dismissed this passage by saying that Jesus is simply contrasting natural birth with spiritual rebirth, saying we must be born naturally (born of water) and then born again spiritually (born of Spirit). There’s nothing here about Baptism.
Catholic writers encouraged me to examine the context of Jesus’ words within the Gospel of John, and when I did it seemed nearly impossible to imagine Jesus wasn’t talking about Baptism when He spoke of the need to be “born of water and the Spirit.”
To begin, only 40 or so verses prior to this, in chapter one of John, we find described the baptism of Jesus, during which the Spirit descended and remained on Him (John 1:32-34). In the parallel accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke we learn that at the same time a voice from heaven was heard: “This is my beloved Son.”
Interesting. In our Lord’s baptism the same three ideas are present as we find in John 3:35. There is water. There is Spirit. There is this idea of being declared a son of God (born again?).
Moving forward into the second chapter of John, we find Jesus performing a miracle in which He transforms the water in six vessels used for Jewish purification rites into wine. In Hebrews 9:9-10 these ceremonial washings are referred to as “baptisms”. Again, interesting.
So, the theme of Baptism appears in John 1. It appears in John 2. Finally, immediately following Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus in John 3, what do we find? John 3:22: “After this Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized.” It turns out that this is the only place in all four Gospels where Jesus is described as baptizing.
In other words, John 3:3-5 is bracketed on all sides by stories about Baptism. This is its literary context within John’s Gospel.
In the light of this — and especially considering Jesus’ own baptism where the themes of water, Spirit, and divine Sonship appear together as they do in John 3:3-5 — is it really possible, I thought, to not see that Jesus was making reference to Baptism when He said that a man must be “born of water and the Spirit”?
Water and Spirit throughout Scripture
But this was just the beginning. I was encouraged to see that the themes of “water” and “Spirit” and “new life” appear together repeatedly throughout Scripture.
For instance, what do we find in the very story of Creation but the Spirit of God hovering over the face of the waters to bring forth life (Genesis 1:2)? Water. Spirit. New life.
Speaking of this passage, St. Theophilus of Antioch, writing around AD 181, related it immediately to Baptism.
Moreover, those things which were created from the waters were blessed by God, so that this might also be a sign that men would at a future time receive repentance and remission of sins through water and the bath of regeneration.
In the story of Noah, we again find these themes occurring together. For a second time waters cover the face of the earth, and for a second time, God sends His Spirit to cause the waters to recede and new life to appear. “And God made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided” (Genesis 8:2). The Hebrew word translated here as “wind” is the same word translated “spirit” in Genesis 1:2.
In 1 Peter 3:20, St Peter likens the Christian’s passing through the waters of Baptism to Noah and his family passing through the waters of the flood. Water, Spirit, and new life.
In the story of the crossing of the Red Sea, we find these same themes appearing together once again. The Israelites have left Egypt and become trapped between the Red Sea and the Egyptian armies. Moses stretches forth his staff and suddenly a “wind” comes from God (same Hebrew word) and blows across the waters, dividing them so that the children of Israel can pass over on dry land.
In 1 Corinthians 10:2 St Paul tells us this was the Israelites’ “baptism” into Moses. Through the waters, separated by the Spirit of God, the Israelites left behind their life as slaves and embarked on their new life as free children of God. Water, Spirit, and new life.
In 2 Kings 5, Naaman the Syrian is instructed to dip himself in the Jordan River seven times in order to be cleansed of his leprosy. He complains that Elijah hasn’t given him something more impressive to do, but finally humbles himself to perform this simple act of faith and is healed. God uses this washing with water as the occasion for a miraculous cleansing that He performs by His Spirit.
Writing around AD 190, St. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyon commented on this miracle and connected it with baptism:
“And [Naaman] dipped himself … seven times in the Jordan.” It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: “Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God”‘ (Fragment 34).
Water and Spirit in the New Covenant
The idea of ceremonial washings is of course all through the Old Testament. There were a number of these “washings” (Hebrews 9:9-10 refer to them as “baptisms”) but as the author of Hebrews tells us, these were “not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper.” He describes them as a matter of “external regulations applying until the time of the new order” — the New Covenant in Christ.
It’s when the Lord establishes His New Covenant that He will actually accomplish by His Spirit what the ceremonial washings of the Old Covenant merely foreshadowed.
In light of the theme of water and Spirit bringing forth new life, which I now saw woven throughout the fabric of the Old Testament, I must admit it really hit me to read again Ezekiel’s description of the promised New Covenant.
For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land. 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. 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. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws (Ezek. 36:24-27).
Baptism in the New Testament
It was time to read on through the New Testament, to see if there were any other passages that might support the Catholic teaching that in Baptism sins are washed away, the Spirit is given, and we are made sons and daughters of God (born again).
I came to John 9 where Jesus sends a man born blind to wash in the Pool of Siloam. After he washes, he comes back seeing.
I read on and came to Acts chapter two. The New Covenant has been established in Christ’s Body and Blood, the Jewish feast celebrating the ingathering of the first fruits of the harvest arrives (Pentecost) and the Spirit descends on the Apostles. Peter preaches; his hearers are cut to the heart and cry out, “What must we do?” Peter then responds, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you for the remission of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).
The question came to me for the first time: is Peter saying that remission of sins and the gift of the Spirit are received in Baptism?
I read on and came to Acts 19, where Paul encounters some disciples in Ephesus. He asks them if they received the Holy Spirit when they believed and when they answer, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit,” Paul responds with the strangest of questions: “Then what baptism did you receive?”
Does Paul, I wondered, see the gift of the Holy Spirit as connected with Baptism? Is this what is implied here?
I read on and came to Acts 22, where the devout Ananias says to Saul of Tarsus, “Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.”
At this point I was almost wondering whether I had ever even read these verses before! Did Ananias believe — like all the Church Fathers! — that sins are washed away in Baptism?
I read on and came to Romans 6, where Paul says that in our baptism we were buried with Christ and raised to new life. It’s clear from the context that he believes something actually happened to us in our baptism that freed us from slavery to sin so that we might walk “in newness of life” (Romans 6:4).
I came to 1 Corinthians 12:13, where Paul says Christians have been baptized by one Spirit into one body and all given one Spirit to drink.
Finally, I came to 1 Peter 3:21, a passage confusing to most evangelical Protestants. Peter is speaking about how Noah and his family were saved through the waters of the flood. And then he says,
And this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also — not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
I noticed a connection with something Peter had said earlier in that same epistle. In chapter 1:3 he speaks of how believers have been “given a new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Here he speaks of Baptism saving them “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
In Peter’s mind, it seems that Baptism and the new birth are related. Peter seems to be saying that as Noah and his family were saved through the waters of the flood, so we are saved through the waters of Baptism — not because there’s something magical about the water or the outward rite. Rather, it saves us; we are born anew through the power of Christ’s Resurrection (the Spirit!) as we pledge ourselves to God by this act of submitting to Baptism.
Conclusion
Now, as an evangelical Protestant, at this point I was still wrestling with myself. On the one hand, there was a voice saying: “These passages don’t prove that the New Testament is teaching a sacramental view of Baptism. There are other ways in which each of these passages can be interpreted.”
On the other hand, I had to admit that somehow the Apostles spoke in ways I, as a Baptist preacher, would never have spoken.
Why is it, I wondered, that if I had preached a million sermons I would never have thought to say what Peter said in Acts 2: “Repent and be baptized and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”? In fact, I had never heard a single Evangelical pastor use words like that. We called people to “believe in Christ.” We called them to “accept Christ as Savior”’ No one ever said, “Repent and be baptized and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit!” Why?
Why is it I would never have thought to say to anyone, “Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins”?
Why is it that if I had met someone who had not received the Holy Spirit, it would never have crossed my mind to respond, “Hmmm, what baptism did you receive?”
Why would I never in my entire lifetime as a Baptist minister have said, “Baptism now saves you”?
Sure, one might not be able to “prove” on the basis of Scripture alone that all of this evidence added up to the Catholic teaching on Baptism. But what I had said to myself, after being confronted with the unanimous teaching of the early Church on Baptism, was not that I would accept the Catholic position if I could somehow “prove” on the basis of Scripture alone that their position was correct.
What I had said was that given the weight of the early Church’s testimony I would accept the Catholic teaching unless it was absolutely certain that it was contradicted by the teaching of the New Testament.
Could I say that? Not even close. Not even close.
And even though this was just one measly little doctrine, it changed the way I thought about everything. I used to think only of the question: “What do I see Scripture teaching about this?” It was clear to me now that this would no longer be enough.
I remember imagining that I could parachute back into the early Church. Faced with Ignatius and Justin and Tertullian and Cyprian and Barnabas—faced with the universal Church’s understanding of Baptism as a powerful sacrament in which sins are remitted, regeneration takes place, and the Holy Spirit is given — would I have been willing to separate myself on the basis of my private interpretation of Scripture? Would I have been willing to say, “Well, you can’t prove that your interpretation is correct. There are other possibilities” — and on that basis start my own church?
To ask the question was to answer it.
I became eager to see if what I found to be true of the Catholic view of Baptism might not be true of other Catholic beliefs.
For instance, what about the Eucharist?
Edward Hara, The early Fathers knew the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” was depicted as “pouring.” This provides some balance to the Fundamentalist argument that only baptism by immersion adequately symbolizes death and resurrection with Jesus.
After Peter’s first sermon, three thousand people were baptized in Jerusalem (Acts 2:41). Archaeologists have demonstrated there was no sufficient water supply for so many to have been immersed. Even if there had been, the natives of Jerusalem would scarcely have let their city’s water supply be polluted by three thousand unwashed bodies plunging into it. These people must have been baptized by pouring or sprinkling.
Other difficulties arise in certain environments. For example, immersion may be nearly or entirely impossible for desert nomads or Eskimos. Or consider those in prison—not in America, where religious freedom gives prisoners the right to be immersed if they desire—but in a more hostile setting, such as a Muslim regime, where baptisms must be done in secret, without adequate water for immersion.
That the early Church permitted pouring instead of immersion is demonstrated by the Didache, a Syrian liturgical manual that was widely circulated among the churches in the first few centuries of Christianity, perhaps the earliest Christian writing outside the New Testament.
The testimony of the Didache is seconded by other early Christian writings. Hippolytus of Rome said, “If water is scarce, whether as a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available” (The Apostolic Tradition, 21 [A.D. 215]). Pope Cornelius I wrote that as Novatian was about to die, “he received baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring” (Letter to Fabius of Antioch [A.D. 251]; cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:4311).
Then there is the artistic evidence. Much of the earliest Christian artwork depicts baptism—but not baptism by immersion! If the recipient of the sacrament is in a river, he is shown standing in the river while water is poured over his head from a cup or shell. Tile mosaics in ancient churches and paintings in the catacombs depict baptism by pouring. Baptisteries in early cemeteries are clear witnesses to baptisms by infusion. The entire record of the early Church—as shown in the New Testament, in other writings, and in monumental evidence—indicates the mode of baptism was not restricted to immersion.
Other archaeological evidence confirms the same thing. An early Christian baptistery was found in a church in Jesus’ hometown of Nazareth, yet this baptistery, which dates from the second century, was too small and narrow in which to immerse a person.
Edward Hara, “1239 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. Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate’s head” Catechism of the Catholic Church
I understand that there are times when the norm cannot be done. But the NORM is immersion, and your inference from archaeologists that immersion wasn’t possible after Peter’s first sermon is special pleading:
https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1981/03/baptism-in-the-early-church
Immersion was the norm. The assumption the archaeologists and you are mistakenly going on is that everyone who believed at that moment was immediately baptized and that they were not at a river somewhere, but rather in the city where they would only have the city water supply. Both of these are erroneous. We have no proof that all 3,000 were baptized in the same day in the same place. The phrase that “on the same day there were about 3,000 souls added to them” can have several meanings. Does it mean that they were spiritually added to them, with baptism coming later after they were properly catechized into the faith? Is the assumption that they were baptized immediately, or did they go “down to the river” and perform the baptism there?
The article I linked states that IMMERSION was the norm. You need to put yourself into the Jewish mindset of the first century, not the modern mindset of the 21st century. When a Jew thought of baptism, he thought of immersion, the mikveh bath, not of taking a clam shell and pouring a little water over the head.
As for the Didache, I will have to research what it says, but my point remains – only immersion properly shows the death, burial, and resurrection of the soul into new life with Christ. That is the norm. What has happened is that due to either laziness, theological imprecision, or poor training, the Roman Church and much of Protestantism has not considered that the Christian faith is a faith of symbols – and sprinkling does not symbolize death, burial and resurrection.
We agree that baptism confers new life and that it works ex opere operato, in contrast to the mere symbolic nature of Anabaptist heretics. I think that beyond that,however, that the symbolism has been lost, and symbolism is very important in the Christian faith
Oh, I just looked it up, and the Didache supports what I said:
(1) Concerning baptism, baptize in this way. After you have spoken all these things, “baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” in running water.
(2) If you do not have running water, baptize [baptizon] in other water. If you are not able in cold, then in warm.
(3) If you do not have either, pour out [ekcheo] water three times on the head “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
(4) Before the baptism [baptizomenos] the one baptizing [baptizon] and the one being baptized [baptizomenos] are to fast, and any others who are able. Command the one being baptized [baptizomenon] to fast beforehand a day or two.
Do you see that? The NORM is running water (i.e. a river or deep water for IMMERSION). Number 2 is the allowance for when the norm is not able to be kept.
Nice try.
Edward Hara, thank you for your interesting opinions. We should keep in mind the New Testament contains no explicit instructions on how physically to administer the water of baptism.
Immersion is not the only meaning of baptizo. Sometimes it just means washing up. Luke 11:38 reports that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee’s house, “the Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash (baptizo) before dinner.” They did not practice immersion before dinner, but, according to Mark, the Pharisees “do not eat unless they wash (nipto) their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they wash themselves (baptizo)” (Mark 7:3–4). So baptizo can mean cleansing or ritual washing as well as immersion.
Symbolism is very important in the Christian faith, consider the case of being “baptized with the Holy Spirit.” three times Acts 2 states that the Holy Spirit was poured out on them when Pentecost came (2:17, 18, 33). Later Peter referred to the Spirit falling upon them, and also on others after Pentecost, explicitly identifying these events with the promise of being “baptized with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 11:15–17). These passages demonstrate that the meaning of baptizo is broad enough to include “pouring.”
Tertullian described baptism by saying that it is done “with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation, and finally, without cost, a man is baptized in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises again, not much (or not at all) the cleaner” (On Baptism, 2 [A.D. 203]). Obviously, Tertullian did not consider baptism by immersion the only valid form, since he says one is only sprinkled and thus comes up from the water “not much (or not at all) the cleaner.”
The Fundamentalist contention that baptizo always means immersion is an oversimplification. God bless you.
Your answer tells me more and more that the Roman Church has changed the faith once given to the Apostles and the Holy Orthodox have zealously guarded it.
I hope some day the Lord calls me out of my parish and into the Orthodox Church. Right now, in answer to my prayers, He has told me to stay where I am, but I am looking East with longing.
Have you thought about Eastern Catholic, Edward?
My bottom line answer on the baptism issue is that the exact “method” by which baptism is administered isn’t a dogmatic issue and isn’t crucial enough to fight over. After all, if immersion better illustrations the idea of dying and rising, sprinkling better illustrated the idea of washing (Ezekiel 36:24-27 “For I will sprinkle clean water on you and you will be cleansed from all your iniquities…”). And then pouring better illustrates the the outpouring of the Holy Spirit which is given in baptism.
When 3,000 were baptized on the Day of Pentecost I very much doubt that 3,000 were completely immersed in water in the middle of Jerusalem.
Thank you!!
I appreciate your question, Ken. FYI, I have been Eastern Catholic since my conversion. I was told that Eastern Catholics are “Orthodox in Communion with Rome.” Here’s the problem – to be “in communion” means that you accept all that Rome teaches. This idea is so strong that during the last century, Roman bishops ran roughshod over the Eastern Catholic churches in the USA, making us give up married priests and in many cases, latinizing our parishes. Think Bishop Ireland and Fr. Alexander Toth.
Even now as I speak with Roman people online, if I wander off the doctrinal reservation, I am told that A.) I must accept all that the Roman Catechism teaches and B.) if I do not, I am going to hell. Well, first of all, the Ukrainian Catholic Church has its own catechism and there are certain things that are not in there, such as indulgences and Purgatory. Other conflicts include the soteriological teachings of the Roman Church which are based on Augustine’s seminal idea of penal substitution and the whole way the Roman Church has defined the next life, based on Anselm and Aquinas. In short, Orthodoxy does not hold to those ideas, so it is quite a conflict for me to be truly Orthodox and yet be “in communion” with Rome.
As for the issue of the 3,000 baptized, I doubt they were baptized in the middle of the city. Probably went down to a river somewhere.
Edward Hara, it sounds very Protestant: an individual discerns what is Apostholic Tradition and what is not. An individual decides what orthodoxy is.
More telling for me are the following: (1) Constantinople was never an Apostolic See, (2) the argument that Constantinople should be afforded the honours of Rome because it is the New Rome is weak – this is based on secular authority, not apostolic authority, (3) the Eastern cismatic churches are much more angry in their writings about this split than the Western church, (4) the Eastern churches have been more willing to accept secular meddling (i.e. the reassignment of jurisdiction of Sicily, Syracuse, and Palermo from Rome to Constantinople)
There are now a total of 15 patriarchies (16 if you include Rome). The difference in understanding is primarily over the type of authority – governance and theological. Rome does not assert governance rights over the other churches – they are deemed independent (in fact, meddling in other churches was such a problem that Canon 6 of the Council of Nicea (325) asserts the jurisdictional authority of each patriarchy – or metropol). But Rome does assert its primacy over matters of faith. It is this distinction that is not recognized by the cismatic Eastern churches.
I think Pope Paul VI said it best in his address At the conclusion of the meetings of the annual plenary assembly of the Secretariat for Christian Unity (April 28, 1967) (it is in French only, so the following is a translation):
“And what do we say to that problem to which our separated brethren are always so sensitive: that which comes from the role that Christ has assigned to us in the Church of God and that our tradition has sanctioned with such authority? The Pope, we well know, is surely the most serious obstacle on the path of ecumenism. What do we say? Do we appeal, once more, to the titles which justify our mission? Do we, once again, attempt to present in its exact terms, that which it truly wants to be: the indispensable source of truth, charity, and unity? The mission of pastoral leadership, service and brotherhood, that does not deny the freedoms and honour of any person who is in a legitimate position in the Church of God, but protects the rights of all and does not claim any obedience other than that which is required of children in the same family? It is not easy for us to make our apology. It is you, with words imprinted with sincerity and meekness, that have have to make it when the moment and opportunity presents itself. As for us, with all serenity, we prefer to now keep silent and pray.” God bless you.
It is not a question of me determining what is orthodox Catholic teaching. It is a matter of Holy Tradition and the ecumenical councils of the Church. The problem is that some of the things which are being taught now cannot be found in the writings of the Early Church.
In addition, just who gave the Roman Church the authority to change a creed? I speak of the addition of the filioque clause, which the East finds heretical. I don’t think any church, East or West has the authority to take the canons of a council and change them to their liking.
I can see the issues from both sides. I think both sides have to approach the table of common unity with humility and the willingness to be corrected. This will be the hard part. Rome simply cannot believe or accept that they may have made an error because of leaning on the keys to the kingdom and the office of the papacy. And orthodoxy feels the same way because they feel they have defended the faith untarnished for 2000 years.
It is……maddening.
just who gave the Roman Church the authority to change a creed?
Today many Eastern Orthodox bishops are putting aside old prejudices and again acknowledging that there need be no separation between the two communions on this issue. Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware (formerly Timothy Ware), who once opposed the filioque doctrine, states: “The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote (my book) The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences” (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43).
The early Church Fathers, both Latin and Greek, recognized the same thing, saying that the Spirit proceeds “from the Father and the Son” or “from the Father through the Son.”
The expression “from the Father through the Son” is accepted by many Eastern Orthodox. This, in fact, led to a reunion of the Eastern Orthodox with the Catholic Church in 1439 at the Council of Florence: “The Greek prelates believed that every saint, precisely as a saint, was inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore could not err in faith. If they expressed themselves differently, their meanings must substantially agree. . . . Once the Greeks accepted that the Latin Fathers had really written Filioque (they could not understand Latin), the issue was settled (May 29). The Greek Fathers necessarily meant the same; the faiths of the two churches were identical; union was not only possible but obligatory (June 3); and on June 8 the Latin cedula [statements of belief] on the procession [of the Spirit] was accepted by the Greek synod” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 5:972–3).
Unfortunately, the union did not last. In the 1450s (just decades before the Protestant Reformation), the Eastern Orthodox left the Church again under pressure from the Muslims, who had just conquered them and who insisted they renounce their union with the Western Church (lest Western Christians come to their aid militarily).
“We believe, however, that there are three persons: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and we believe none to be unbegotten except the Father. We admit, as more pious and true, that all things were produced through the Word, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was produced by the Father through Christ” (Commentaries on John 2:6 [A.D. 229]). Origen
“By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten (Questions to Thalassium 63 [A.D. 254]). Maximus the Confessor
“[There is] one Holy Spirit, having substance from God, and who is manifested through the Son; image of the Son, perfect of the perfect; life, the cause of living; holy fountain; sanctity, the dispenser of sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father who is above all and in all, and God the Son who is through all. Perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty neither divided nor estranged” (Confession of Faith [A.D. 265]). Gregory the Wonderworker
“Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources” (The Trinity 2:29 [A.D. 357]). Hillary of Poitiers
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “This legitimate complementarity [of expressions], provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed” (CCC 248).
I have read Orthodox writers who have said that with the change of one little word, they could accept the Creed in modification:
I believe in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son….
I believe this would also be a very accurate picture inasmuch as the family (that is – man, woman, child) was created as an earthly picture of the Blessed Trinity. The child proceeds from the father THROUGH the mother. The union of the Father and Son in love brings forth the Holy Spirit. This is Eastern and Western theology. In like manner, the union of the husband and wife brings forth the child.
Sometimes I swear that people don’t really want to resolve problems. It’s just too much fun (and makes you sooooooo proud) to think you are the one that is right and the others are all wrong.
I think Saint Paul would add: “If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but don’t have love, I am nothing”. God bless you.
I must agree with you here. You know, for all the bluster about “right doctrine” that I have gone through in the last 40 years when I became serious about the Christian faith (25 as a dedicated Protestant – 15 + as an equally dedicated Byzantine Catholic) Jesus said NOTHING in Matthew 25: 31-46 about gaining the Kingdom because our doctrines are 100% perfect.
He did, however, make it clear in that passage that our feeding of the hungry, care for the poor, visitation for the sick (i.e., real acts of love rather than just talking about love) would open the gates of the Kingdom to us.
We all agree with Matthew 25:31-46, because it is supposed we got Matthew 25:14-30.The Lord knows exactly what gifts God has given each one of us..