If you didn't notice I proved that being born again has nothing to do with submitting to the rite of water baptism because a person is born again by the gospel.
Right. That is fine if that is your position. However, that disagrees with the Scripture, as evidenced in John 3:5.
Cardinal John Henry Newman wrote that "the rulers of the Church from early times were prepared, should the occasion arise, to adopt, or imitate, or sanction the existing rites and customs of the populace, as well as the philosophy of the educated class...The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church" (John Henry Cardinal Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine [Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, Sixth Edition], 372-373)
Newman failed to mention that the early church also adopted the rite of water baptism as practiced in the Eleusinian Mysteries.
So, your evidence for infant baptism being adopted from pagan practice is actually a
lack of proof? A lack of evidence is not evidence. If this is your defense, it fails upon itself logically.
The chief shrine of this mystery religion was at Eleusis, a city close to Athens. Edwin Hatch points out the changes which took place in the rite of water baptism not long after the Apostolic age had ended :
"The first point is the change of name.."
"(a) So early as the time of Justin Martyr we find a name given to baptism which comes straight from the Greek mysteries - the name 'enlightenment.' It came to be the constant technical term.
"(b) The name 'seal,' which also came from the mysteries and from some forms of foreign cult, was used partly of those who had passed the test and who were 'consignati,' as Tertullian calls them, partly of those who were actually sealed upon the forehead in sign of a new ownership.
"(c) The term 'musterion' is applied to baptism, and with it comes a whole series of technical terms unknown to the Apostolic Church, but well known to the mysteries, and explicable only through ideas and usages peculiar to them." (Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Uses Upon the Christian Church [London: Williams and Norgate, 1897], 295-96).
There are several issues within your evidence here. Let us work through them.
First off, Edwin Hatch is not Catholic, nor an expert in any capacity, on the times of the Apostles. In fact, the entire book from which you quote, is based on his own ideas and lectures; not based on historical facts and evidence. Which is pretty easy to prove, when one simply examines historical practices of the earliest Christians.
Second, baptism was being practiced by John the Baptist. This predates the Apostles baptizing. Therefore, your inference that this practice was adopted from pagan practice is faulty.
Third, there is no evidence of these pagans practicing baptism, specifically, infant baptism.
Sir Robert Anderson wrote that "The early corrupters of Christianity transferred to their new religion a rite with which their old religion had made them familiar, and this they described by the term which Holy Scripture provided. Nor was it confined to the Eleusinian mysteries. In 'Prescott's Conquest of Mexico' a description is given of the rite in use in that country when the Spaniards landed on its shores. The priestess midwife sprinkled water on the head of the infant, and then, after exorcising the unclean spirit (as does the Roman priest), she used these words: 'He now liveth anew and is born anew; now he is purified and cleansed.' And in his work on Buddhism Sir Monier Williams describes' a similar rite practised in Tibet and Mongolia. The child is baptized on the third or tenth day after birth. 'The priest consecrates the water, while candles and incense are burning. He then dips the child three times, blesses it, and gives it a name. It was not from Greece that these superstitious rites were derived. All had a common origin, and that origin is to be sought in the mysteries of ancient Babylon" (Sir Robert Anderson, The Church or the Bible? 125-26).
More points:
Sir Robert Anderson is a noted anti-Catholic, whose reports are regarded as exaggerated or outright falsehoods (lies). One need to only examine actual history, the Bible, and other works to see this.
While I do not doubt his authentic passion, his conclusions were clouded by bias and a preference to falsehoods over truth. For example, his passionate painting of the Catholic Church as the Babylonian harlot. Simple historical analysis, combined with context and perspective of John, yields a different picture. As I will demonstrate below.
That explains how we know that the following passage is speaking about the church at Rome:
"And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH" (Rev.17:5).
In the following verse we see that mystery Babylon sits on seven hills:
"This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits" (Rev.17:9).
Here is a description of Rome:
"Seven Hills of Rome, group of hills on or about which the ancient city of Rome was built. The original city of Romulus was built upon Palatine Hill (Latin: Mons Palatinus). The other hills are the Capitoline, Quirinal, Viminal, Esquiline, Caelian, and Aventine (known respectively in Latin as the Mons Capitolinus, Mons Quirinalis, Mons Viminalis, Mons Esquilinus, Mons Caelius, and Mons Aventinus)" (The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica).
Do you really want to take a chance and imagine that the reference to the "seven hills" upon which Mystery Babylon sits is not Rome?
If so you will lose in a big way--eternal separation from God.
There are several things that R. Anderson has correct, and subsequently, yourself. Such as Rome being seated in seven hills. Good job.
But, let us consider the historical context and perspective of the time. At the time of John's authoring of the Apocalypse, Rome was the center of paganism, vices, debauchery, etc. Thus, any description of it was referenced as "Babylon." However, easy critical thinking demonstrates that this application was current to the time.
Beginning at the first verse of chapter 17, through verse six: The angel joins John to explain his vision. The imagery is evocative of the Old Testament: the great harlot recalls the cities of Tyre and Nineveh, which Isaiah and Nahum described as harlots (Isaiah 23:16-17, Nahum 3:4). As explained in 17:15, the "many waters" are the peoples ruled by the great harlot. Some commentators have interpreted this as a reference to their ultimate downfall, which would precipate the collapse of the ancient world.
The metaphor of prostitution is used in the Old Testament to refer to idolatry, as well as alliances with foreign powers. In the present case, the power and influence of Rome was practically universal, given the extent of the empire. It is called "Babylon" because Babylon was the prototype of cities hostile to God (Isaiah 21:9, Jeremiah 51:1-19). It is characterized by its wealth, immoral influence, and its horrendous crimes against the Christian martyrs (verse 6), who, according to Roman historian Tacitus, "were abused in various ways: they were covered with hides to be set upon by dogs, or nailed to crosses, or burned alive and used as torches to light up the darkness" (
Annals, 15, 44). The figure of the great harlot, and the influence she wields, is also to be interpreted as referring to impurity.
For verses 7-15: The angel explains the meaning of the beast, its seven heads, and its ten horns, and then reveals the identity of the great harlot (verse 18). Yet, what is said is still enigmatic, in keeping with the style of apocalyptic texts, which are written in a kind of code to protect the writer from being sought and punished, sometimes to death.
The phrase "was, and is not" is a kind of counter and parody of "him who is and was and is to come." You would agree, no? It identifies the antichrist who is headed for perdition. Paul also calls him "the son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2:3). When it speaks of the beast reappearing, this refers, according to some historical commentators, to the legend about Nero returning at the head of the Parthians to avenge himself on his enemies in Rome. However, what the sacred writer really means is that the beast, which had disappeared, will return to wage war on Christians.
Now, a paranoid conspiracy theorist, ignorant of history, context, and Scripture, could easily imply that this all points to the Catholic Church. But what they will always fail to explain is why the Catholic Church was run by the Apostles and their successors, and why these disciples suddenly became apostate (of course, there is no evidence of this; just mere anti-history, anti-Catholic conjecture).
But let us continue in our examining of the passage, picking up with verse 9, through 15. In verse 9, John warns the reader that what he is writing has a deeper, hidden meaning, rich in wisdom. He is inviting the reader to discern an implicit, concealed meaning: the harlot is the
current city of Rome (current to
his time).
The beast's seven heads also stand for seven kings. From what the author states, we can deduce that he is referring to the seven emperors. The sixth, Domitian, is alive when John authored the text. The first five would be Caligula (37-41 AD), Claudius (41-54 AD), Nero (54-68 AD), Vespasian (69-78 AD), and Titus (79-81 AD), with Nerva (96-98 AD) as the seventh. (How does Sir Anderson explain this in an anti-Catholic manner?) The beast is number eight, though it can be taken as one of the seven, for it will be as cruel as one of them; Nero. The ten kings stand for those whom Rome established as kings in the nations it conquered, rulers subject to the emperor. (Again, how does Sir Anderson explain this one away?)
The description of Christ as the Lamb forms a contrast here with the beast. Through His death and resurrection, Christ has been made King and Lord (thus, He is God) of the universe, and already truly rules the hearts of Christians. Therefore, His victory over the powers of evil, no matter how strong they be, is assured. This would align with Rome becoming Christian, and the Church being established as head in Rome.
In closing, do you really want to go against history, reason, logic, and Christ Himself, by clinging to a faulty ideology? History, context, logic, and above all, the Scripture, disprove Sir Anderson, and your subsequent claims against the Church.
