DeoOmnisGloria.com

According to the USA's Salvation Army latest annual report (PDF), during fiscal 2003:

• 55,562,633 meals were served
• 10,616,113 nights of lodging were supplied
• 20,541,350 items of clothes, furniture, or gifts were given to those in need
• 3,887,666 persons were visisted in prisons
• 1,860,045 persons were assisted during disasters
• 206,502 persons were helped with substance abuse
• 85 cents of every dollar spent went directly to services
• In all, about 2.5 billion dollars were spent helping more than 32 million people...in fact, just those people that Jesus Christ said we should help.

And somehow this is accomplished through the efforts of a denomination of perhaps half a million members. I'm astounded at what God can do through such efforts.

But Joe, you want to trash all of this good work by slandering their position on, excuse me, baptism? You said they "reject" it, but the link which you perhaps didn't read explicitly says otherwise: "Salvationists are not forbidden to be baptised in another church if they feel this is right for them as individuals." It seems they choose to emphasize other things than baptism, not reject it. You and I might disagree with this stance, but does not give either of us the right to bear false witness against them with the intent to scare people's donations back into our respective denominations' coffers.

Shame on you. Shame on you for posting this in the name of Christ, who Himself fed the hungry and healed the sick but never baptized a single soul.

Kaffinator,

First forgive me if you think that my intention was to trash these "good men and women" or the "various relief efforts" they provide.

Second, to make baptism "opinional" is false and a direct contradiction of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, who, let me repeat myself, mandated this (Mark 16:16; John 3:5; Matthew 28:19). In their own words:

Rather, the Army believes that it is possible to live a holy life and receive the grace of God without the use of physical sacraments and that they should not be regarded as an essential part of becoming a Christian.

Finally, I have no problem advising others, especially fellow baptized Christians, to support their own church's efforts to support the poor and needy rather than a denomination that, although doing much good, is at the same time, promulgating a false doctrine. There are plenty of Catholic and/or Christian groups out there doing the same for the poor and needy, so shame on you for implying that the various Christian relief efforts are focused on filling their "coffers."

Financially, keep in mind the flip side of the stat you quoted above...over $375 million is going to support their church. As the title of the article says this is "why I can't support the Salvation Army." Catholics looking for Catholic charities performing similar services should contact their local parish or visit one of the following websites. 96 cents of every $1 goes directly to Food for the Poor's services.

St. Vincent de Paul Society

Food for the Poor

In Christ,
Joe

Joe, from what little I know of the history of the Salvation Army, they started out not as a Church but as an organization to help the poor (like Saint Vincent de Paul Society). At that time, they did not wish to be a Church or to take people out of their existing Churches. As such, they did not administer Baptism or Communion (note that the Saint Vincent de Paul Society does not administer Communion or Baptism either - and for good reason).

As time progressed, their ideas changed from "we do not administer Communion or Baptism" to "we should not administer Communion or Baptism" and eventually to "No one needs Communion or Baptism". A tragic development indeed.

Though here is a question for you: Which is better, to recognize the need to celebrate the Eucharist and attempt to celebrate without a validly ordained minister, or to reject the need to celebrate it at all?

Hi Joe,

First, who exactly are you "scare quoting" when you write about "'various relief efforts'"?

Second, I agree with you at least as far as to say that baptism should be celebrated by a Christian church. Whether their error rises to the level of a serious heresy is debatable. As we are reminded more than once in God's Word, He does not want our rituals, but rather our heartfelt devotion.

Third, of course relief efforts want to fill their coffers. Aid organizations need finances to operate, it's that simple. I don't see why asserting this needs to bring anyone shame. What is shameful is to slander an organization that is doing good. Speaking of which...

Fourth, again you misrepresent the Army. $375 million was not necessarily spent to "support their church". An organization with this wide range of activities requires oversight, management, fundraising, and other activities which cost money and are not considered "spent on services". I can't find figures immediately on how much was spent keeping the lights on at Salvation Army church services but I imagine it's not that much. Besides...they've already cut costs on communion wafers and heating the baptistry! (OK tongue in cheek there.)

Joe, I'll restate my complaint. Here is an organization ministering in the name of Christ to those in need. But your post, made in a public forum, irresponsibly accuses them of the sinister promulgation of false doctrine and for this reason recommends that they be withheld funding. You completely overlook the fact that the promulgation of doctrine is not at all where the Salvation Army spends its resources. They are angels of mercy not theologians for crying out loud.

But your post has accomplished some good. Thanks to you I have studied this organization a little closer and, even though my doctrinal beliefs might differ from theirs, I find their efforts conforming to Christ's call to serve the poor and needy in His name. I will pray for them and financially support them with pride, knowing that perhaps a day will come, Joe, when you or a loved one will need their help, and I am immensely glad that they will be there to give it to you.

Go with God,
Kaff

Quick addendum...I see those were not "scare quotes" but references to your original article. Please disregard my item #1, mentally renumber the others accordingly, and accept my humble apologies.

Joe,

It seems to me that you are more narrow-minded and dogmatic than the most fundamental fundamentalist. I agree with Kaffinator. Open your eyes. You don't possess the last word on what the Bible says about baptisim or anything else. And you should be ashamed for being so divisive and hateful.

Kaff

You are shaming and should not you be shamed? Where in the bible does it state that Jesus never baptized anyone? What does your church teach about misleading or misteaching...hmmm millstone? Or do you chop that out of your truncated text also?

I would like an explanation as to how what I wrote was "divisive" or "hateful." I was simply stating a fact....the Salvation Army DOES believe that Baptism is opinional, thus rejecting the OBVIOUS biblical mandate that baptism is, in fact, necessary.

I never stated that the Salvation Army doesn't do good and worthwhile work, rather I was simply stating that I believe, as Christians, we have an obligation to support those non-profit organizations that are committed to the same needs as the Salvation Army, but, at the same time, understand and promulgate the fundamentals of Christianity.

So in a nutshell, what is wrong with my statement? Kaff, per your above comment, you are now a "proud" supporter of the Salvation Army...how is this more worthwhile than supporting those relief efforts within your own denomination or better yet the Catholic Church, which do EXACTLY the same work? I am well aware that some of that $375 million retained by the Salvation Army is used for administrative expenses but do you honestly know whether or not any of that money is used for the promulgation of a false doctrine, i.e. baptism being unnecessary.

Again, to restae my refute to your complaint, this isn't an attack against the good work being performed by the Salvation Army but rather a call to all Christians to consider how your donated dollar is being used and to remind all Christians that there are plenty of other organizations carrying out the SAME good work while remaining true to the "core" teachings of Jesus Christ.

In Christ,
Joe

(The Apostle John, in his gospel, states that Jesus did not baptize. See John 4:2.)

Joe, you said your readers should withhold money from a charity doing good work in the name of Christ simply because you don’t agree with their stance on a certain doctrine. You maintain this position, even though nobody thinks of the Salvation Army as a teaching ministry, making their doctrinal positions a second-order concern at best. Of course, you are free to donate or not donate to whomever you wish. And you are absolutely right that we should carefully consider the true mission of the organization before donating to it.

But you stood up and said nobody should donate to the Salvation Army. By doing so, you invite your readers to question your argument and, if your argument is lacking (as it surely is), to question your motives as well.

You admit do not know how much of $1 dropped in the bucket goes to sinister teachings. But it would have to be some fraction of the 12 cents that go to general administration. Let’s say, six cents of your dollar? (Probably less.) But on the basis of this six cents you damn the entire donation.

Well, for comparison, let’s look at donations to the RCC in America. Tell me, had I donated that same dollar to the Portland Oregon Archdiocese, how much would have gone to the defense of homosexual pedophiles in priestly robes? Even before the archdiocese declared bankruptcy, part of that dollar would have paid such men’s salaries, and perhaps worse, the salaries of those who knew the danger yet installaed such men as shepherds of children. How much of your donation went toward this evil work? Six cents? More? Which is worse, having your money directly supporting pedophilia and its repercussions, or possibly supporting a different teaching on baptism in some ancillary way?

My point is this: if you are waiting for an organization that meets your standard of purity before donating to it, I think you are going to be waiting for a long time. That’s your business. But in the meantime, stop encouraging your readers to withhold their pocket change from dedicated philanthropists in order that they might capture some kind of pretended moral high ground. It’s irresponsible, mean spirited, and entirely contrary to Christ’s call to care for those in need.

I don’t expect you to start pouring money into the Salvation Army. But I hope you will reconsider your uncharitable conclusion that Army donations are “directly tied” to the propagation of heresy. And I hope you will afford the Army the same measure of grace which they would afford you in a disaster, even the same measure of grace God affords you and I by adopting us into His family.

Peace out, Kaff.

Kaff,

Now who's being uncharitable?

To compare the "personal" sins/crimes of individuals to the promulgating of something that is completely contradictory to the Gospel is illogical. To ask:

How much of your donation went toward this evil work?

One correction, you quoted their annual report as saying that 85 cents of every dollar goes directly to services, when in fact that report actually states that 84 cents goes directly to services. You may think I'm being petty but that's a 25 million dollar difference. Again, why not donate to Foor For The Poor, an organization that is doing the same type work as the Salvation Army and allocates 96 cents of every dollar directly to their services?

The Salvation Army does provided such services as Sunday school programs, summer camps, adult formation, etc., in addition to their outreach programs. All of these are religious in nature and rightfully so. That's my whole point. The Salvation Army does an extraordinary amount of good, but they also, as sincere believers, promote what they believe. I would expect nothing less from any nonprofit organization that was tied to a church or, in this case, a church itself.

To say that baptism is "opinional" is, theologically, a fundamental error and biblically unsound. If a Catholic taught this he or she would be committing heresy but the word isn't applicable to the Salvation Army because they aren't Catholic to begin with. But I am completely correct in saying that such a belief is unbiblical and false, just as I am correct in saying that part of each donation to the Salvation Army goes to supporting their religious efforts as well as their philanthropic efforts.

I don't see how pointing out a fact is uncharitable, nor is advising Catholics and other Christians to consider giving to nonprofit organizations doing the same good work and holding true to the fundamental truth that baptism is necessary.

In Christ,
Joe

Joe, do you have an answer to the question I posed earlier? Is it better to recognize the need to celebrate the Lord's Supper and attempt to celebrate it without a validly ordained minister (as many Protestants do) or should they do like the Salvation Army and deny the need to celebrate the Lord's Supper altogether?

You seem to be suggesting the former but I don't want to put words into your mouth.

Broken,

Sorry, I forgot about your question...it was not intentionally done ;-)

I believe that it is better to recognize the need to celebrate the Lord's Supper and to attempt to do so even without having a valid ordained minister. This recognition is, at the very least, a certain awareness of the truth and God's Salvific Plan. Whereas the church or individual that does not recognize the need lacks a true understanding of what the New Covenant is all about. I'm not sure where I indicated or gave the impression that I thought it was better to deny this need, but if it needed to be clarified thanks for asking.

In Christ,
Joe

Hi Joe,

I don’t see any profit in debating whether it’s 85 cents or 84 cents or 86 cents, as it’s not relevant to my point. Nor is it worth engaging with you on the question of whether the RCC actually has any culpability on the pedophilia thing, as I doubt we would ever see eye to eye. So let me just ask you a question.

Consider a hypothetical Christian who cares for impoverished South American peoples, but also believes that the typical Roman Catholic’s insistence on the primacy of Rome to be a heretical divergence from the faith of the apostles. You suggest Food for the Poor to this person as a philanthropy worthy of contribution. Initially impressed by their scope of activities and their efficiency, our hypothetical friend notices that the board of directors includes a Roman Catholic priest, a bishop, and an archbishop, and that the philanthropy has an explicit teaching function, and frequently partners with local Roman Catholic parishes.

Now, our friend has a choice. Donate to what appears in all respects to be a worthy, caring, efficient Christian organization, looking past any minor blemishes to see an opportunity for a real Christian unity as he co-ministers with them in the name of Christ? Or, keep his money in his pocket due to his fear that the organization might be promulgating what he considers heretical doctrine?

Actually Joe let’s say it’s NOT hypothetical at all. I’m that very person above. And I just wrote out a $100 check. I’ll fill out the “pay to the order of” line, or tear up the check, when you answer my question.

Awaiting your response, Kaff

Kaff,

First we need to make one clear distinction...the Salvation Army is a "church" not simply a nonprofit organization. Again, my whole point...

Second, $250 million is a relevant amount of money....

Third, why would you support any organization that you felt was promoting or promulgating something you believe to be false, or better yet in direct contradiction with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, especially if you were able to find other organizations who are doing the same philanthropic works while remaining faithful to the Gospel in its entirety?

Attempting to make donations a means for possibly achieving Christian unity isn't exactly the best route. I would think a better route might be to work with these individuals in performing the same works of charity which could bring about an opportunity to evangelize them while avoiding the financial support of their evangelization efforts.

In Christ,
Joe

Hi Joe,

Yes, $250m in a $2.5b is relevant, but not relevant to the point I am bringing up here, which is that I believe you are elevating certain doctrinal concerns above their importance in this situation.

I guess you are saying in your third point, that because I disagree with some slim percentage of the doctrine that Food for the Poor might be involved in teaching (despite the fact that their mission is not primarily to train people theologically, but to provide food and shelter), I should not donate to them.

I guess on your advice I should go tear up the check now. I will try but honestly, I don't know if I can do that. In my mind I have already released the money to them because I think they are doing good in the name of Christ. Is "Food for the Poor" without flaw? No. But then again none of us as individuals are, nor is any organization in which sinful humans take a part.

Incidentally I think sharing in a parachurch ministry is a fantastic way to demonstrate Christian unity to the world. It is wonderful when Christians can set aside differences in doctrine to minister to the needy. It saddens me that you feel we cannot share this burden and this holy calling together.

With regrets,
Kaff

Kaff

Using John 4:2 to claim that scripture only states (what you state) that Christ "never baptized a single soul" is feeble. It cannot be found in the statement "although Jesus himself was not baptizing just his disciples"...in context... this refers to his time in Judea with Pharisees meddling around. John 4:3.

Christ must have "baptized a single soul" for earlier in John 1:33 John the Baptist says "he is the one who will baptize with the holy Spirit."

True to the form of Naaman you may become furious at the need for a sacramental (in this case water) and say that the Baptist is clearly noting the multitude of sola holy Spirit baptisms (sans water) going on in scripture. But where are all those baptisms again? "because there was an abundance of water there and people came to be baptized." Jn 3:23. But the point is moot even if you are a Naamanite, Christ would have then baptized by the Spirit!...He baptized man, my way or your way don't deny Him.

Kaff as you note our Lord desires our heartfelt devotion not our rituals... to Catholics the Sacramentals (matter, as in material) are essential parts of our heartfelt devotion...they are God inspired and demanded acts of faith in sealing our covenants! brother... for "Do you want proof you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac (the sacramental here) upon the altar?" Jas 2:20-21. Lemme pull a hemi Ramon jk Ramon :)(I will at least give you the page) here he has some decent sacramental stuff.

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/sacraments_sacramentals.htm

Either way I rebuke you Kaff for the misleading statement "Jesus never baptized a single soul."

In the Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ

when we were one

WWWO - Clearly my statement about Jesus not having baptized was in reference to water baptism. (Even the Salvationists hold to the doctrine that we are baptized in spirit by Christ, even though they have chosen not to celebrate it with a physical ritual.)

I'm glad you brought up James 2. I believe in context that the term "works" clearly does not refer to specific rituals such as baptism, but rather to works of righteousness, such as feeding and clothing the poor (see verse 15). By this measure I can say with full confidence that the Army is indeed following Christ with their works.

I'm not sure what you hoped to gain by comparing me to Naaman, or suggest that I'm "furious" about anything. I think I understand why Roman Catholics take sacraments such as baptism so very seriously. I respect this point of view but do not share it.

Have a happy Christmas,
Kaff

Merry Christmas to you too Kaff

Sorry to diverge from the SA here a bit but I know you are game.

And we agree then that Jesus must have baptized (Catholics agree on both water and baptisms of blood/desire (without water)) but I still must protest at the very frequently quoted "Jesus never "water" baptized a soul" You are not the only person I have seen claim this based on John 4:2 and the statement in context is not that definitive.

If we disagree on that point as do we do on so many other points (and between Protestants themselves on matters of faith) doesn't this make you question how the truth of doctrine is to really be determined?

I mean you and I both believe in Christ as our savior and I think we are filled with the holy Spirit. I know protestants of many more stripes that are just as filled with the Lord if not 1000 times more than I am. We all share the same scripture yet there are now thousands of different protestant faiths. In the face of Eph 4:5 "one faith one Lord one baptism"...I'm talking the one faith thing here. Ya depending on how you count the recommuned eastern churches 400 yrs ago there are 21 -200 different Catholic churches (but they all share the same Catechism of faith). If you ask a Syrian Catholic what John taught they agree with what Peter/Paul (Roman Catholics) teach. If you ask Egyptian Catholics what Mark taught...same reply. If you goto India and ask Thomasene Catholics what faith they held after 1600 years with no canon and no contact with other christians before encountering Jesuits ...they will tell you they are part of the Baptist faith right because that is how Thomas taught it??? Of course not...Thomas taught orally before being killed...what Peter taught.

Do you not look at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 to see that "matters of doctrine" should be decided as individuals or as a church hmmm... And if we feel we have a better argument yet the dumb bishops disagree we are to start a new church right? and the main speakers of the resulting decision would not be a bishop but the laity right?

The Catholic view is the Biblical view...I know many times I read a passage and am tempted to say I know better because clearly I am the smartest guy in the world on all topics...then...2 Pet 20- 2 Pet 2:2..."understand this first no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation...there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of"...

May the love of the Lord Jesus be with you and your family this season to all who browse this blog.

when we were one

Hello again WWWO,

Why do you think Jesus baptized with water, when John went out of his way to explain that Jesus didn't in John 4:3?

I guess your accusation is that I am overgeneralizing this to all times and places, instead of from the beginning of His ministry period up to the point where He left Judea. But it seems an odd detail to add to the story unless it was something John needed to clarify about Jesus's typical method of operation. And there is nothing explicitly in the text that says why Jesus did not baptize, or if He began personally water baptizing later, when and why he changed His methods. Therefore, I believe the safest conclusion from scripture is that Jesus did not baptize others but preferred to leave this task in the hands of His disciples.

If you have evidence or analysis that would correct what you believe is my misunderstanding, please supply it.

You wondered "how the truth of doctrine is to really be determined". That is a complex question which I suppose you would like to supply with a simple answer: "whatever is taught by the present Roman Bishop". I think this topic is a little too broad (and a little too offtopic) for us to discuss here, but thanks for the offer anyway.

Sincerely, Kaffinator.

Kaff, back to your question about whether a Protestant could in good conscience donate to a Catholic charity...

I would first need to ask if what you believed about the Roman Catholic Church encouraging people to worship the Eucharistic host. If the Eucharistic host is actually bread, as Protestants believe, then the Roman Catholic Church is encouraging idolatry on the highest order. In this light, co-operation between Catholic and Protestant organizations seems like a dim prospect indeed.

On a softer note, a Protestant could take the attitude that the Roman Catholic Church is unknowingly promoting idolatry and make allowances for the "weaker brother" (where weaker could mean sincere yet mistaken). For example, Evangelicals and Catholics have often banded together to promote common causes such as respect for life in the womb, respect for marriage as an exclusive union between man and woman, respect for the terminally ill such as Terry Schiavo.

Though to get back to your point about "parachurch", I think the Salvation Army, like many Protestant denominations, began as a "parachurch" organization but became a "church" organization. It is one thing to say "we don't do Baptism and communion because we are not a Church" (as the early Salvationists and the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul say) and quite another to say "we don't do Baptism and Communion because we have formed a Church where such nonsense does not happen".

I know I have stopped supporting organizations which think they are helping the poor by aggressively promoting contraceptives. Over time, I have learned that only Catholic organizations listen to the people from third-world nations who say "give us water, vitamins, and more pre-natal care instead of condoms, tubal ligations, pills, IUDs, norplant, and hysterectomies".

A few years ago, I tried very hard to find organizations which helped the poor without pushing contraceptives on them (by the way, recipients of "aid" find it highly frustrating to find "health" centres chock full of condoms and pills with no vitamins, band-aids, or disinfectants in sight). It was surprisingly difficult and the only organizations that fit the bill were Catholic.

Granted the Salvation Army in its efforts in North America probably does not suffer the exact same problem but it does seem to make sense to donate through an organization that shares one's definition of a work of mercy whether it be spiritual or corporeal.

Hey Kaff

As we discuss above, the passage from John 4:2 is relative to the time in Judea see John 3:22-4:3, the statement "Jesus never baptized a single soul" is untenable.

However if we change the wording to say "Jesus never (water) baptized a single soul" we may think this is more solid...but again we are faced with the contention that nowhere in scripture is this absolute statement made.

But can we then say with definitive literalist statement that he did baptize with water? No where in scripture do we find a statement "Jesus baptized with water." If that is the proof we require then the project is over.

But let us ponder this question further. We agree that "among those born of women there has been none greater than John the Baptist." Mt 11:11 We also agree that the Baptist says that Jesus is "the one who will baptize with the holy Spirit." Jn 1:33. But this is not the same as saying "Jesus will ONLY baptize by the holy Spirit...In fact if we look at the other gospel accounts Mk 1 Mt 3 and Lk 3 no where do we see any statement that Christ will baptize ONLY with holy Spirit.

If we agree he baptized by the Spirit, can we then look to the Christ for His blessing on a baptismal dichotomy? Do we see him instructing us to and advocating for splitting baptism into two parts? If we can then perhaps he did only baptize in the Spirit but we certainly have his reply to Nicodemus on how we are to be "born again" Christians in John 3:1-5.

In the Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ

wwwo

Good comments, WWWO. Since the only explicit statement we have on whether Jesus water-baptized is that He didn't, I would look for some kind of reason to think He had. I mean, we for pretty much all of His other activities, such as casting out demons, healing, working miracles, preaching, etc., we have Jesus both commanding the activity, and explicitly performing it Himself. But with baptism that's not the case. I think it would have been notable in the eyes of the authors of the gospels if He had baptised, given so many other of His actions are described in such detail (and yes I'm aware of John 20:30, but still). So I'm comfortable saying Jesus didn't water-baptize. But if you like I might modify my original statement to say something like this:

"Scripture teaches that Jesus fed the hungry and healed the sick but it never teaches that He water-baptized anyone."

Doesn't have the same "zing" as the original though :-)

OK I can't resist making one small comment about whether Baptism is essential. There are lots of ways to read John 3. I think the unmistakable emphasis in Christ's words are on being "born again" as a spiritual rebirth. But, yes, verse 5 taken in isolation could certainly be used to imply that a water baptism is an absolute necessity to entering heaven.

This is not the only way to read the passage, but if we do read it this way, we have a couple of problems. The thief on the cross for one. Wasn't baptised, but would make it to paradise, right? Number two, in the RCC if a catechumen dies before baptism, he is not excluded from salvation either, right? My point being, even the Romanist interpretation of this passage does not make baptism as being SO essential as to require water baptism of dead people by proxy like the Mormons do. So I would say we differ in degree not type.

So let's both say, believe! Get baptized! Join a Christian church! Participate in the Lord's Supper! And let's not get so tripped up on our own theologies that we can't seek Christian unity when it's possible.

Hi BR,

Thanks for sharing your history on this topic. I would probably take what you describe as your "soft Protestant" viewpoint, although I don't really view myself as a "protestant", and I don't know if I would even go so far as to label a Eucharist service as promoting idolatry. It's just...a different level of focus that could put some people in danger of idolatry. Some churches underfocus on the Lord's Supper and they will have their own risks.

I guess because I'm not militant about certain ceremonies, I'm just naturally going to see the Salvation Army issue in a more forgiving light. I'll say it again, if Joe wants to use this as his litmus he's 100% free to. What chafed me was the assumption that all Christians ought to feel the same way about it, at the expense of what seems to me as a very healthy Christian charity effort.

Then again I don't know if they ever distribute rubbers, so it could be after all that they are apostates regurgitated from the deepest circle of Hell ... :-)

Kaff

Now you're talking. I find the revised statement much more reasonable. Indeed we could split hairs another 40 yrs but I think our spirit of thought is more closely aligned.

But just because the Kaff and the wwwo slightly agree, we could be 2 duds agreeing on a dud idea. What we were practicing was mere logic... I have actually not reviewed the CC position on John 4:2.

Most of what I see on this site has passed imprimatur and nihil obstat in some printed form...I usually recommend to my prot brothers (Kaff what are you?) that when reading books attributable to CC views check the 1st few pages for those seals meaning that they have been reviewed. Some books that don't have the seals are not heretical they may have not been reviewed or perhaps they are heretical.

In regards to the CC understanding of salvation...indeed we must be baptized in some form. The thief is commonly used by theologians as a reason behind blood/desire baptism further enhanced by catholics dying under the Pax Romana in entertainment venues. Many of these catholics were not water baptized because they converted on the way into the theater.

But just because you have been baptized by water doesn't mean you are saved via the CC salvic path.

But it is this act of faith in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior(I think you call it righteous)which is the hair to be split. You see many catholics are suspicious of our Prot Bros (and catholics themselves) who we think can just proclaim by words alone or some sinners prayer that they have this faith and think they are saved. Faith without works is non salvic Jas 2:14-17 It has to be a living faith and "not by faith alone" Jas 2:24 We had these catholics in our midst in the 1st 3 centuries who when told by the Romans hey if you deny Christ we won't (pick it...crucify you, feed you to blank, drown you, blank abuse you, burn you...) and some of these catholics said "hail caesar as my god don't put me in lion salad." I'm sure many of these flip floppy catholics (I may have done that under such pressure) were water baptized but just because they were did not mean they were saved because they did not persevere. Peter for example did the triple denial (we do view him as saved though because he accepted God's grace and died, crucified upside down with a living faith.)

We do view water baptism as having salvic necessity in ridding sin (I won't start a quote frenzy, I'm sure you are familiar with the topic) especially for those who have committed no sin of intent just original ie water baptized infants who die. The problem occurs with non water baptized infants who die; it is unclear how our Lord intends to deal with them with His infinite mercy, we hope as perhaps David's son.

In the Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ

wwwo

Hi WWWO,

(BTW I attend a church that is a part of a Baptist association.)

Glad we could agree, and thanks for the advice to look for the imprimatur. It’s nice to see that a work has undergone some kind of ecclesiastical review and therefore probably does not contain outright heresy according to the current thinking of the Roman church, and is also at least somewhat representative of Roman thought. Unfortunately I have seen the seal on writings that unfairly mischaracterize non-Roman theology, contain historical errors or mischaracterizations, or “go out on a limb” theologically, just the same as I see in ordinary evangelical writings. Still, sometimes I wish there was something equivalent to the seal in non-Roman circles (I suppose an endorsement by Fuller Theological Seminary is as close as I could hope for…)

Anyway, thanks for the dialogue!
Kaff

Ok Kaff

Since you claim to be a Christian (Baptist), you should be giving a ready reply as Peter demands :)

I invite you to meet me over on the Jehovas part of this blog to defend the divinity of Christ. As our ancestors did in Nicea 1 vs the Arius when we were one. I shall post 1st if you don't mind.

http://www.deoomnisgloria.com/mt/archives/000505.html

wwwo

Looks to me like you and fidens are defending the case well :-) keep up the good work. I think I would comment specifically on the passage referenced by Simon (Mark 13:32) as a gateway to discussing the proper understanding of Christ as fully man (with all of the associated frailties and limitations, yet without sin) and fully God (with full power and authority over all things).

Um, yeah, hi.

I have a suggestion:

Joe- keep negative opinions to yourself. There are lots of different 'foods' that Christians may eat.

Kaffinator- why bother arguing with the guy; he if he is to stubborn to compromise his stubborn judgemental attitude towards the Salvation Army, he'll get whats coming to him.

Everybody reading this page- judge by the spirit; does the Salvation Army do good or bad and what does your heart tell you to do when you see them asking for money to help the poor?

Thanks.

Hi,
I'm a Salvation Army soldier. Firstly, the Salvation Army has always been church first. Our mandate is "Heart to God, hand to man", echoing Jesus' command to feed and clothe the hungry and poor.
Often, support comes first, only because it is difficult to teach someone about a loving God if they live in poverty and perpetual hunger.

In regards to baptism, the Army Founders’ saw the danger that the rite could replace the reality of entering into a living relationship with Jesus, and so they decided that the Army would not practise adult baptism.
Many churches seem to practise that baptism is necessary to enter heaven, without emphasising the reliance on regeneration by the Holy Spirit (nodding to John referring to Jesus baptising in the Holy Spirit).

Instead of baptism, we emphasise soldiership as a truer dedication to God - in which we publically declare our allegiance and servanthood to God, and declare our intent to be actively involved in the advance of the Gospel.
Then we wear the (blue) uniform as a continual public declaration of this commitment when working with the community - as such we can never hide our priorities.

As with the ceremony of Communion, Salvationists are never forbidden to be baptised in another church if they feel this is right for them as individuals, and the Army has from time to time reconsidered its stance on the sacraments, and continues to keep it under review. Indeed, I have shared in communion at our church, on special occasions when it is properly explained.

Should you wish to further clarify any aspect of our church, please drop me a line. I welcome your opinions openly (so long as you're open-minded for a response!)

So Andrew let me get this straight...

The Salvation Army deemed baptism [something mandated by Jesus Christ (Matt 28: 19-20, Mk 16: 15-16, Jn 3:5), and the apostles (Acts 2:2:38, 8:12-13, 10: 46-48; 22: 12-16; Col 2:12)] unnecessary or unimportant because they didn't want their members to get caught up in the ceremonial aspect of it?

In case you were unaware, the Catholic Church, from the beginning has repeatedly insisted on the fact that Christianity must be lived daily and that conversion to Christ was an ongoing relationship. However, in Her infinite wisdom (since Christ is Her head), she has not been foolish enough to state that something Christ mandated, namely baptism, could possibly be "unnecessary".

And by the way, making something optional to members who might want to be baptized or who were baptized previously, doesn't justify the rejection of this essential sacrament as a church.

In Christ,
Joe

Joe, would you still have objection to the Salvation Army if they claimed to be "parachurch" rather than a "church"?

Namely, if they considered themselves an "association of Christians" who were understood to receive sacraments elsewhere, would that be ok?

For example, the Society of Saint Vincent dePaul doesn't do baptism and communion because they do not consider themselves a Church, merely an arm of the Roman Catholic Church. Could a similar principle apply here? The two organizations seem very similar.

Actually Broken...St. Vincent de Paul Society, an apostolate of the Catholic Church, on one of their websites, states:

At the Service of the Church and the City
Though born in the heart of the Church the Society of St. Vincent de Paul is at the service of the city. Under the inspiration of the gospel message, attentive to the teaching of the magisterium, it operates in the midst of the human community and regards it as its duty to bring about "being better," over and above "being more." Isn't faith without works dead? That, anyway, is what the Fathers of the Council appropriately remind us of in "Gaudium et Spes" ("The Church in the Modem World, N 43), when they urge:

"Christians as citizens of both cities are to carry out their tasks in this world under the guidance of the gospel. They are far from the truth who knowing that we have not here a lasting city but are heading towards the future one, neglect their human tasks, not realizing that the faith itself, taking into account each one's vocation, makes this a more urgent duty. But they are equally in error who, on the other hand think that they can devote themselves totally to the affairs of this world as if they had no connection with their religious life. They regard the latter as being confined to taking part in worship and obeying certain fixed moral obligations. This dichotomy between the faith which is professed by a large number and their daily behavior is to be counted among the greatest errors of our day."

If the Church expects from us an authentic witness to faith and spirituality it also invites us to be totally present to this deeply changing world which is suffering, struggling and looking for itself.

The vocation to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul makes it a definite duty for each member to be involved in the human tapestry where the struggle for a better and more just world is being carried on.

That is what leads a number of them to commit themselves, as Ozanam did personally, to defending the cause of the poor. One the most notable examples was Giorgio La Pira, mentor of the Christian Democrats in Italy and former mayor of Florence, who campaigned passionately in favor of the common people.

Vincentians are aware of the various problems caused by the different forms of spiritual, moral, cultural, physical and material poverty so their clear aim is to give back hope to those who have lost it, bringing to a questioning and searching humanity that "additional element of soul" ...

I don't see the point of your question about whether or not it would be okay for the Salvation Army to be a "parachurch" rather than a "church"? They specifically teach that baptism is an option. I've helped out with several charities that were not specifically Catholic, but none of them attempted to deny or make optional a fundamental sacrament mandated by Jesus Christ. So the question should be is it "okay" for any group claiming to be Christian to deny or make optional any fundamental teaching of Jesus Christ?

In Christ,
Joe

Joe,

Thanks for clarifying. Looking back on your previous posts, I can see that you are objecting to their teachings on baptism rather than the fact that they don't do them. In that light, they are very different from the Society of Saint Vincent dePaul (which does not do baptisms but still adheres to correct teachings on baptism). I should have read what you said more carefully.

The Salvation Army, as far as I know, started out in much the same way as the Saint Vincent dePaul Society. Doing charitable works as part of an existing Church. I guess that over time, they started adopting problematic doctrines. I wonder if that is what is going on with the "social justice/liberation theology" movements in the Roman Catholic Church.

With a few notable exceptions (JPII, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, Benedict XVI) even the words "social justice" set off so many red flags :(

Joe,

The Salvation Army never deemed baptism unnecessary.
In fact, it is a core element of soldiership.
To commit to soldiership, there is a series of classes designed to help new Christians understand that their committment is one born of the Holy Spirit, and is an inward change.

Baptism by water is really only an outward sign of an inner change.
However the Army's founders felt that many Christians had come to rely on these outward signs of spiritual grace rather than on grace itself. William and Catherine Booth believed, with the Apostle Paul, that salvation came solely from the grace of God personally received by faith. They felt that much of what passed for Christianity in their day was primarily an observance of outward ritual.

To a great extent, nothing much has changed. Can you imagine how many claiming 'Christians', esp those that claim to be Catholic via descent, have never followed God's Word (or even picked it up!)

Some Bible scholars had pointed out that there was no scriptural basis for regarding the sacraments as essential to salvation or Christian living. Many Christians assumed that Jesus commanded the use of baptism and holy communion. But there very few New Testament references to these practices and it was argued that none of them showed any intention by Jesus that they (or any other practice) should have become fixed ceremonies.

The sacraments had been a divisive influence in the Church throughout Christian history and at times the cause of bitter controversy and abuse.

Some churches would not allow women to administer the sacraments. The Army, however, believed that women may take an equal part in its ministry, and did not want to compromise this stance.

The Society of Friends (the Quakers) had managed to live holy lives without the use of sacraments.

That said, these two are never exclusive, and soldiers are free to choose a water baptism, as long as the corps officer (the leader of the local church) believes that the significance of both is understood properly.

Andrew, thank you for the excellent history on the Salvation Army's approach to the sacraments. Did you notice that your very last paragraph proves (rather than contradicts) Joe's original point that the Salvation Army deems baptism unnecessary?

We all know that the Salvation Army does not forbid baptism. The issue is that they do not require it. Based on what you have said, for the Salvationist, baptism is an outward and unnecessary sign of an inward reality.

Based on your excellent information, it seems like your first statement is dead wrong and Joe is completely accurate in his conclusion. Namely, the Salvation Army DOES deem baptism as unnecessary.

Interesting that such a noble organization should be cut-down, slandered, and rejected.

Seems Jesus was rejected Himself by one "church" when Mary, his now-dead mother, was made an equal with Him.

HEAVY sigh.

i stick to the book of acts.the only history of the early church.were baptism of water was used to baptize you into christ.the teaching of a man made church,do not mean,a roll of beans.read the book of acts charter two,was peter and the rest of the apostles wrong by baptizing 3000 souls in water.they were jews,acts chapter 2,gentlies,were baptized in water acts chapter 10 by peter..paul,rebaptized,12 disciples of john the baptist,in water in acts chapter 19..the salvation army says in there book for soldiers,manuel of salvation, that paul bid not practice water baptism in his minstry.paul bid practice water baptism in this minstry.who is right ,the bible or the salvation army.the road to hail is paved with good intentions.the early church baptized in the name of jesus christ.you cannot take away from the word of god,my friends,god will find you out.was the early church wrong in the bible,i donot think so.how close we come to denying the holy word of god.

dear friends:in the book manual of salvationism for students by colonel milton s.agnew,states on page 51,i quote,paul did not practice water baptism in his ministry as a rule,saying:CHRIST did not send me to baptize with water, but to preach the gospel.1corinthians1:17.the bible says,i quote from the king james version,paul said,for christ sent me not to baptize,1corinthians1:17.the salvation army says,christ did not send me to baptize with water,but to preach the gospel.dear friends,with water is not in 1cor.1:17.the salvation army also states on the same page,i quote,baptism is mentioned in the great commission.it is apparent that paul recognized the baptism mentioned in the great commission of matthew28:19 to be baptized with the holy spirit.thus,the salvation army declares that the sacrament of water baptism is not necessary to salvation,nor commanded by jesus.the salvation army,do not know and do not wish to know what paul meant,and there is not much a person can do to help those who are determined not to be helped.however,i trust the following answers will assist honest hearts to see these odjections in their true colors.heaven or hell,is for a very long time.read acts2:38 to see for yourself.by the way,paul did practice water baptism in his ministy,paul says in 1cor1,13and 16.i thank god i baptized none of you,but crispus and gaius:16 and i baptized also the household of stepa-nas;i know not whether i baptized any other.the word of god is forever settled in heaver.be careful in what you beleive.steve

dear friends,fell free to comment on anything i have said.sometimes fact is stanger then fiction.jesus,said i am the way,the truth,and the life,no man comes to the father but by me.there is no other way into the kingdom of god but threw his son,jesus christ.i close with this remark,colossians2:22 which all are to perish with the using;after the commandments and doctrines of men.have a wonderful day.bro.steve

Dear Friends,
I came to know the lord 29 years ago by saying the sinners prayer, being baptized and receiving the holy spirit and speaking in tongues. I am not fellowshipping in a church but believe as strongly as the day I gave my life to God. I use my life as a witness to show my love for the Lord. Buy giving my life over to God it has been the most rewarding 29 years of the all the time I have lived on earth. I know nothing will change my love for God. I am so grateful he whisper give your life to me. It has made my life complete. God Bless. Nanette.

Nan

Welcome and good to see you committing to Christ.

In Love

when we were one

Oh do be careful whom you accuse and why. Every church or believer could point fingers at the other - baptism with a sprinkle or a dunk, oil that is blessed or olive oil, the Lord's Supper with bread or wafers, wine or grape juice ..... It is not ours to judge but ours to love. Jesus said that the world would know that they are my disciples by their love for each other. God save us from infighting.

This is an interesting blog--I was looking for information on Salvation Army baptism and holy cow I stepped into a hornets nest--I realize this is from 2005, but how sad it still continues today in 2008!

I would like to reply to taku wolf about the comments about Mary and the "church". The Church does not make Mary co-equal with Jesus. I find the "now dead mother of Jesus" comment highly offensive, perhaps you do not believe in the resurrection?--as some of Jesus' contemporaries did not when he told them that God was a god of the living, "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob". Even though Mary is no longer visible on the earth she is still alive. The Church recognizes Mary as co-redeemer with Christ, (as in "co-operator" with Christ). Why do people outside of the Catholic Church have such a hard time with giving Mary the respect due to her? Do they not realize that without her fiat (YES) to God to allow Him to come into the world through her, (because God would never just "impose His will" on one of His creatures, or we would all be nothing more than robots),we would have never had a Savior born to us?! This disturbs me very much that people think it is alright to disrespect the Mother of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ! We would afford our own earthly mothers more respect than Jesus' own mother! Mary holds the unique position in all earthy humanity as, the daughter of God the Father, the spouse of the Holy Spirit ("the Holy Spirit will overshadow you and you shall conceive and bear a son and his name shall be Jesus" (or Emmanuel--"God is with us"), and the mother of Jesus. Consider the holiness of this woman that God chose from all humanity to bear his only begotten son! We do not worship Mary, but by golly she sure has my admiration and highest respect that I can give to any mortal being. When asking for others to pray for me or for a particular intention, I can think of no one person other than Mary, Jesus' mom to ask for help--besides asking directly to God himself--fortunately I personally have no problem doing this, but I know of a lot of people who have problems with male figures in their lives who find it more comfortable to ask Mary to intercede in prayer for them. Think of life as a child and we are all children of God--wasn't it always easier to ask Mom than Dad for something? That is what I'm talking about. This is where people who don't understand what the Roman Catholic Church teaches don't get about what Catholics believe about Mary--WE DON'T WORSHIP HER, WE HONOR HER! And we ask her to pray for us--which as Jesus' mother and ours (our Lord gave her to us as well as the disciple John at the foot of the cross) she is happy to do for us! Besides the Fourth Commandment tells us to Honor our Mother and our Father--that includes Jesus' mother! Please don't disrespect the mother of Jesus again! Thanks.

As an aside, I happen to work for St. Vincent De Paul Society, and I find all the comments about the Salvation Army very interesting. I personally don't know how much money we spent in the last year and about all those we help in our communities (it will be published in our local newspapers sometime in January), but I do want to add that as a social good-works organization, we work hand in hand with the Salvation Army to help the homeless and to feed the poor. We also aid in paying electric and utility bills, rent assistance, doctors bills, etc. as needed for our clients. The Salvation Army had a great idea with their kettles, and I can't believe how many Catholics who tell me they are going out to ring the bells for Salvation Army at Christmas time! But just so we are clear about this--all the money that goes into that red kettle goes only to SA--none goes to SVDP. (We do accept donations through the SVDP stores and in our churches though.) We aren't competing but we are doing the same works! This Christmas, SVDP gave out 400 Christmas baskets in our area, SA gave out about 250. I'm not against helping to support their good works, but I find it frustrating that so many Catholics are unaware that they could be helping out at Christmas time as well as year round at St. Vincent De Paul--we are desperate for volunteers and new members. As Vincentians we have a personal apostolate with the poor--calling on them to see how we can help them with furniture, clothing, and monetarily if needed. We differ from SA in that we do not have a marketing manager or spend money on advertising, or to operate our Church, so 100 per cent of what you give to the Society go directly to the poor in your community--none goes to the Catholic Church (we are a lay organization, not owned and operated by the Catholic Church, we are Catholics doing what the gospel tells us to do--perform works of mercy for the poor.) So, Joe, if you are still into this, Food for the Poor is a good thing but so is SDVP and the money stays here to help your neighbor in need too! To Andrew thank you for the interesting info on the SA. You guys do a lot of good things too, keep up the good work! You know the Catholic Church is looking for many like you who have the Spirit of Christ in their heart already to come on home to the Church. Jesus prayed that we would all be one--he knew we would all be too stubborn to stick together! Peace be with you this "Little Christmas Day".
diangelica

I only found this blog today. Very interesting...
Many of the ideas previously discussed on this topic are similar (I imagine) to the thoughts that William and Catherine Booth discussed before they started the Salvation Army. They went through many of these thoughts as they decided where the Holy Spirit was leading them. The question is: "is baptism and communion important?" I belive as a result of their thinking the Founders taught YES to this question.
My understanding is the SA promotes people to become Christ-like and in vital living continual obedience and relationship to God, in such a way as to be evident to others by offering help, displaying they are filled with the Holy Spirit.
One of the ways the SA promotes this is to help people. The SA observe that often the Hungry dont listen to the gospel cause their tummy rumblings are too loud. Once hunger (etc) is satisfied they are more likely to hear the good news of the gospel and follow Jesus, and in turn help others.
The important things are: a changed life that is obvious to all; becoming more like Jesus, compassionate and loving.
The SA avoid alcohol as many of the people they assist are alcoholics and others whose lives are being destroyed by addictions. (The SA also avod any form of gambling). It is difficult in social situations to avoid alcohol when mixing with christian friends who drink, and also difficult when it is served up at church. So the SA avoids causing others to fall.
To avoid the religious outward acts without the inward change the SA encouraged the importance of the sacraments to be uppermost and the outward action to not be so important. This is still the case.
What is the correct question: "did I get wet or not?" or "have I had bread and grape juice today"??
Instead the SA teach that the importance is displaying evidence of whether you belong to Christ. Instead they ask "have you died to self?"
The SA encourage repentance from sin and transformation by being "saved to serve".
William & Catherine have encouraged people to be real and whole-hearted in their acceptance of Jesus, not just an outward show. They taught the evidence of the inward change is a dying to self, an obedience to Christ, and this is why the SA has spread throughout the world. This dying to self (as promoted by the SA) is evidenced in helping others, giving up one's time(effort), talents(abilities), and treasure(dollars) to benefit the less fortunate. This dying to self is exactly the same meaning intended by Jesus in the act of baptism. The SA upholds the ideal, while trying to avoid the risk of it being a false outward act.
Each of us needs to daily ask and know for ourselves: "am I in right relationship with Jesus?"
But the SA have not got rid of this false outward risk totally. Like any other church the risk is still there for the SA people to show off by doing good rather than getting wet. In the end God looks on the heart, not outward appearance.
Through the years it appears some in the SA may have replaced getting wet with wearing a uniform. This is not the intention of SA teaching.
Like Christ, the SA are keen to promote the same ideal as that of the RCC: relationship and obedience to Christ. Jesus was keen for the inward change to be real and the risk is for SA and RCC people alike to be religious with outward acts and both miss some of the abundant life that Jesus meant for anyone and everyone.
So please keep giving to the SA and to the RCC and to any other group or needy person when you are prompted to do so. But more importantly, keep your relationship with Jesus right as you obey his Holy Spirit.
Abundant blessings
Ken

Hi, I am an employee of The Salvation Army in the eastern division and I am so distressed at what I have learned about the army from my employment. The Majors of the corps who run these organizations use the army as their personal slave staff and no one will challenge them for fear of losing their jobs. It is as if they feel some sort of entitlement to abuse the army because perhaps their parents were Majors and they have some resentment toward the army and want to get even. Horrible, I have seen 49 people lose their jobs due to the Major's wife who is (to quote her "husband") a tyrannt and an abusive boss who has railroaded over 48 people out of a job and is stealing right and left from the corps by disquising the need for providing for the programs of which they bill many of their personal expenses to. If the general public knew what was being permitted here it could very easily destroy the important work the army has done for over 100 years. It is out of control. Someone needs to stop this cancer in the Northeast and put a hold on these corrupt Majors who have threatened and intimidated employees into silence. Enough is enough! Someone please look into this before MSNBC does.

Ken,

So did Jesus make baptism (both outward and inward) a mandatory act or not? From what I've read in Scripture and in the Early Fathers, the answer is yes. It would only make sense that those desiring to completely conform to Christ and His teachings would want to be baptized...wouldn't it?

In Christ,
Joe

bro, the church which follows 7 doctrines in acts 2.38 -47 to be called church of christ. otherwise not follows is not called church of christ, it to be church of anti christ. salvation army not follows church doctrines ( acts 2.38-47) is called antichrist.
praise the lord amen
1.repent
2.water baptism
3.holy spirit baptism
4.separation from world live
5.holy communion
6.fellowship
7.prayers.

Post a comment