PDA

View Full Version : The Restoration



KATA_LOUKAN
Nov 3rd 2007, 03:30 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ChristianityBranches.svg

Hello all,

I have a question relating to restorationism. Perhaps somebody more knowledgeable about history can help me.

Anyway, I frequently hear from Catholics and others that evangelical protestantism was not the faith practiced by the early church. As the above diagram shows, there is a dotted line between the early church and the supposed corruption that entered.

If this is correct, and modern day evangelical christianity is the restoration of the early church, what accounts for over 1000 years of discontinuity? What does the dotted line in the above diagram indicate?

Thanks!

threebigrocks
Nov 4th 2007, 12:27 AM
I have moved this to World Religions for discussion.

RSiscoe
Nov 4th 2007, 12:58 PM
I will tell you what the common argument is in favor of the position you have heard (whcih corresponds to the graph). They say that for the first 300+ years Christianity was pure and the pure Gospel was preached. This is the claim made by virtually every group (including the JW's). The "pure Gospel" is the gospel that the person telling the story believes. So, if you are talking toa a JW, the "pure Gospel" is that Jesus was not God. If you are talking to a Baptist, the "pure Gospel" corresponds to his or her beliefs.

They claim that the Gospel remained pure and untainted until the 4th or 5th century. Some will mistakenly claim that Constantine make Christiainity the State religion in the year 313AD and forbade all other, but actually, the "edict of Milan" only legalized Christianity. Before that Christians were killed for the sole crime of being a Christian. With the Edict of Milan, Christianity was now legal along with many other religions. It was later in the 4th century (around 384AD), that Theodosius forbade the public profession of a false religion, and/or heresy. This is what he said:

Theodosius: "We will that all people who are governed by our clemency should practise the same religion as the divine apostle Peter delivered to the Romans, as the religion proclaimed by him up to this time declares it; and which it is clear the pontiff Damasus follows, and Peter, the bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity . . . "

The argument claims that after this people converted to Christianity, not because they wanted to, but because they were forced to. This alledgedly resulted in these "converts" mixing certain aspects of their pagan religions in with Christianity, which eventuall produced the dreaded "Roman Catholicism", which, they claim, is a corruption of the "pure Gospel" preached for the first 300 or 400 years.

That is the argument. It sounds reasonable, but unfortunately it does not correspond to reality. There are several ways to show that this argument is not accurate, but the best way is to simply read the writings of the Christians who lived before the corruption supposedly entered in after the year 384 AD. And since it would have logically taken a while for the corrupt practices to infiltrate into Christianity, you could probably safely read the writings up to about the year 430 or so, which would include al the writings of the great St. Augustine - one who both Protestants and Catholic recognize as a great Father of the Church.

Reading the writings of those who lived before a particular doctrine was said to be "invented" by the Catholic Church, will show whether of not the allegation is true. After all, if someone claims that auricular (verbal) confession to a Priest was invented at the IV Lateran council in the 1200's (which is what many claim), all you have to do is read the writings of the Christians before that time to see if they speak of confessing their sins to a Priest. If you do so, you will find quotes such as these:

St. John Chrysostom, A.D. 387: ""Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed.' (Mt 18:18) Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding; but they can only bind the body. Priests, in contrast, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself and transcends the very heavens. Did [God] not give them all the powers of heaven? 'Whose sins you shall forgive,' he says, 'they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.' (Jn 20:21) What greater power is there than this? The Father has given all judgment to the Son. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men." (John Chrysostom, The Priesthood 3:5 [A.D. 387])"

St. Augustine: "When you hear a man lay bare his conscience in confession, he has already come forth from the sepulcher; but he is not yet unbound. When is he unbound? By whom is he unbound? "Whatever you loose on earth," Christ says to His priests, "shall be loosed in Heaven" (Mt 18:18, 16:19)... Let no one say to me I do penance (confess) in my heart; I confess all my sins to God and to God alone: it is He Who must forgive me." Then in vain was it said to the Apostles: "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sons you retain, they are retained" (Jn 20:23). Thus, you make a mockery of the Gospel!" (St. Augustine, Explanation of the Psalms, circa 400AD)

Augustine: "All mortal sins are to be submitted to the keys of the Church and all can be forgiven: but recourse to these keys is the only, the necessary, and the certain way to forgiveness. Unless those who are guilty of grievous sin have recourse to the powers of the keys, they cannot hope for eternal salvation. Open your lips, then, and confess your sins to the priest. Confession alone is the true gate of heaven". (St. Augustine, Christian combat PL40:289)

Origen: ""If we have revealed our sins not only to God but also to those who are able to heal our wounds and sins, our sins will be blotted out." (Origen - On Luke Homily 17, circa 250AD)

Reading the writings of the early Church ourselves, is the way to determine what they believed. And, when you do so, one thing that is very striking is that they all believed the same things. The differences (when they exist) were usually extremely slight. For example, some thought that, since baptism was prefigured by circumcision, the baby should not be baptized until the 8th day after birth in order to more closely parallel circumcision. This was officially rejected by the Church:

St. Cyprian: "As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born." (Cyprian of Carthage - Letters 64:2 [A.D. 256])

St. Augustine: "Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born" (Augustine - Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).

St. Augustine: "The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (Augustine - The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

The disagreements were often extremely slight, while the funamental beliefs were held in perfect harmony - and when I say "fundamental beliefs", I am not talking about just one or two doctrines, such as the Divinity of Jesus and the Trinity, but rather the complete body of doctrines taught by Jesus and the apostles.

Well, I could probably go on and on boring you with this post, so I'll just end by encouraging you to read the writings of the early Church - those who lived during the time of the "pure Gospel" to see what they believed. I personally find these writings very interesting. They allow you to, in a sense, step back into the earliest years of Christinainty. It is interesting to see how they interpret various passages of the Bible, and compare their interpretation to what we hear today. I'll end with a few quotes of interest to get you started:

The Eucharist:

1 Cor 10:16: "The chalice of Blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the Blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the Body of the Lord?" (1 Cor 10:16)

Below, St. John Chrysostom comments on the above verse (392AD): "'The chalice of blessing which we bless, is it not communion of the blood of Christ?' Very trustworthy and awesomely does he say it. For what he is saying is this: What is in the chalice is that which flowed from his side, and we partake of it. He called it a chalice of blessing because when we hold it in our hands that is how we praise him in song, wondering and astonished at his indescribable gift, blessing him because of his having poured out this very gift so that we might not remain in error; and not only for his having poured it out, but also for his sharing it with all of us. ... (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Corinthians 24:1(3) [A.D. 392]).

Cyril of Jerusalem: "As a life giving sacrament, we possess the sacred Flesh of Christ and his Precious Blood under the appearance of bread and wine. What appears to be bread is not bread, but Christ's Body and what appears to be wine is not wine, but Christ's Blood." (St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 22:9, 350 AD)

St. Irenaues: ""He has declared the chalice, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed chalice [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life - flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (Irenaeus of Lyons Against the Heresies 5:2, 189AD).

St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, disciple of John the apostle and third Bishop f Antioch: 105AD: "Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer (ie. the Mass) because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes." (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7)

The Sacrifice of the Mass:

Old Testament, Prophecy of Malachias: "From the rising of the sun even until its going down thereof, My name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is offered to My name a pure sacrifice" (Mal 1:11).

St. Justin Martyr, 135AD: "...God speaks through Malachias, one of the twelve, as follows: 'I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices from your hands: for from the rising of the sun until its setting, My name has been glorified among the Gentiles; and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a clean offering: for great is My name among the Gentiles, says the Lord; but you profane it.' It is of the sacrifices offered to Him in every place by us, the Gentiles, that is, of the Bread of the Eucharist and likewise of the cup of the Eucharist, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name; while you profane it." (St. Justin Martyr - Dialogue with Trypho, 41:8-10, circa 135AD)

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, 189AD: "He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, 'This is my body.' The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: 'You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the gentiles, says the Lord Almighty' [Mal. 1:10-11]. By these words he makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles." (Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 4:17:5 [A.D. 189])

St. Clement: "God has therefore announced in advance that all the sacrifices offered in His name, which Jesus Christ offered, that is, in the Eucharist of the Bread and of the Chalice, which are offered by us Christians in every part of the world, are pleasing to Him." (St. Clement of Rome - Dialogue with Trypho 41:8-10, circa 135AD)

"What then? Do we not offer daily? Yes, we offer, but making a commemoration of his death; and this commemoration is one and not many. How is it one and not many? Because this sacrifice is offered once, like that in the Holy of Holies. This sacrifice is a type of that, and this commemoration a type of that. We offer always the same, not one sheep now and another tomorrow, but the same thing always. Thus there is one sacrifice. By this reasoning, since the sacrifice is offered everywhere, are there, then, a multiplicity of Christ's? By no means! Christ is one everywhere. He is complete here, complete there, one body. And just as he is one body and not many though offered everywhere, so too is there one sacrifice" (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Hebrews 17:3(6) [A.D. 403]).

St. Cyprian: "The Priest who imitates that which Christ did, truly takes the place of Christ, and offers there in the Church a true and perfect sacrifice to God the Father." (St. Cyprian to the Ephesians, 258AD)

Didache, 1st century: "Assemble on the Lord's day (Sunday), and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until they have been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23-24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, 'Everywhere and always, bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations' [Mal. 1:11, 14]." (Didache 14 - Teaching of the 12 Apostles, 1st century AD)

"Accept therewith our hallowing too, as we say, 'Holy, holy, holy Lord Sabbath, heaven and earth is full of your glory.' Heaven is full, and full is the earth, with your magnificent glory, Lord of Virtues. Full also is this sacrifice, with your strength and your communion; for to you we offer this living sacrifice, this unbloody oblation" (St. Serapion, Prayer of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. 13:12-16 [A.D. 350])

The writings of the Church Fathers are available online.

Steven3
Nov 4th 2007, 02:01 PM
Hi Kata Loukan
What does the dotted line in the above diagram indicate?Without labels who would know?

Each denomination, each church even, is an aggregate of different (a) beliefs (b) practice, so it would be more meaningful to have two dozen diagrams for the major issues of belief and pactice. And then churches could aggregate their scores maybe ;)

PRACTICE : For example, in an area that I, for one, feel reasonably strongly about a line for non-violence would show a sharp jolt during the transition to established, and then often state, religion, with only a tiny set of Quaker dots returning the original line. But is that a "restoration"?

DOCTRINE : It would be difficult in some doctrinal areas - for example in Christology, I doubt you could show one clear line, a jolt out, and a restoration back. What you'd more likely find was fuzziness and diffusion of parallel lines in the first 2-3 centuries, then a bit, or a lot, of constriction where any one group had the upper hand, and then more fuzziness diffusion and parallel lines in times of tolerance.

But then what's the point? If we really care what the Bible says, sola scriptura, we won't be trying to reverse engineer into the Bible from Christian history.

"Restoration" seems to require the impossible, a nice clean line showing a whole church, or whole bloc of churches, returning on all issues of doctrine and practice to an original line, a "restoration", and requires we forget that Paul fully expected and predicted decline in a dozen verses (do we need to list them?). Among them where Paul calls it apostasis, from whence we get apostacy, which sounds more sinister than just simple falling away, but rather than a great historical process it all seems to be very immediate in Paul's horizon - he predicts to Timothy things will go from bad to worse the moment Timothy leaves Ephesus; and it did (see the epistlet to Ephesus in Revelation). Or indeed see 5 of the 7 letters in Revelation. Call me a pessimist but I'm one of those people who thinks the Lord Jesus' Matt13 parable of the woman "hiding" the leaven wasn't a parable of growth-growth-growth big-is-beautiful success, likewise even the mustard seed with those Nebuchadnezzar echoing birds resting in its branches doesn't bode well...

But that also applies to attempts to "restore" a pristine early Christian Eden that never really existed (although they didn't chop each other up originally :rolleyes:, drawers of "restoration" lines please note). Human nature being what it is most positions will reoccur in any age, and any attempts to reform will soon go just as rotten as what they were reforming. As the sorry lives of Zwingli and Calvin illustrate. Luther was little better. The Catholic church constantly tried to reform - Jesuits, Benedictines, Capuchins, Franciscans, Opus Dei - these all started off as reform movements. But we cannot change Christianity, we certainly can't undo the last 20 centuries, so the solution is to each concentrate on reforming/restoring the problem at root, James 1:14,23-24.

God bless
Steven

Teke
Nov 28th 2007, 02:13 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ChristianityBranches.svg

Hello all,

I have a question relating to restorationism. Perhaps somebody more knowledgeable about history can help me.

Anyway, I frequently hear from Catholics and others that evangelical protestantism was not the faith practiced by the early church. As the above diagram shows, there is a dotted line between the early church and the supposed corruption that entered.

If this is correct, and modern day evangelical christianity is the restoration of the early church, what accounts for over 1000 years of discontinuity? What does the dotted line in the above diagram indicate?

Thanks!

That dotted line means nothing. When the early church had problems they addressed them by councils. Not by dividing themselves into separate groups. The western church (RC) began a new approach which the eastern church (Orthodox) did not follow.

The diagram shows the result of the western church and what resulted from that, which is schism in the church body.

ravi4u2
Nov 29th 2007, 06:52 AM
May I suggest the reading of the Torch of the Testimony, which is the chronicling of 2000 year history of those Christians - and churches - that have stood outside the Protestant-Catholic tradition.

See this link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/094023212X/newtestamentp-20

Steven3
Nov 29th 2007, 08:10 AM
Hi Ravi

The author seems especially to focus in on "brethren" type groups which had no ecclesiastical structure and hierarchy. In interpreting some events he gives away his opinions on some doctrinal issues such as the cessation of apostles and prophets, the need for a prolonged period before baptism and he seems to think there is no longer any special role for Israel in God's purposes, though I may be just be making assumptions on that pointSeems Kennedy's criteria are organizational rather the doctrinal? Is that so?
God bless
Steven

jeffreys
Nov 30th 2007, 02:50 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ChristianityBranches.svg

Hello all,

I have a question relating to restorationism. Perhaps somebody more knowledgeable about history can help me.

Anyway, I frequently hear from Catholics and others that evangelical protestantism was not the faith practiced by the early church. As the above diagram shows, there is a dotted line between the early church and the supposed corruption that entered.

If this is correct, and modern day evangelical christianity is the restoration of the early church, what accounts for over 1000 years of discontinuity? What does the dotted line in the above diagram indicate?

Thanks!

The church I pastor has its roots in what is referred to as The Restoration Movement.

Our desire is to be Christians only.

KATA_LOUKAN
Nov 30th 2007, 07:09 PM
The church I pastor has its roots in what is referred to as The Restoration Movement.

Our desire is to be Christians only.

My question is this - what accounts for 1000 years of discontinuity?

jeffreys
Nov 30th 2007, 07:37 PM
My question is this - what accounts for 1000 years of discontinuity?

I'm not sure what you mean by "discontinuity".

However, the Church transcends time, culture, politics and religious hierarchy. There have always been believers, who are filled with faith and the Holy Spirit, even in times when local churches & denominations were horribly corrupt.

KATA_LOUKAN
Nov 30th 2007, 09:44 PM
I'm not sure what you mean by "discontinuity".


By this, I mean that there was no sola scriptura, sola fide, etc. until the reformation in the 16th century. All of christendom was pretty unified in their beliefs in the communion of the saints, sacraments, etc. The "ideas" of modern protestantism were pretty modern.

What i'm talking about is this.

Why, throughout the course of history until martin luther (and to some extent the waldensians in the 13th century), dont we see people insisting on sola scriptura?


However, the Church transcends time, culture, politics and religious hierarchy.

Good, we agree on this.


There have always been believers

But there have not always been protestants. how did God let his church go into apostacy so early?


even in times when local churches & denominations were horribly corrupt.

Right, because the holy spirit guards the church.

jeffreys
Nov 30th 2007, 09:47 PM
By this, I mean that there was no sola scriptura, sola fide, etc. until the reformation in the 16th century. All of christendom was pretty unified in their beliefs in the communion of the saints, sacraments, etc. The "ideas" of modern protestantism were pretty modern.

What i'm talking about is this.

Why, throughout the course of history until martin luther (and to some extent the waldensians in the 13th century), dont we see people insisting on sola scriptura?

Good, we agree on this.

But there have not always been protestants. how did God let his church go into apostacy so early?

Right, because the holy spirit guards the church.

Please forgive me, but I really am not sure what you're asking - or what you're driving at. I must be awfully thick-headed. Would you clarify?

KATA_LOUKAN
Nov 30th 2007, 09:51 PM
Please forgive me, but I really am not sure what you're asking - or what you're driving at. I must be awfully thick-headed. Would you clarify?

Dont be too hard on yourself. I am probably being very confusing.

What I want to know is - why dont we see "sola scrptura" until the 16th century? Why are so many of our doctrines as protestants relatively "new" theologically?

jeffreys
Nov 30th 2007, 09:59 PM
Dont be too hard on yourself. I am probably being very confusing.

What I want to know is - why dont we see "sola scrptura" until the 16th century? Why are so many of our doctrines as protestants relatively "new" theologically?

Thank you!

And I'll return to this. But right now my wife wants me to go outside and put up Christmas lights. Grrrrrr! Stinkin' Christmas lights! :lol:

David Taylor
Nov 30th 2007, 10:51 PM
Dont be too hard on yourself. I am probably being very confusing.

What I want to know is - why dont we see "sola scrptura" until the 16th century? Why are so many of our doctrines as protestants relatively "new" theologically?

It would be interesting to tap into The Parsons study from last year about the anabaptists and other non RCC groups prior to the 16th century; and their history of this topic.

I'll PM him about this thread, and see if he has anything to add from his prior research.

Teke
Dec 1st 2007, 12:24 AM
Dont be too hard on yourself. I am probably being very confusing.

What I want to know is - why dont we see "sola scrptura" until the 16th century? Why are so many of our doctrines as protestants relatively "new" theologically?

Actually Protestant doctrines are not really new. They are reformed RC doctrines, created to protest the RC. The schism created by the RC (western church) is still a problem. What we see today (the stereotyped 'evangelical') is the results of that.


It would be interesting to tap into The Parsons study from last year about the anabaptists and other non RCC groups prior to the 16th century; and their history of this topic.


The Parson's Baptist group comes from the same reformation. There are the other Baptist, which I have spoken of to The Parson about, and which I am familiar with from family genealogy. Those Baptists were the Germans known as "dunkards". They were a primitive group born of necessity from the eastern church.

GothicAngel
Dec 1st 2007, 12:26 AM
Actually Protestant doctrines are not really new. They are reformed RC doctrines, created to protest the RC.

How is that? Scripture alone and espeically faith alone were never any kind of part of RC bel;iefs.

GothicAngel
Dec 1st 2007, 12:28 AM
But there have not always been protestants. how did God let his church go into apostacy so early?
.

Maybe He didnt?

The Parson
Dec 1st 2007, 01:10 AM
Actually folks, the teachings carried on by my ancient forefathers were not revised or reformed, stretched from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, to the 21st centuries are the following:

Salvation by grace and never of works.
Baptism by immersion and the proper baptism of the regenerated.
Church body (congregation) autonomy.
Representional (as a reminder) Lords Supper.
Priesthood of the believer.
Biblical authority over tradition (Antiochian letters ~ 1st century AD & Old Italia Bible ~ 2nd century AD).

Many historians, including myself because of the overwhelming evidence, agree that sola scripura was not really new at the reformation but has been the norm for all who refused to symbolize with the Roman church. "The modern Baptists formerly called Anabaptists are the only people that never symbolised with the Papacy. (Sir Issac Newton)" Symbolizing is taking on her traditions over scripture. Augustine of Hippo declaired the scriptural stubborness of the anabaptists over baptism was something that could be overcome I believe was his quote. I'll have to look for that one.

J. Cardinal Gibbons, Primate of the Roman Catholic Church in America said in the book, Crossing the Centuries: "Of the Baptists it may be said that they are not reformers. These people, comprising bodies of Christian believers known under various names in different countries, are entirely distinct and independent of the Roman and Greek churches, have had an unbroken continuity of existence from Apostolic days down through the centuries. Throughout this long period they were bitterly persecuted for heresy, driven from country to country, disfranchised, deprived of their property, imprisoned, tortured and slain by the thousands, yet they swerved not from their New Testament Faith, Doctrine and Adherence."

Was that what you were asking for???

jeffreys
Dec 1st 2007, 01:28 AM
What I want to know is - why dont we see "sola scrptura" until the 16th century? Why are so many of our doctrines as protestants relatively "new" theologically?

Actually, it's important to realize that Church History is MUCH larger than what is typically taught in Western countries. Westerners normally think that the only church that existed, until the 1500s, was the Roman Catholic Church. And this simply isn't historically accurate.

First of all, the RCC did not evolve into what we now think of as the RCC until the later 300s. So... you have 3 centuries, during which time Christianity flourished and spread.

Second, we have to understand that there were Christians going in all directions from Jerusalem - not just toward Rome. As a result, there are many of the "denominations" we now know of, such as Coptic, Orthodox, etc.

The bottom line is - like Parson said - there have always been Christians who have held to Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) as their authority and faith.


Is that even close to what you were asking? :hmm:

GothicAngel
Dec 1st 2007, 02:54 AM
Jefferys:

RCism didnt come about until the late 300s?

The Christians before then believed in the bishop of Rome having supremacy over the rest.

Ignatius of Antioch (1st century) in 'Ad Romanos' (to the Romans):
"Ignatius Theophorus... to the Church in the place of the of the country of the Romans which holds the primacy..." (then he goes on to praise the Roman church)

Clement bishop of Rome (1st century, 3th sucessor or Peter) letter to Corinthians demanded under pain of sin that they obey his request for peace.

Iraneus (140- 202 ad) 'Adversus haereses' book 3. He says the gospel of Matthew was written "...while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and establishing the foundations of the Church there."
also... "By pointing out here the sucessions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome... for with this Church, because of its superior orgin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world..."

Caius, a priest in Rome around 200 ad wrote that in Rome were the "trophies" of Peter and Paul: "For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or the Ostain Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded the Church."

Tertullian in his Monogamy in writing about Peter, said: "Peter... the Church, built upon him..."

St. Clement of Alexandria (190/ 210) wrote in his Who is the Rich Man who is Saved?: "...The blessed Peter, the chosen[/i], the pre eminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with Himself the Savior paid the tribute."

Origen in his Commentaries on John (early 200s) wrote: "Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail..."
in his Homilies on Exodus: "Look at the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, [B]upon whom Christ built the Church! And what does the Lord say to him? 'O you of little faith', He says, 'Why did you doubt?'"

St. Cyprian of Carthage wrote in a letter to his people (251): "There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded by Peter on the word of the Lord... whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering."

Eusebuis in "History of Church" on Rome threatening excommunication in late 2nd century:
"Upon this Victor, who presided in Rome, immedietly tried to cut off from the common unity the diosceses of all Asia... announcing the Christians there were absolutely excommunicated."

also Eusebius in the 3rd century wrote:
"Close after him in the same reign of Claudius, the Providence of the universe in its goodness and love toward men, guided to Rome, against a gigantic pest on life, the great and mighty Peter who for all his virtues was the leader of all the other apostles."

From St. Cyprian of Carthage's The Unity of the Catholic Church (251 or 256 ad):

"The Lord says to Peter: 'I say to you,' He says, 'that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they will be loosed also in heaven.' And again He says to him after His resurection: 'Feed my sheep.' On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also that which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. [B]If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?"

And purgatory:

"And after the exhibition, Tryphaena again received her [Thecla]. For her daughter Falconilla had died, and said to her in a dream: ‘Mother, you shall have this stranger Thecla in my place, in order that she may pray concerning me, and that I may be transferred to the place of the righteous’" (Acts of Paul and Thecla [A.D. 160]).

-In his epitaph (c180), Abercius, bishop of Hierapolis, requests prayers for his soul.

-From Tertullian's "The Crown" (211): "...We offer sacrifices for the dead on thier birthday anniversaries..."

-From Tertullian's "On Monogamy" (213): (speaking of widows) "...She prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection."

-In his epitaph (c350), the Christian Pectorius prays to Jesus for the repose of his mother's soul and requests prayers for his own soul from others.

-From the "Catechetical Lectures" (c350) of St. Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem: "...For I know that there are many who are saying thus: 'If a soul departs from this world with sins, what does it profit it to be remembered in the prayer?'... We offer prayers to Him for those who have fallen asleep, though they be sinners."

and the Eucharist as Catholics percieve it:

---St. Ignatius of Antioch's (early 100s) letters to Rome and Philadelphia (the old one- obviously) he says that Jesus is present. from his letter to Smyrna:
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how [B]contrary their opinions are to the minds of God. ...They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again."

---St. Justin Martyr's (100s) "First Apology": [speaking of the early Mass]
"...Deacons give to each one present to partake of the Eucharist- the bread and wine and water [they mix a little water with the wine before its consecrated]... For not as common bread nor common drink do we recieve these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and has both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus."

---St. Iraneus in his "Against Heresies" (c 180) : "...The bread over which thanks has been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood..."

---Abercius' (c180) epitaph the Eucharist as Jesus is mentioned.

---Tertullian's "Against Marcion" (c200) (Marcion was a heretic who did not believe that Jesus was human.) : "Or, if He [Jesus] pretended that bread were His Body, because in truth He lacked a Body, then He must have given bread for us. It would support the vanity of Marcion, had bread been crucified! But why call His Body bread and not rather a pumpkin, which Marcion has instead of a brain!"
he also says the Eucharist is Jesus in his "Resurrection of the Dead" and also "The Crown".

---St. Clement of Alexandria's "The Teacher of Children" (before 202) he says it is also

---St. Hippolytus of Rome's "Apostolic Tradition" (c215) he mentions the rites of Baptism, and Confirmation, in addition to Communion (and of course as Jesus).

---Origen in his homily on Exodus, post 244.

---St. Ephran 300s "Homilies"

---St. Cyril of Jerusalem's "Catechital Lectures" c350 : "Do not, therefore, regard the Bread and the Wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master's declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ."

---Pectorius' epitaph c350

and apostolic sucession as the RCs say:

-Pope St. Clement of Rome's "Letter to the Corinthians" 80ad:
"The Apostles... added the provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry."

-St. Ignatius of Antioch's "Letter to the Trallians" 110ad:
"In like manner let every one... respect the bishop... and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the Apostles."
also in "Letter to the Smyrneans".

-St. Hegesippus' "Memoirs" 180ad:
"When I had come to Rome, I made a succession up to Anicetus [pope. he made a list from Peter to Anicetus]... after Anicetus, Soter suceeded; and after him, Eluethrus. In each sucession...
a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord."

-St. Iraneus' "Against Heretics" 180/199ad:
"...We are in a posistion to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times."
and
"The blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, having founded and built up the Church at Rome, handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus... to him succeeded Anecletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement [the one i quoted up there] ... Evarestus... Alexander... Sixtus... Telesphorous... Hyginus... Anicetus... Soter... and now, in the twelth place after the Apostles, the lot of the episcopate has fallen to Eleutherus."
and
"It is neccesary to obey those who are the presbyters in the Church, those who, as we have shown, have succession from the Apostles."
and two more mentions.

-Tertullain in "Demurrer Against the Heretics" 200ad and also in "Against Marcion" 207ad.

-St. Clement of Alexandria in "Who is the Rich Man that is Saved?" 200

And confeesion:

-Letter of Barnabas 70 a.d. " You shall confess your sins."

-Saint Clement the 1st of Rome to the Corinthians 80 a.d. " For it is good for a man to confess his failings rather than to harden his heart."

-in the "Teachings of the twelve Apostles" (aka Didache) 140 a.d. "Confess your offenses in Church."

-Saint Iraneus in " Against Heresies" 180 a.d. speaks of a woman who confessed for magic.

-Tertullian in "Repentance" 203 a.d. says confession is necessary.


-Saint Pacian of Barcelona in "Letters to Sympronian"
"God...pardons the penitent. You will say that it is God alone that can do this. True enough; but it is likewise that He does it through His priests, who exercised His power. What else can it mean when He says to His Apostles (quotes Mt 16:19 and Jn 20:23). Why should He say this if He were not permitting men to bind and loose? Why, if He were permitting this to the Apostles alone? Were that the case, He would likewise be permitting them alone to baptize."
"'Whatever you shall loose', He says, and he excepts absolutely nothing ... whether it be great or whether it be small."

and in "Sermon Exhorting Penance"
"What shall the murderer do? What remedy will the fornicator find? These are capital sins, brethren, these are mortal. Someone may say: Are we then about to perish? Are we then to die in our sins?... You... who were not ashamed to sin but now are ashamed to confess. Remember that confession extinguishes hell for you."

So why do you say that RCism didnt come around until the late 300s?

GothicAngel
Dec 1st 2007, 02:56 AM
Actually folks, the teachings carried on by my ancient forefathers were not revised or reformed, stretched from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, to the 21st centuries are the following:

Salvation by grace and never of works.

No one believes in salvation of works, esp the RCC.


Church body (congregation) autonomy.

What does that mean?


Representional (as a reminder) Lords Supper.

Do you have back up of that?



Priesthood of the believer.


Who doesnt believe in that?



Biblical authority over tradition (Antiochian letters ~ 1st century AD & Old Italia Bible ~ 2nd century AD).


Meaning customs, not oral tradition. There wasnt biblcail authority over offical tradiction as in Tradition because it wasnt believed to contradict the bible.

jeffreys
Dec 1st 2007, 04:09 AM
Jefferys:

RCism didnt come about until the late 300s?

So why do you say that RCism didnt come around until the late 300s?

First of all, you need to more carefully read what I wrote. I said, "First of all, the RCC did not evolve into what we now think of as the RCC until the later 300s."

Was there a church in Rome prior to that? Yes, absolutely! Were there already human influences vying for power and supremacy? Yes, absolutely!

But, as I said, the RCC, as we think of it, did not "evolve" until later.

The Parson
Dec 1st 2007, 04:30 AM
No one believes in salvation of works, esp the RCC.No ma'am. Salvation by works. Not of Works. The RCC teaches that in order to enter heaven, you have to have works.

What does that mean?It means self governing with Christ as the only head.


Do you have back up of that?Volumes and volumes to back it up. Matter of fact, because we tenatiously held that the Lords Supper was a means of rememberence, we were cut off and put to the knife, even burned at the stake. You'll find many accounts of this in books like "Foxes Book of Martyrs". "If the truth of religion were to be judged by the readiness and cheerfulness which a man of any sect shows in suffering, the opinions and persuasions of no sect can be truer or surer than those of the Anabaptists, whence there have been none for these twelve hundred years past that have been more grievously punished, or that have more cheerfully and steadfastly undergone and even offered themselves to the most cruel sorts of punishment than these people. (Roman Catholic Cardinal, Stanislaus Hosius (1504 to 1579) president of the Council of Trent and head over the inquisitions)"

If you want biblical proof simply read the words of the Savior: Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. & 1st Corinthians 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.


Who doesnt believe in that?Apearantly the RCC doesn't dear lady. Otherwise, why would they have a priesthood and confessional?


Meaning customs, not oral tradition. There wasnt biblcail authority over offical tradiction as in Tradition because it wasnt believed to contradict the bible.Now you are going to have to explain this one because it certainly doesn't mean what I posted...

jeffreys
Dec 1st 2007, 04:35 AM
Parson;

Am I understanding it right that you are of Anabaptist "background"? Is that Mennonite, or some other branch?

Just curious. Thanks!

The Parson
Dec 1st 2007, 04:53 AM
Parson;

Am I understanding it right that you are of Anabaptist "background"? Is that Mennonite, or some other branch?

Just curious. Thanks!Mennonites and the Amish are an offshoot of the anabaptist line jeffreys though they are called Anabaptists today. Those who were the original Anabaptists dropped the Ana and simply went by the nomer baptists since we never agreed with the re(ana)-baptizer name. It was always a title of scorn given to us by the pedobaptists. You probably know us as Missionary Baptists today. I've written a book that is being edited as we speak called "The Almost Forgotten Church" that traces all this. Below is a chart from that book that may answer a few questions.

http://parsonscorner.org/chart.jpg

punk
Dec 1st 2007, 05:35 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ChristianityBranches.svg

Hello all,

I have a question relating to restorationism. Perhaps somebody more knowledgeable about history can help me.

Anyway, I frequently hear from Catholics and others that evangelical protestantism was not the faith practiced by the early church. As the above diagram shows, there is a dotted line between the early church and the supposed corruption that entered.

If this is correct, and modern day evangelical christianity is the restoration of the early church, what accounts for over 1000 years of discontinuity? What does the dotted line in the above diagram indicate?

Thanks!

"Restoration" is nothing more than hype and ad copy.

Every new movement claims to be a restoration back to the early church.

The fact is we don't live in classical society, our technology and everything about our lives was unimaginable to the early church.

The church is something that is part of every aspect of our lives, so short of living like a person of the 1st century AD we will never restore it.

The church has evolved as society has changed and its needs have changed.

jeffreys
Dec 1st 2007, 05:36 AM
Mennonites and the Amish are an offshoot of the anabaptist line jeffreys though they are called Anabaptists today. Those who were the original Anabaptists dropped the Ana and simply went by the nomer baptists since we never agreed with the re(ana)-baptizer name. It was always a title of scorn given to us by the pedobaptists. You probably know us as Missionary Baptists today. I've written a book that is being edited as we speak called "The Almost Forgotten Church" that traces all this. Below is a chart from that book that may answer a few questions.

http://parsonscorner.org/chart.jpg

So what's the difference between you and the Primitive Baptists (there's one down the street from my house)?

And are you familiar with the Baptist Temples - the KJV Only folks? Similar?

The Parson
Dec 1st 2007, 01:49 PM
We need to be careful not to totally derail here Jeffreys. The Primitive Baptists are Calvanists (5 points). We aren't. Baptist Temple, ain't gotta clue.

Back to the subject.

jeffreys
Dec 1st 2007, 03:26 PM
We need to be careful not to totally derail here Jeffreys. The Primitive Baptists are Calvanists (5 points). We aren't. Baptist Temple, ain't gotta clue.

Back to the subject.

Okey Doke. Perhaps a new thread. ;)

Thanks.

GothicAngel
Dec 1st 2007, 03:47 PM
No ma'am. Salvation by works. Not of Works. The RCC teaches that in order to enter heaven, you have to have works.
It means self governing with Christ as the only head.

It does believe that the sheep and goats wont be seperated on their beliefs. But salvation is by grace, nonetheless- without Christ's grace we cuold not be saved, by His grace we are saved.



Volumes and volumes to back it up. Matter of fact, because we tenatiously held that the Lords Supper was a means of rememberence, we were cut off and put to the knife, even burned at the stake. You'll find many accounts of this in books like "Foxes Book of Martyrs". "If the truth of religion were to be judged by the readiness and cheerfulness which a man of any sect shows in suffering, the opinions and persuasions of no sect can be truer or surer than those of the Anabaptists, whence there have been none for these twelve hundred years past that have been more grievously punished, or that have more cheerfully and steadfastly undergone and even offered themselves to the most cruel sorts of punishment than these people. (Roman Catholic Cardinal, Stanislaus Hosius (1504 to 1579) president of the Council of Trent and head over the inquisitions)"


Foxe's book of martyrs? From what Ive heard, that has about as much truth in it as Jack Chick's stuff.

How about some documents from the early Church itself which showed a definite belief in the eucharist as symbolic only?



If you want biblical proof simply read the words of the Savior: Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. & 1st Corinthians 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.


How is hthat proof?

To the RCs, that line means to celebrate the eucharist in the memory of Christ.

How about the line where He says, this is my body etc?



Apearantly the RCC doesn't dear lady. Otherwise, why would they have a priesthood and confessional?


Priesthood of the believer, yes... but on a differnet level then from the priests.


Now you are going to have to explain this one because it certainly doesn't mean what I posted...

I was saying that if there really are quotations from the ECs where it says that biblical authority trumps traditions, those would be more along the lines of customs. An assumption, true; but perhaps you would bring up the bit you said contained it?

GothicAngel
Dec 1st 2007, 03:58 PM
First of all, you need to more carefully read what I wrote. I said, "First of all, the RCC did not evolve into what we now think of as the RCC until the later 300s."

Was there a church in Rome prior to that? Yes, absolutely! Were there already human influences vying for power and supremacy? Yes, absolutely!

But, as I said, the RCC, as we think of it, did not "evolve" until later.
The RCC as we think of it?

What do you think the RCC is?

Before the 300s, there was a church which had a leader in Rome, a Eucharist as Jesus, purgatory, they prayed to the saints, confession (which in turn means not a sola fides religon) etc-- what church is that but the RCC? Or was there a church then ,JEsus' church, which seems exactly like the RCC but which He let fall away?

jeffreys
Dec 1st 2007, 04:14 PM
The RCC as we think of it?

What do you think the RCC is?

Before the 300s, there was a church which had a leader in Rome, a Eucharist as Jesus, purgatory, they prayed to the saints, confession (which in turn means not a sola fides religon) etc-- what church is that but the RCC? Or was there a church then ,JEsus' church, which seems exactly like the RCC but which He let fall away?

Yes, there was a church that had leaders in Rome (not just one). It was not dissimilar to the churches at, say, Ephesus, Antioch and countless other places.

It was not until the 300s that the power structure of the Catholic Church evolved into the Roman Catholic Church. It was around that time that the marriage of church & state had formalized, and the muscle behind that monolithic organization began to be flexed and exercised.


I have no doubt that you've been taught well, regarding the RCC version of Church History. But keep in mind that the Muslims are quite convinced that Islam is a religion of peace, with a history full of nothing but good things.

KATA_LOUKAN
Dec 1st 2007, 05:54 PM
Mennonites and the Amish are an offshoot of the anabaptist line jeffreys though they are called Anabaptists today. Those who were the original Anabaptists dropped the Ana and simply went by the nomer baptists since we never agreed with the re(ana)-baptizer name. It was always a title of scorn given to us by the pedobaptists. You probably know us as Missionary Baptists today. I've written a book that is being edited as we speak called "The Almost Forgotten Church" that traces all this. Below is a chart from that book that may answer a few questions.

http://parsonscorner.org/chart.jpg

Ok. My questions lie with the first two points of your arrow.

Correct me where I am wrong

These groups of "proto-baptists" were the existing form of the true church during the middle ages and beyond.

If this is the case, when did the church become "corrupt"?

We see documents of this time (pre-constantine and the supposed corruption) contatining references (as provided by gothic angel) to saints, bishops, communion, etc.

These doctrines predate "sola scriptura" et al. by hundreds of years. You mentioned


Many historians, including myself because of the overwhelming evidence, agree that sola scripura was not really new at the reformation but has been the norm for all who refused to symbolize with the Roman church. "The modern Baptists formerly called Anabaptists are the only people that never symbolised with the Papacy. (Sir Issac Newton)" Symbolizing is taking on her traditions over scripture. Augustine of Hippo declaired the scriptural stubborness of the anabaptists over baptism was something that could be overcome I believe was his quote. I'll have to look for that one.

J. Cardinal Gibbons, Primate of the Roman Catholic Church in America said in the book, Crossing the Centuries: "Of the Baptists it may be said that they are not reformers. These people, comprising bodies of Christian believers known under various names in different countries, are entirely distinct and independent of the Roman and Greek churches, have had an unbroken continuity of existence from Apostolic days down through the centuries. Throughout this long period they were bitterly persecuted for heresy, driven from country to country, disfranchised, deprived of their property, imprisoned, tortured and slain by the thousands, yet they swerved not from their New Testament Faith, Doctrine and Adherence."


What I am looking for is the writing of the early church fathers that clearly comes out and states "Sola Scriptura is correct." I see evidence to the contrary when Martin Luther introduces the concept as "new".

The historicity of small baptists congregations that secretly met during the middle ages is suspect, due to the fact that the groups you metioned are either questionably christian, reform movements within catholicism, or very different in doctrine from baptists.

Not to mention, when church wide ecumenical councils were called, why were there no dissenting voices that argued that such docrtines were unbiblical? We have records of every crazy heresy to come into the church. If the baptist viewpoint was so different, why are there not records of these baptists?

I would also to see quotes from early church fathers that insist on sola scriptura.

The Parson
Dec 2nd 2007, 12:12 AM
Ok. My questions lie with the first two points of your arrow.

Correct me where I am wrong

These groups of "proto-baptists" were the existing form of the true church during the middle ages and beyond.

If this is the case, when did the church become "corrupt"?

We see documents of this time (pre-constantine and the supposed corruption) contatining references (as provided by gothic angel) to saints, bishops, communion, etc.

These doctrines predate "sola scriptura" et al. by hundreds of years. You mentioned



What I am looking for is the writing of the early church fathers that clearly comes out and states "Sola Scriptura is correct." I see evidence to the contrary when Martin Luther introduces the concept as "new".

The historicity of small baptists congregations that secretly met during the middle ages is suspect, due to the fact that the groups you metioned are either questionably christian, reform movements within catholicism, or very different in doctrine from baptists.

Not to mention, when church wide ecumenical councils were called, why were there no dissenting voices that argued that such docrtines were unbiblical? We have records of every crazy heresy to come into the church. If the baptist viewpoint was so different, why are there not records of these baptists?

I would also to see quotes from early church fathers that insist on sola scriptura.You, my friend presume that I placed these facts here to debate them. No, if you wish to find the answers to the very questions you have just asked, do a search for a thread called "These Hard Headed Baptists." Better yet, here is the link. These hard headed Baptists (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=73941&highlight=hard+headed+baptist) (http://bibleforums.org/images/misc/multipage.gif 1 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=73941&highlight=hard+headed+baptist) 2 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=73941&page=2&highlight=hard+headed+baptist) 3 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=73941&page=3&highlight=hard+headed+baptist) 4 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=73941&page=4&highlight=hard+headed+baptist) 5 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=73941&page=5&highlight=hard+headed+baptist) ... Last Page (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=73941&page=12&highlight=hard+headed+baptist))

DELETED BY THE PARSON. WORDS WRITTEN IN THE WRONG SPIRIT...

punk
Dec 2nd 2007, 12:34 AM
I would also to see quotes from early church fathers that insist on sola scriptura.

"Sola scriptura" is a creation of an age where literacy is more wide-spread and books (scriptures in particular) are more widely available.

"Sola scriptura" is a pretty meaningless notion when most people are illiterate.

You need a printing press to start basing your spirituality around reading a text, rather than living a relationship with God.

Even the fathers don't make a point of sola scriptura.

In fact, among groups like the desert fathers, the practice of religion (including poverty) compelled them to insist that one not even own books (including scriptures) as these would distract one from God.

Oh, it is so easy to read our present dogmatic preoccupations into an earlier and often alien time.

It is a shame that Christianity has developed a tendency to define faith as adherence to a set of dogmas rather than how one lives.

GothicAngel
Dec 2nd 2007, 03:41 AM
Yes, there was a church that had leaders in Rome (not just one). It was not dissimilar to the churches at, say, Ephesus, Antioch and countless other places.

It was not until the 300s that the power structure of the Catholic Church evolved into the Roman Catholic Church. It was around that time that the marriage of church & state had formalized, and the muscle behind that monolithic organization began to be flexed and exercised.

Are you kidding me? Have you not read of the early churcg's struggle with the Arians? After Constantine, there were so many arian emporers and barbarian leaders who persecuted the Christains relentlessly.

There was no "muscle". There was a very real danger for a person to believe in Christ as God in those times, and for many years after.

Read about the Arians.


I have no doubt that you've been taught well, regarding the RCC version of Church History. But keep in mind that the Muslims are quite convinced that Islam is a religion of peace, with a history full of nothing but good things.

If youre suggesting that the history I have been presenting is in any way false or selective, I would like to challenge yo uto prove it so, by bringing up historical quotes that clearly contradict this "RCC version of Church History". Or admit fault, either one Id like to see.

jeffreys
Dec 2nd 2007, 04:25 AM
Are you kidding me? Have you not read of the early churcg's struggle with the Arians? After Constantine, there were so many arian emporers and barbarian leaders who persecuted the Christains relentlessly.

There was no "muscle". There was a very real danger for a person to believe in Christ as God in those times, and for many years after.

Read about the Arians.

If youre suggesting that the history I have been presenting is in any way false or selective, I would like to challenge yo uto prove it so, by bringing up historical quotes that clearly contradict this "RCC version of Church History". Or admit fault, either one Id like to see.

Look, you can believe what you want to believe. But the fact is, it was after the 300s that the RCC - as a church/state power - began to flex its muscle.

All you need to do is an elementary study of Church History to see that. I'd suggest Church History in Plain Language, but Bruce Shelley.

The period from AD 311 - 590 is commonly known as the age when the Roman Catholic Church was wed to the Roman Empire. It's often called the "Age Of The Christian Empire." What is confusing about this?

It was during this time that the RCC hammered out its stance on the Trinity, the Origenistic controversies, Christology, and anthropological matters.

When was the Nicene Creed penned? Ahemm... I believe it was AD 325, and was somewhat revised in AD 381.


The Age Of The Christian Empire was ushered in by Constantine's conversion to Christianity, and the living out of his belief that the Church and State should be as closely intertwined as possible. Perhaps you could look this site over. http://thenagain.info/WebChron/Mediterranean/ConstanChrist.html

You might also want to do a little reading on the Edict of Milan. There is no question that this paved the way for the wedding of church and state into the theocracy that prevailed during the Age of the Christian Empire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Milan

The Parson
Dec 2nd 2007, 04:55 AM
My last post folks was contrary and I ask your forgiveness for my words that could be taken as angry ones... It was unintentional...

jiggyfly
Dec 2nd 2007, 02:08 PM
Age old arguments and very carnal ones at that.
1Corinthians 1:10-17
10 Now, dear brothers and sisters,* I appeal to you by the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ to stop arguing among yourselves. Let there be real harmony so there won’t be divisions in the church. I plead with you to be of one mind, united in thought and purpose. 11 For some members of Chloe’s household have told me about your arguments, dear brothers and sisters. 12 Some of you are saying, “I am a follower of Paul.” Others are saying, “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Peter,*” or “I follow only Christ.” 13 Can Christ be divided into pieces?
Was I, Paul, crucified for you? Were any of you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 for now no one can say they were baptized in my name. 16 (Oh yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. I don’t remember baptizing anyone else.) 17 For Christ didn’t send me to baptize, but to preach the Good News—and not with clever speeches and high-sounding ideas, for fear that the cross of Christ would lose its power.

KATA_LOUKAN
Dec 2nd 2007, 04:45 PM
You, my friend presume that I placed these facts here to debate them. No, if you wish to find the answers to the very questions you have just asked, do a search for a thread called "These Hard Headed Baptists." Better yet, here is the link. These hard headed Baptists (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=73941&highlight=hard+headed+baptist) (http://bibleforums.org/images/misc/multipage.gif 1 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=73941&highlight=hard+headed+baptist) 2 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=73941&page=2&highlight=hard+headed+baptist) 3 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=73941&page=3&highlight=hard+headed+baptist) 4 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=73941&page=4&highlight=hard+headed+baptist) 5 (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=73941&page=5&highlight=hard+headed+baptist) ... Last Page (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=73941&page=12&highlight=hard+headed+baptist))


Thanks for the links.

GothicAngel
Dec 3rd 2007, 02:38 AM
Jefferys:

The Editc of Milan was a document which freed Christians (at least for a while) from persecuation, making Christaintyi legal to practice.

I will not read any contemporary books on the subject either. My challenge still stands for you to bring up direct quotations from the early Church itself to prove me wrong.

jeffreys
Dec 3rd 2007, 04:03 AM
Jefferys:

The Editc of Milan was a document which freed Christians (at least for a while) from persecuation, making Christaintyi legal to practice.

I will not read any contemporary books on the subject either. My challenge still stands for you to bring up direct quotations from the early Church itself to prove me wrong.

So you refuse to read a book on Church History.

So be it.

KATA_LOUKAN
Dec 3rd 2007, 11:29 AM
So you refuse to read a book on Church History.

So be it.

i think that gothic angel is saying that she wants historic, not contemporary "proof". It is easy for modern authors to say "oh the papacy has been around since st. peter" or protestants to say "sola scriptura was practiced by first century christians" but without claims from church intellectuals from that time, these claims mean nothing.

KATA_LOUKAN
Dec 3rd 2007, 12:07 PM
After reading the other thread, I found a few problems with the history.

Cathari = 12th and 13th century group that was in no way Christian. Regularly murdered its adherents in their old age. Believed in a Manachean dualism. Not even Christian, let alone Baptist.

Donatists - a group that refused to accept sacraments FROM BISHOPS who fell away from the church during roman persecution. Flourished in Africa in 4th and 5th centuries. See the wikipedia article. In no way baptist.

Paterines = same as Cathari

Paulicians were a dualistic sect of the Orient. They held Gnostic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic) and Manichaean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaean) beliefs and flourished between 650 and 872 in Anatolia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolia), outgoing from Armenia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia) and the Eastern Themes of the Byzantine Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire). Not Christian, not Baptist.

Unless you define baptist as "opposing the Roman Church", then none of these groups are baptist.

Waldenses =
Some groups of Mennonites and Baptists who feel the need to trace apostolic succession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession) through the Waldenses, claim that the Waldenses history extends back to the apostolic church.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians#_note-ME) Roman Catholic and Protestant scholars agree that this has no basis in fact.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians#_note-ME)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians#_note-CE)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians#_note-5) The mainstream academic view is that the Waldensians were followers of Peter Waldo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Waldo) (or Valdes or Vaudes).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians#_note-ME)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians#_note-CE)[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians#_note-6) (from Wikipedia)

So they are closer to being Baptist, although they were a product of the middle ages.

Henricans = According to Peter of Cluny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_the_Venerable), Henry's teaching is summed up as follows: rejection of the doctrinal and disciplinary authority of the church; recognition of the Gospel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel) freely interpreted as the sole rule of faith; condemnation of the baptism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism) of infants, of the eucharist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist), of the sacrifice of the mass, of the communion of saints, and of prayers for the dead; and refusal to recognize any form of worship or liturgy.

Getting closer! But he was still only a guy with some new ideas in the 12th century, and it looks like his movement contained some other non-Baptist doctrines as well.

Arnoldists =
Arnold of Brescia, (c. 1090 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1090)–1155 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1155)), also known as Arnaldus (Italian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_language): Arnaldo da Brescia), was a monk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monk) from Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy) who called on the Church to renounce ownership of the property, participated in the Commune of Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commune_of_Rome), and was hanged by the Church.

So he was a Catholic monk who just wanted reform in the Church. Not a Baptist. He just opposed Catholicism.

Hussites and Lollards - 14th century groups that opposed Papal rule.

Did the writers of these books even bother with reasearch? Do people just accept these things because someone old and smart said so?

I have yet to see one instance of a genuinely Christian group that has existed before the Reformation. Anyone else know of any others?

The Parson
Dec 3rd 2007, 02:26 PM
Wow, and you guys say that Jack Chick publishes fantasy! Next thing we will probably hear is that there were no inquisitions. Would that be your contention?

GothicAngel
Dec 3rd 2007, 02:55 PM
Wow, and you guys say that Jack Chick publishes fantasy! Next thing we will probably hear is that there were no inquisitions. Would that be your contention?
Im not sure what exactly you consider fantastic about this all...

The RCC did not perform any inquisitions, if that is what you mean. The Spanish Inquisition (were there others?) was a government process done by the government of Spain, as the RC Spanish were fighting the Muslim Africans at the time.

ProjectPeter
Dec 3rd 2007, 03:27 PM
Im not sure what exactly you consider fantastic about this all...

The RCC did not perform any inquisitions, if that is what you mean. The Spanish Inquisition (were there others?) was a government process done by the government of Spain, as the RC Spanish were fighting the Muslim Africans at the time.
Good luck on that one. :rolleyes:

ProjectPeter
Dec 3rd 2007, 03:34 PM
This won't be popular among most the folk posting in here... but here's the thing about all of those founding fathers (whatever you want to call them). They are all dead. Deader than a door knob. No mas.... Finito... capoot... dead. The Word is alive. Follow the dead or follow life. Never ceases to amaze me how folks defend these dead guys when history is not real kind on many of them and the ones that weren't either tyrants or stone cold nuts... their writings have plenty of issues that folks would have to contend with.

Why weren't the "sola Scripture"... that would have been pretty complicated for the average man since there really wasn't a printed Bible for folks to read. Much of Catholicism (yep... deal with it) taught folks the same way that many of the Islamic Cleric's do today in Muslim countries. Most of the people in the Muslim nations can't read and those guys keep it that way. They keep it that way because this way... they can keep people under their power using words and teachings. The Catholic church practiced the same through the dark ages etc.

Today... we have the Scripture. We don't need the writings of old dead men. History has its place. That place is not for doctrine. Scripture is where our doctrine comes from and should come from. If you think otherwise... you disagree with Scripture plain and simple.

The Parson
Dec 3rd 2007, 03:44 PM
Im not sure what exactly you consider fantastic about this all...

The RCC did not perform any inquisitions, if that is what you mean. The Spanish Inquisition (were there others?) was a government process done by the government of Spain, as the RC Spanish were fighting the Muslim Africans at the time.No young lady, not fantastic, fantasy. There's a difference.

So the RCC never ever participated in anything called the inquisitions?

KATA_LOUKAN
Dec 3rd 2007, 04:11 PM
The RCC did not perform any inquisitions, if that is what you mean.

True that. The RCC, while approving of and participating in the inquisitions as far as having priests preside over trials, did not actually call for the inquisition.

Hence there was no Polish, Maronite, Slovakian, Irish Inquisitions. (quite the opposite, Oliver Cromwell, a devout, Bible-believing Christian, decided that the Papist irish should be exterminated like animals, hence the formation of northern ireland!)

But the hierarchy of the Catholic church WAS quite lax when it supported nazism, although the local parish priests in germany fought it along side of the lutherans.

What is anyone trying to prove with this information? We shoudlnt reject Catholicism because a few Catholics act badly. We shoudlnt reject protestantism because a few protestants acted badly.

But then again, Protestants, Catholic, Orthodox, Muslims, Hindus, etc. have all done evil things. Let's not start this arguing over whose church has killed more people, because lets face it, fallen human nature leads to the same violent behavior!

Back to the topic. Are there any legitimate Christian groups that existed prior to the Reformation that can trace their lineage back to the apostles?

Studyin'2Show
Dec 3rd 2007, 04:19 PM
There is no doubt that there was a church in Rome which is what ALL the quotes I saw seem to refer to. But there was also a church in Ephesus, in Corinth, in Jerusalem, etc. In Paul's writings he did not exalt the Roman church above any other. Because someone says that you should listen to them, in no way implies that you have given them authority over all things religious. What I have not seen was any writing or quote attributed to Peter, Paul or any of the Apostles in which they endow the church in Rome or that bishop with any special authority.

As one who was brought up in all the traditions of the Roman Catholic church, I can say that the most compelling evidence for me concerning the validity, or lack thereof, of the RCC's claim to be the sole continuous link to the Apostles is strictly based on empirical observation. The excesses, the icons, the praying to anyone other the Father; I mean come on kissing a ring as if that means something! :rolleyes: I can not read the writings of Paul or Peter and see either of them in long flowing robes made of expensive material either kneeling down in front of an icon to pray to someone other than Yeshua or the Father. Nor can I see them expecting someone else to genuflect before them and kiss their ring. I believe there have ALWAYS been those who were true to the faith; just as God told Elijah, He ALWAYS has a remnant though Elijah could not see them. In an age where there were no telephones or televisions or internet; written history, like Elijah, may not have recorded them but by faith I know they were always there. History is written by the victors and the Holy Roman Empire was most definitely the victor; by the edge of the sword and the gallows and the fire. So yes, I believe the word of God; the commandment of God, holds more authority in such things than does tradition. Let us not forget that it was the tradition of the Jews that caused trouble for Yeshua.

Mark 7:9 - He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.

And though I do not believe any one denomination can claim some sort of exclusivity with regard to a connection to the Apostles, what might more distinguish the difference would NOT be the name on the sign out front or the category in which it is listed in the yellow pages, but rather in the life that is led by those who claim to be disciples of Messiah. Does the way they live their life resemble that of Yeshua? Do they do more than merely talk the talk? These are the things that show the continuity from the cross until now. Anyway, that's my two cents.

God Bless!

The Parson
Dec 3rd 2007, 04:27 PM
True that. The RCC, while approving of and participating in the inquisitions as far as having priests preside over trials, did not actually call for the inquisition.

Hence there was no Polish, Maronite, Slovakian, Irish Inquisitions. (quite the opposite, Oliver Cromwell, a devout, Bible-believing Christian, decided that the Papist irish should be exterminated like animals, hence the formation of northern ireland!)

But the hierarchy of the Catholic church WAS quite lax when it supported nazism, although the local parish priests in germany fought it along side of the lutherans.

What is anyone trying to prove with this information? We shoudlnt reject Catholicism because a few Catholics act badly. We shoudlnt reject protestantism because a few protestants acted badly.

But then again, Protestants, Catholic, Orthodox, Muslims, Hindus, etc. have all done evil things. Let's not start this arguing over whose church has killed more people, because lets face it, fallen human nature leads to the same violent behavior!

Back to the topic. Are there any legitimate Christian groups that existed prior to the Reformation that can trace their lineage back to the apostles?Actually my friend, the topic as you began it was sola scriptura. And those inqusitions that you say the RCC did not have a hand in organizing has quite a bit to do with it. Even more so the inqusitions that were pre-council of Trent. I would prefer to open that can of worms that will also open the other can of worms you are wanting to open with your kind permission.

The Parson
Dec 3rd 2007, 04:51 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ChristianityBranches.svg

Hello all,

I have a question relating to restorationism. Perhaps somebody more knowledgeable about history can help me.

Anyway, I frequently hear from Catholics and others that evangelical protestantism was not the faith practiced by the early church. As the above diagram shows, there is a dotted line between the early church and the supposed corruption that entered.

If this is correct, and modern day evangelical christianity is the restoration of the early church, what accounts for over 1000 years of discontinuity? What does the dotted line in the above diagram indicate?

Thanks!No, I stand corrected. It is the 1000 year gap per se you were concerned with. Well then, maybe we better look even harder at those early inquisitions to answer some of those questions. Again, with your kind permission.

Teke
Dec 3rd 2007, 05:17 PM
This won't be popular among most the folk posting in here... but here's the thing about all of those founding fathers (whatever you want to call them). They are all dead. Deader than a door knob. No mas.... Finito... capoot... dead. The Word is alive. Follow the dead or follow life. Never ceases to amaze me how folks defend these dead guys when history is not real kind on many of them and the ones that weren't either tyrants or stone cold nuts... their writings have plenty of issues that folks would have to contend with.

Why weren't the "sola Scripture"... that would have been pretty complicated for the average man since there really wasn't a printed Bible for folks to read. Much of Catholicism (yep... deal with it) taught folks the same way that many of the Islamic Cleric's do today in Muslim countries. Most of the people in the Muslim nations can't read and those guys keep it that way. They keep it that way because this way... they can keep people under their power using words and teachings. The Catholic church practiced the same through the dark ages etc.

Today... we have the Scripture. We don't need the writings of old dead men. History has its place. That place is not for doctrine. Scripture is where our doctrine comes from and should come from. If you think otherwise... you disagree with Scripture plain and simple.

Punk made a good point in post 36 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1457976&postcount=36).

Do you realize how contradictory your statements are? Such as, "We don't need the writings of old dead men" What is scripture

What place does "history" put Jesus Christ.
Historically, to present times, there have always been men who left all and followed Christ.

What would all those "dead" (martyrs) Christians think of your statements. They left examples of themselves, as well as writings. Jesus never wrote anything, He only left His example.

ProjectPeter
Dec 3rd 2007, 05:23 PM
Punk made a good point in post 36 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1457976&postcount=36).

Do you realize how contradictory your statements are? Such as, "We don't need the writings of old dead men" What is scripture

What place does "history" put Jesus Christ.
Historically, to present times, there have always been men who left all and followed Christ.

What would all those "dead" (martyrs) Christians think of your statements. They left examples of themselves, as well as writings. Jesus never wrote anything, He only left His example.
Scripture is Scripture. It is inspired by the Spirit of God as made clear in Scripture. Writings of Billy Bob, John Boy, Augustine, etc... no. If you want to hold that the writings of Augustine and such are just as valid as Scripture... then naturally you know most everyone in this forum is going to totally disagree with that. Dead men... martyrs... whatever.

Teke
Dec 3rd 2007, 05:26 PM
Let us not forget that it was the tradition of the Jews that caused trouble for Yeshua.


It was not tradition but lawlessness.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 3rd 2007, 05:41 PM
It was not tradition but lawlessness.So now even the words themselves are questioned? I quoted the scripture. Do you believe the words are incorrect?:hmm:

The Parson
Dec 3rd 2007, 05:42 PM
It was not tradition but lawlessness.I think what ProPet is saying is that the writings of the dead guys should not have as much weight as the scriptures. Many people don't realize that the catholic mindset is that those writings of the non apostles carry as much or more weight as the scriptures. As we see it, they do not. That sort of thing. Or did I miss the mark?

ProjectPeter
Dec 3rd 2007, 06:09 PM
I think what ProPet is saying is that the writings of the dead guys should not have as much weight as the scriptures. Many people don't realize that the catholic mindset is that those writings of the non apostles carry as much or more weight as the scriptures. As we see it, they do not. That sort of thing. Or did I miss the mark?
That is what they believe and still do. So didn't miss my point anyway. ;)

Teke
Dec 3rd 2007, 06:16 PM
I think what ProPet is saying is that the writings of the dead guys should not have as much weight as the scriptures. Many people don't realize that the catholic mindset is that those writings of the non apostles carry as much or more weight as the scriptures. As we see it, they do not. That sort of thing. Or did I miss the mark?



To invalidate the testimony of all Christians is to invalidate the scriptures as well. Does one call people to scripture or Christ. Jesus said you will not find eternal life in scripture, but only if you come to Him.

Jhn 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Jhn 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life

Teke
Dec 3rd 2007, 06:20 PM
So now even the words themselves are questioned? I quoted the scripture. Do you believe the words are incorrect?:hmm:

I have no clue what your speaking of.

The Parson
Dec 3rd 2007, 06:24 PM
To invalidate the testimony of all Christians is to invalidate the scriptures as well. Does one call people to scripture or Christ. Jesus said you will not find eternal life in scripture, but only if you come to Him.

Jhn 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Jhn 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have lifeNo one would debate the preached or expounded word that agrees with the Word Teke. It's the ones who add to or contradict the scriptures that should not be reguarded. So if the scriptures disagree, what weight can you place in those who misrepresent it. Authority is the key to that. If the Word of God does not represent authority over man and his opinions, it is a worthless document.

2nd Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 3rd 2007, 06:43 PM
To invalidate the testimony of all Christians is to invalidate the scriptures as well. Does one call people to scripture or Christ. Jesus said you will not find eternal life in scripture, but only if you come to Him.

Jhn 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Jhn 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have lifeTeke, Yeshua clearly tells us to come to Him, NOT other people. I don't believe anyone here believes that we have eternal life because of the scriptures, but because of Messiah. That is NOT what is being said here. What IS being discussed has to do with writings and which ones hold the higher authority. The ones that God has inspired in His word that have been given the authority to be called 'scripture', or the ones written by men that have not been given that scriptural authority? For me the answer of clear which is why, if there is a conflict, I will side with the words in scripture.;)


I have no clue what your speaking of.I posted this scripture stating that Yeshua had a problem with the Jews putting their tradition above the word of God:

Mark 7:9 - He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.

At which point you posted this:
It was not tradition but lawlessness.I was simply asking if you are questioning the validity of the words in Mark 7:9. Are you?

Teke
Dec 3rd 2007, 06:54 PM
No one would debate the preached or expounded word that agrees with the Word Teke. It's the ones who add to or contradict the scriptures that should not be reguarded. So if the scriptures disagree, what weight can you place in those who misrepresent it. Authority is the key to that. If the Word of God does not represent authority over man and his opinions, it is a worthless document.

2nd Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

Do you believe that God needs a document to exercise authority over man?

If you preach that we are to walk by faith and not by sight, then how will scripture help you?

I believe that God's grace calls to all mankind, but not all are listening.
Even preaching (words of man) is called foolishness in scripture.

1Cr 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Things that are not called foolish in scripture are faith, prayer, fasting and worship.

Teke
Dec 3rd 2007, 07:05 PM
Teke, Yeshua clearly tells us to come to Him, NOT other people. I don't believe anyone here believes that we have eternal life because of the scriptures, but because of Messiah. That is NOT what is being said here. What IS being discussed has to do with writings and which ones hold the higher authority. The ones that God has inspired in His word that have been given the authority to be called 'scripture', or the ones written by men that have not been given that scriptural authority? For me the answer of clear which is why, if there is a conflict, I will side with the words in scripture.;)

Obviously not everyone agrees on what text holds how great of authority. That is, when you compare it to the whole world of Christianity, not just one group.

I prefer not to dispute that among the churches, but only to follow Christ. That way I don't have a problem.;)


I posted this scripture stating that Yeshua had a problem with the Jews putting their tradition above the word of God:

Mark 7:9 - He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.

At which point you posted this: I was simply asking if you are questioning the validity of the words in Mark 7:9. Are you?

Rejecting the commandments of God is lawlessness in my book.
Do you think that Jesus cared more about their obedience to God or their tradition.
I also don't see how this causes trouble for Jesus, as you stated. It only causes trouble for them, not Him.

The Parson
Dec 3rd 2007, 07:15 PM
Do you believe that God needs a document to exercise authority over man?

If you preach that we are to walk by faith and not by sight, then how will scripture help you?

I believe that God's grace calls to all mankind, but not all are listening.
Even preaching (words of man) is called foolishness in scripture.

1Cr 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Things that are not called foolish in scripture are faith, prayer, fasting and worship.Teke, I'm surprised sis because I thought you were pretty much up on how the Parson believes.

Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. We can't be saved without the word of God which is the scriptures.

James 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. 1:23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: 1:24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. 1:25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. We are supposed to live by the word which is the scriptures.

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. The word is supposed to be our Holy substanance.

God doesn't need anything. God has left His word with us to live by. IT IS THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. It should not take second place to anything because the Holy Spirit inspired it to be our guide in all things. John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 3rd 2007, 07:34 PM
Rejecting the commandments of God is lawlessness in my book.
Do you think that Jesus cared more about their obedience to God or their tradition.
I also don't see how this causes trouble for Jesus, as you stated. It only causes trouble for them, not Him.I agree that the rejecting of the commandments is lawlessness. My original point is that we should not allow the traditions of man to lead us to go against what the word of God says. Somehow I think there was a bit of misunderstanding there. ;)

God Bless!

Teke
Dec 3rd 2007, 09:11 PM
Teke, I'm surprised sis because I thought you were pretty much up on how the Parson believes.

I asked you, as a 'parson', a direct question. Do you preach to walk by faith or sight?


Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. We can't be saved without the word of God which is the scriptures.

That is your interpretation of the passage. Isaiah emphasizes faith of the heart (v11) and Joel, the confession of the mouth (v13). Both prophets teach that grace and faith are universal, not that scripture is.

But then, you believe salvation suddenly happens to someone. And as I said, I believe that God's grace calls us all continually.

Those passages in context are part of a whole about how Israel was called by God thru creation and the prophets and they didn't hear.


James 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. 1:23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: 1:24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. 1:25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. We are supposed to live by the word which is the scriptures.

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. The word is supposed to be our Holy substanance.

God doesn't need anything. God has left His word with us to live by. IT IS THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. It should not take second place to anything because the Holy Spirit inspired it to be our guide in all things. John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

"The Word" is God (John 1:1), "the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart that thou mayest do it" (Deut. 30:14).

I do not believe that the Word, which is God, is a book. I believe the scriptures are holy and part of the tradition of the church, but not that they are God.

There were and are, plenty of desert and cave dwelling prophets and monastics who didn't have a book of scripture, but only their faith and prayer. They simply followed Christ to worship in God's house of prayer.

The Parson
Dec 3rd 2007, 09:21 PM
Lord have mercy Teke. If I didn't teach to walk by faith how can we believe the word of God is true. Yet that same faith comes by hearing and the hearing by the word of God.

Teke
Dec 3rd 2007, 09:40 PM
Lord have mercy Teke. If I didn't teach to walk by faith how can we believe the word of God is true. Yet that same faith comes by hearing and the hearing by the word of God.

Yes, but just as you walk by faith and not sight of eyes, so do you hear with the heart and not the ears.

My experience was not of hearing (with my ears) an individual speaking to me (speaking the scriptures). God spoke His Word to my heart and I heard Him. That increased my faith in God. The more we be still, as in prayer, the more we hear God speaking (Word).

I do understand your position. And that includes a need to have something to justify your words with. But I don't believe we need some type of legal precedence like that. Cause God is not just or fair, He is just merciful. :hug:

KATA_LOUKAN
Dec 3rd 2007, 10:27 PM
Teke, I'm surprised sis because I thought you were pretty much up on how the Parson believes.


Referring to yourself in the third person is a sign of megalomania ;)


We can't be saved without the word of God which is the scriptures.

All of my questions have been answered, but I just have a question about this point.

How did a person, living in the first century, with no direct access to Jesus, the Bible, or an apostle become saved? How were people saved shortly after Jesus' death, well before the Bible was penned but well after Jesus left the earth?


To invalidate the testimony of all Christians is to invalidate the scriptures as well. Does one call people to scripture or Christ. Jesus said you will not find eternal life in scripture, but only if you come to Him.


A question for Teke - how do you know which fathers are authoritative, when there is no authoritative list of fathers in either the Catholic or Eastern orthodox church?

The Parson
Dec 3rd 2007, 10:33 PM
Referring to yourself in the third person is a sign of megalomania ;)I never realized that... Is it contagious??? :D

The Parson
Dec 3rd 2007, 10:37 PM
All of my questions have been answered, but I just have a question about this point.

How did a person, living in the first century, with no direct access to Jesus, the Bible, or an apostle become saved? How were people saved shortly after Jesus' death, well before the Bible was penned but well after Jesus left the earth?Ive wrestled with that one too Kata. I really have. Could we place that answer to providence that God kept those alive who he foreknew would be saved? No, that would be agreeing with Calvin and Soveriegn Grace which I believe have many errors. Would it be that God somehow got the message to all before they died? I don't know. What I do know is I serve a righteous God who is fair in all things because He is Holy. What would be your answer to that my friend?

Studyin'2Show
Dec 4th 2007, 12:27 AM
Great question Kata! I believe the answer goes back to a scripture the megalomaniac :lol: I mean the Parson quoted. Faith comes by hearing. No one said that it was necessary to read a Bible. Yeshua had given His disciples plenty of the word to go around. Paul was well trained in the word of God. They all shared the word that had been freely shared with them. ;)

God Bless!

David Taylor
Dec 4th 2007, 01:20 AM
How did a person, living in the first century, with no direct access to Jesus, the Bible, or an apostle become saved?


The same answer would be applied to Abram, living in the 14th century B.C., in the land of Sumeria/Ur.The concept that people live on this earth, in any era, and do not have direct access to the Lord unto salvation is a myth.

Read what Paul wrote carefully here...

Acts 17:24 "God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. "

Or Psalms 139, or Romans 1:20, or this one....

Matthew 7:7 "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened."

Or this one from Moses whilst writing the Torah....

John 5:46 "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. "

KATA_LOUKAN
Dec 4th 2007, 07:57 AM
What would be your answer to that my friend?

Well, I think that given the context into which people would have lived (nearly all couldnt read), that reading the Bible (or even hearing the Bible, for that matter) is NOT necessary for salvation because nobody would have known what a Bible even was until much, much later. The early Christians relied completely on oral tradition, using Paul's letters of the Gospels where they could.

It is important to remember that the word of God is Jesus, not the Bible. The theif on the cross, too, never even heard Jesus speak (we can only assume) and Jesus promised him salvation on that very day. He never had a Bible.

The theif on the cross illustrates the simplicity of Christianity, despite the efforts of the Catholic church to introduce purgatory (which would most def. be required for a dissolute theif) or Bibleolatry (saying that we must have an actual Bible (heard or read) for salvation).

I would agree with Teke that the ECFs did preach the gospel through their writings, although they also preached some things that we would not hold such as slavery and a complete ban on contraception of any kind. For you, you have the church to decide which of these doctrines are exceptable. For protestants, we have only our individual consceinces to decide the morality of such things.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 4th 2007, 11:13 AM
I'd have to respectfully disagree, Kata. You seem to be focused on the word 'Bible' when what I actually said was the 'WORD'. One does not have to be literate or even educated enough to comprehend complex scripture to be able to relate to - God loves you this (the cross) much! Don't get caught up thinking that someone would have to read a Bible OR even have a Bible read to them to be exposed to God's word. That's not the case as I see it. Yeshua tells us in Luke 19:40 that even the stones will cry out. Psalm 19:1 tells us that the heavens declare the glory of God. Though one must be careful to avoid the whole new age mysticism/astrology and such, if studied there have been a few good books written concerning the 'gospel' written in the stars for ALL to see. (source http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c019.html) God's word has ALWAYS been near to anyone who would choose to seek it out. I don't know about you but that fact is very comforting to me. All who seek Him...WILL find Him!

As for the point concerning slavery and contraception, I believe God will give us revelation on these things as well if we'll just ask. ;)

God Bless!

KATA_LOUKAN
Dec 4th 2007, 12:55 PM
I'd have to respectfully disagree, Kata

With what?


One does not have to be literate or even educated enough to comprehend complex scripture to be able to relate to - God loves you this (the cross) much!

Then why do people have to be educated to be preachers of the word? Would you trust an intuitive man off the street (today)? I'm not saying that people must be educated to spread the gospel (far from it, most of the apostles were not). But if someone is to comprehend "complex" scripture in today's day and age (i.e. different circumstances than the apostles, who were not "educated" but still knew the history of the Jews and had Jesus on hand to answer questions), he must be at least educated in the Bible.

What is the distinction between the "word" and the Bible as you see it?

jeffreys
Dec 4th 2007, 01:21 PM
Then why do people have to be educated to be preachers of the word?

I could give you an 80 page answer to that question, based solely on erroneous comments I've seen promoted on this site alone. But that would be a hijacking of this thread.

Do people need to be educated in order to understand the Gospel and respond appropriately to it? No. Do there need to be Biblically literate people around, who can hold doctrine in check? Yes.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 4th 2007, 01:52 PM
With what?

Then why do people have to be educated to be preachers of the word? Would you trust an intuitive man off the street (today)? I'm not saying that people must be educated to spread the gospel (far from it, most of the apostles were not). But if someone is to comprehend "complex" scripture in today's day and age (i.e. different circumstances than the apostles, who were not "educated" but still knew the history of the Jews and had Jesus on hand to answer questions), he must be at least educated in the Bible.

What is the distinction between the "word" and the Bible as you see it?The disagreement was with how you worded the first paragraph of the post I quoted. ;) As to why there are people that are led to be educated to be preachers is that it takes all types. Some may only come to faith listening to a person educated in the word of God presenting it point by point, while there are others who may come because of a conversation with a homeless man on the street. My best friend, who passed away last year, actually came to faith while smoking in a crackhouse. As odd as that sounds it is the honest truth. Does that mean we need to get more crackhouses? Goodness no! It means that God will use all kinds of people and situations to bring us to Him. You do not need to be educated in the Bible to lead someone to God but scripture tells us that we SHOULD study to show ourselves approved. When I was still a baby Christian who didn't know a whole lot about the Bible, I led my first person to Messiah. Believe it or not she died about a month later. :cry: At first I was sad, but then I realized that even as unprepared and illequipped as I was, I had been used by the Father to lead His daughter home. Does that mean I should stay unprepared and illequipped? Heavens no! Since then He's been able to use me more and more and I believe even more effectively as I have studied His word. Do you see my point?

Teke
Dec 4th 2007, 02:36 PM
A question for Teke - how do you know which fathers are authoritative, when there is no authoritative list of fathers in either the Catholic or Eastern orthodox church?

EO do not believe that any one or another father is more authoritative than another. The Body of Christ, the Church is both perfect (divine) and imperfect (human). They all are part of the body of Christ and so all have something to offer. This is why the church has always been conciliar in matters which concern the church. Note, I said matters which concern the church, such as the divinity of Christ and upholding that, IOW Christology.

Those who discount the fathers over scripture, do not understand there would be no scripture without the validation of the fathers. As the way scripture was decided, that is the NT before it existed, was by their use of the scriptures in their writings, which they learned orally, and are passing on in those writings.

God works thru His people the Church. And the Church represents Christ's body on earth bringing God to the world. ie. Greek, Theotokas (God bearer)
All the Church is to exemplify Christ.

God has given all mankind of His Spirit, the Spirit of Life. It is that which let's us know what is heresy and what is truth. The heart, which has a noetic aspect, speaks to our conscience. Like when we say we just know in our heart that something is true or not.

From the beginning the church has strove to adhere to the original teachings of Christ and His holy Apostles. To do this, they did their best to make sure that anyone who was to represent them was in a valid line of succession. Meaning that they were taught by others who had been taught by Jesus and the Apostles. So the same was being passed on to others with no difference or confusion.

A lot of heresy had to be addressed, but that was a good thing. As we can't know what is right unless we know what is wrong. This approach is known as apophatic. There is no Christian that is not tested in this manner. In the OT it is written, to teach the people the difference between clean and unclean.
In this manner we are transformed by Christ. Transfiguration by grace.
Jesus Christ is the defining factor, for a Christian, of what is right and wrong. Nothing else matters.:)

Teke
Dec 4th 2007, 03:04 PM
Then why do people have to be educated to be preachers of the word? Would you trust an intuitive man off the street (today)? I'm not saying that people must be educated to spread the gospel (far from it, most of the apostles were not). But if someone is to comprehend "complex" scripture in today's day and age (i.e. different circumstances than the apostles, who were not "educated" but still knew the history of the Jews and had Jesus on hand to answer questions), he must be at least educated in the Bible.



Just a comment. I believe it is truly a gift of God to be able to relate spiritual things in a simplistic manner. As it enables the average person, indeed any person, to relate to Christ.

The most educated on Christ IMHO are those who have literally left all and followed Him in prayer, fasting and worship. This is abundantly clear when you speak to one of these persons, or read what they have left us to read of their lives and how they lived them.

Reading them helps us understand better. Some that have helped me a great deal, are St Theophan the Recluse and St Isaac of Syria. Fr Seraphim Rose is another of these, he was an American convert to Orthodoxy, and is greatly loved by all American converts to Orthodoxy and his writings treasured.
And believe it or not, these writings are very hard to find in America. You can't walk in any Christian or Catholic book store and pick them up. I am still searching for any copies of St Isaac's writings in English.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 4th 2007, 09:45 PM
Those who discount the fathers over scripture, do not understand there would be no scripture without the validation of the fathers. As the way scripture was decided, that is the NT before it existed, was by their use of the scriptures in their writings, which they learned orally, and are passing on in those writings.

God works thru His people the Church. And the Church represents Christ's body on earth bringing God to the world. ie. Greek, Theotokas (God bearer)
All the Church is to exemplify Christ.

God has given all mankind of His Spirit, the Spirit of Life. It is that which let's us know what is heresy and what is truth. The heart, which has a noetic aspect, speaks to our conscience. Like when we say we just know in our heart that something is true or not.Teke, we understand how the Apostolic scriptures were compiled. However, you must know this had nothing to do with how the Hebrew scriptures were decided. The Apostolic scriptures were decided by council. A large group of respected believers gathered and came to an agreement on which books to include and which to expel. In the case of other issues, there does not always seem to be agreement. Just as it is now, I believe that His people will agree on the most important things but not always on all things.

You say that each believer that has the Holy Spirit knows the truth. Then why is it that many who clearly are led by the Spirit will disagree on many things? Every spirit is not a good spirit. So, how do His people know the difference? His Spirit will NOT contradict His holy word. It is to be our plumb line. Do you think that those 'church fathers' would meet and agree that en masse that we should elevate their individual writings above the level of the scripture on which the majority agreed? :hmm:

KATA_LOUKAN
Dec 4th 2007, 10:09 PM
Do you think that those 'church fathers' would meet and agree that en masse that we should elevate their individual writings above the level of the scripture on which the majority agreed? :hmm:

I think that they (the church fathers) would think that their interpretation is the true to the Bible. I cant imagine any one trying to contradict scripture. They just interpreted the best they could.


The disagreement was with how you worded the first paragraph of the post I quoted. ;)

Well, now that you phrase it like that, I dont think we disagree about anything!


EO do not believe that any one or another father is more authoritative than another.

But which are authoritative?

Teke
Dec 4th 2007, 11:05 PM
Teke, we understand how the Apostolic scriptures were compiled. However, you must know this had nothing to do with how the Hebrew scriptures were decided. The Apostolic scriptures were decided by council.

Apostolic scriptures "are" scripture the Apostles used. The reason the Hebrew scriptures exist is because the Apostles and Christ used them. The Sept. is still used by Orthodox.


You say that each believer that has the Holy Spirit knows the truth. Then why is it that many who clearly are led by the Spirit will disagree on many things?

Because everyone is not at the same place at the same time.


Every spirit is not a good spirit. So, how do His people know the difference?

His people are to have faith in Him no matter what anything looks like to us.



His Spirit will NOT contradict His holy word. It is to be our plumb line.

I agree they offer guidance.


Do you think that those 'church fathers' would meet and agree that en masse that we should elevate their individual writings above the level of the scripture on which the majority agreed? :hmm:

The church fathers wouldn't agree to elevate them or their writings above any ecumenical council or God guiding a soul in their salvation.

Teke
Dec 4th 2007, 11:09 PM
But which are authoritative?

Not sure what your asking. Do you mean homilies, apologetics, etc. , if so it depends on the subject.
I can't tell you it all depends on any one mans opinion over others.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 5th 2007, 01:32 AM
I think the question, Teke, is based on the fact that they do not always agree. In the cases where the 'church fathers' do not agree, which ones have more authority in your opinion?

KATA_LOUKAN
Dec 5th 2007, 11:24 AM
Not sure what your asking. Do you mean homilies, apologetics, etc. , if so it depends on the subject.
I can't tell you it all depends on any one mans opinion over others.

Why are St. John of Damascus and St. Jerome authoritative and Maricon is not? Why is origen authoritative and the later works of Tertullian are not? How do you know which PEOPLE are authoritative?

Which "fathers" are authoritative, and why, despite being a church father, does the Orthodox church disagree with St. Augustine?

Teke
Dec 5th 2007, 02:02 PM
Why are St. John of Damascus and St. Jerome authoritative and Maricon is not? Why is origen authoritative and the later works of Tertullian are not? How do you know which PEOPLE are authoritative?

Which "fathers" are authoritative, and why, despite being a church father, does the Orthodox church disagree with St. Augustine?

You know which ones are more correct by reading about them and what the other fathers had to say, if anything, about them. The most reliable fathers are those who studied with the Apostles themselves, aka Apostolic fathers.

IOW all teachings or philosophies are judged by what Christ and the Apostles taught.

The Orthodox do not disagree with everything, the later father, St Augustin, put forth. But Augustin himself admitted he was incorrect in some of his assumptions and retracted some of his writings.

"True knowledge is the doctrine of the Apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved, without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither addition nor curtailment ; and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and 'above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts of God." -- Irenaeus, Against Heresies
[i]Irenaeus (late 2nd century early 3rd century) was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the evangelist John

Studyin'2Show
Dec 5th 2007, 04:53 PM
I'm just glad I am a disciple of Yeshua. For me it just seems much more efficient to go directly to the source (since we can and all). ;)

God Bless!

GothicAngel
Dec 6th 2007, 01:35 PM
I think the question, Teke, is based on the fact that they do not always agree. In the cases where the 'church fathers' do not agree, which ones have more authority in your opinion?
The bishops of Rome.

Victor of Rome (late 200s?) decided to excommunicate the Quartodecimans in order to stop the controversy. He was heavily criticized by Iraneus (I think) and others who thought his move was rash; the criticizm he recieevd showed that they took him seroiusly, and considered his excommunication valid.

So if the ECFs considered the Roman bishops' word final..

Studyin'2Show
Dec 6th 2007, 01:43 PM
The bishops of Rome.

Victor of Rome (late 200s?) decided to excommunicate the Quartodecimans in order to stop the controversy. He was heavily criticized by Iraneus (I think) and others who thought his move was rash; the criticizm he recieevd showed that they took him seroiusly, and considered his excommunication valid.

So if the ECFs considered the Roman bishops' word final..Power corrupts! Absolute power corrupts ABSOLUTELY! We must not ever forget that man is by his very nature, flawed. I don't care what chair he may happen to be sitting in. :rolleyes: The fact that the RCC acknowledges that there have definitely been men who have been bishop of Rome and who have sat in 'Peter's seat' that have been corrupt should make it clear that the seat does not miraculously make a man any less flawed. :(

Teke
Dec 6th 2007, 01:55 PM
The bishops of Rome.

Victor of Rome (late 200s?) decided to excommunicate the Quartodecimans in order to stop the controversy. He was heavily criticized by Iraneus (I think) and others who thought his move was rash; the criticizm he recieevd showed that they took him seroiusly, and considered his excommunication valid.

So if the ECFs considered the Roman bishops' word final..

Looking back we could say, that wasn't really necessary.

For those who don't know, a Quartodeciman, is one who holds their Easter at the same time as the Jewish Passover.

Taking into consideration that the calendar was changed a few times since then, and that the church wanted Easter (the Resurrection feast) on a day that did not connect it to Judaism's feasts, so as not to be accused by the Jews of substituting their feasts. We could say the ECF's were right and the Roman bishop wrong, historically and culturally.

Gothic, it was Polycarp (Jewish Christian and Apostolic father), John's (Jewish Christian and Apostle) disciple, who opposed the Roman bishop. His historical letters can be read on the subject.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 6th 2007, 04:17 PM
So, since there is conflict over which 'men' hold the authority, wouldn't it make sense to leave the final authority to God and His words? :hmm:

Teke
Dec 6th 2007, 05:22 PM
He has given us revelation in Jesus Christ and called all to repent. Now that God has done all, He leaves us with a question. "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" He also said that flesh and blood doesn't reveal the answer.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 6th 2007, 06:03 PM
He has given us revelation in Jesus Christ and called all to repent. Now that God has done all, He leaves us with a question. "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" He also said that flesh and blood doesn't reveal the answer.True! So, why do so many look to flesh and blood (church fathers) which you rightly discern will not give us the answer, when He has given us Yeshua (the Word) which does have the answers? :hmm:

Teke
Dec 6th 2007, 06:38 PM
True! So, why do so many look to flesh and blood (church fathers) which you rightly discern will not give us the answer, when He has given us Yeshua (the Word) which does have the answers? :hmm:

Because the fathers left all to follow Christ. It is not so much about getting an answer from them, but acquiring their knowledge and experience in a matter that we know nothing about.

IOW if I asked my neighbor about Jesus, he'd tell me something he thinks. And I'd respect that, but it wouldn't be the same as asking someone who has left all and follows Christ completely in prayer, fasting and worship. Talking about something and actually doing it are two different things.

So while I can seek Him in prayer, I can also ask those who are more practiced in prayer of their experience. Like the Ethiopian man discovered, guides help us. They don't claim power and authority over us.
Is this not how we love one another and share the experience of Jesus Christ. By the testimony of the saints.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 6th 2007, 06:50 PM
Because the fathers left all to follow Christ. It is not so much about getting an answer from them, but acquiring their knowledge and experience in a matter that we know nothing about.

IOW if I asked my neighbor about Jesus, he'd tell me something he thinks. And I'd respect that, but it wouldn't be the same as asking someone who has left all and follows Christ completely in prayer, fasting and worship. Talking about something and actually doing it are two different things.

So while I can seek Him in prayer, I can also ask those who are more practiced in prayer of their experience. Like the Ethiopian man discovered, guides help us. They don't claim power and authority over us.
Is this not how we love one another and share the experience of Jesus Christ. By the testimony of the saints.That's how I was led to Messiah. However, once we put our hand to the plow it is HIM that we should be following. BTW, isn't the 'authority' what we have been discussing here? I can read the writings of a particular saint and I can respect that saint and even respect that saint's opinion on a particular topic. What I won't do is use the writings in an authoritative way to make doctrine. If it was agreed upon to make it scripture then I don't think the writings can be viewed on the same level as scripture. I believe that absolutely everything we need to make doctrine is in scripture. That's my view of things.

God Bless!

Teke
Dec 6th 2007, 07:44 PM
I agree they are not the same as scripture. But they can't be dismissed as they are what decided scripture. IOW you can't give scripture authority without the authority (by testament) that established it.

As for dogma or doctrine, that should be Jesus Christ alone.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 6th 2007, 08:06 PM
I agree they are not the same as scripture. But they can't be dismissed as they are what decided scripture. IOW you can't give scripture authority without the authority (by testament) that established it.

As for dogma or doctrine, that should be Jesus Christ alone.Yes, they agreed on the scripture, and on that we agree. However, they do not always agree on other issues. I have no issue with the things they ALL agree on. It is the other stuff that is in question. How can one justify that they are going to follow one and reject another? What criteria does one use to decide if not scripture? :hmm:

Teke
Dec 6th 2007, 09:10 PM
Yes, they agreed on the scripture, and on that we agree. However, they do not always agree on other issues. I have no issue with the things they ALL agree on. It is the other stuff that is in question. How can one justify that they are going to follow one and reject another? What criteria does one use to decide if not scripture? :hmm:

I don't see what is more important than all agreeing on Jesus Christ. The "other stuff" should reflect that. And scripture doesn't tell us everything about Jesus Christ. It challenges us to find out for ourselves if we continue seeking Him alone.

There is going to be differing styles in worship according to cultures and individual preference. So things like, the difference in my church not using instruments, doesn't effect the Egyptian, African Coptic Orthodox from using drums and singing in their tongue traditions. We're both still Orthodox Christians.
Jesus Christ is still the foremost of our faith and worship. Not buildings, and how it's done. Or the way I explain the salvation of God versus the way any other Christian does.

All we're doing is responding to God's grace in the person he created us in.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 6th 2007, 09:15 PM
Somehow I think you're missing my point. There are many times when the writings of certain 'church fathers' are in conflict with one another. That was the 'other stuff' to which I was referring; not styles of worship.

Teke
Dec 6th 2007, 09:27 PM
Somehow I think you're missing my point. There are many times when the writings of certain 'church fathers' are in conflict with one another. That was the 'other stuff' to which I was referring; not styles of worship.

What conflict, explaining Christ?

Studyin'2Show
Dec 6th 2007, 09:37 PM
What conflict, explaining Christ?:confused I am sincerely trying to understand your position but haven't we been talking about the same thing since THIS post?
A question for Teke - how do you know which fathers are authoritative, when there is no authoritative list of fathers in either the Catholic or Eastern orthodox church?

Teke
Dec 6th 2007, 10:47 PM
:confused I am sincerely trying to understand your position but haven't we been talking about the same thing since THIS post?

I answered Kata, in that there is no "one" authoritative more than another. Decisions that were made were done so by councils led by the Holy Spirit. So how does one say that any one father is more authoritative than another. All the fathers respected those councils (the first seven before the schism) and submitted to their decisions. If any one had a dispute, it was addressed.

Give an example of what you mean by their conflicts.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 6th 2007, 11:33 PM
I answered Kata, in that there is no "one" authoritative more than another. Decisions that were made were done so by councils led by the Holy Spirit. So how does one say that any one father is more authoritative than another. All the fathers respected those councils (the first seven before the schism) and submitted to their decisions. If any one had a dispute, it was addressed.

Give an example of what you mean by their conflicts.How does one know what council was led by the Holy Spirit and what may have been led by the hearts of men?

When I speak of conflict, I'm referring to things like this: Baptism by immersion or sprinkling, infant Baptism etc. There are differences of opinions between them. In such a case, what authority do you use to decide?

GothicAngel
Dec 7th 2007, 02:29 AM
So, since there is conflict over which 'men' hold the authority, wouldn't it make sense to leave the final authority to God and His words? :hmm:
There was conflict because Victor was taken seroiusly. If he truly had as much power as any other bishop, he would have just been quietly ignored. Since his excommunication actually meant something, he was critivized.

Teke: Thanks for the correction.

Teke
Dec 7th 2007, 01:15 PM
How does one know what council was led by the Holy Spirit and what may have been led by the hearts of men?

Well they had what was called ecumenical councils, which means that all the churches agreed on the same thing (there where seven before the schism occurred). If the churches aren't led by the Holy Spirit and our hearts then where does that leave the churches.


When I speak of conflict, I'm referring to things like this: Baptism by immersion or sprinkling, infant Baptism etc. There are differences of opinions between them. In such a case, what authority do you use to decide?

The Diadache is one document that was used, as it is considered an Apostolic document. It states to use whatever (dunk em or sprinkle em) water to baptize. IOW they would refer first to the Apostles practice. Since whole families were baptized infants were included. Later it was decided that one cannot know if an infant is crying out to God, so they are also baptized.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 7th 2007, 02:33 PM
Thanks for the reply, Teke. When reading Diadache (Didache) as concerning water baptism it is written that baptism 'should be' done in running water but if that is not possible, it gives other options. However, there are many who use other options when running water IS possible. Would that be considered going against the 'church fathers'? Also, Diadache does not mention families being baptized together. In scripture the places where it says that a whole household was saved or was baptized, how can it be assumed that there were infants present within that particular family? I know that if I said my whole household was baptized it would not be including any infants. Is this not something that some early writings are in conflict regarding?

Teke
Dec 7th 2007, 03:58 PM
Thanks for the reply, Teke. When reading Diadache (Didache) as concerning water baptism it is written that baptism 'should be' done in running water but if that is not possible, it gives other options. However, there are many who use other options when running water IS possible. Would that be considered going against the 'church fathers'? Also, Diadache does not mention families being baptized together. In scripture the places where it says that a whole household was saved or was baptized, how can it be assumed that there were infants present within that particular family? I know that if I said my whole household was baptized it would not be including any infants. Is this not something that some early writings are in conflict regarding?

I believe the main point is to be baptized. As for infant baptism, even the reformers wouldn't deny such. The reason being that one cannot know that the infant is not crying out to God for His salvation. And Jesus said to not deny children from Him. To withhold anything of God from a child is answerable to Him.
Do you see how these things can be decided by the Apostles and Christ.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 7th 2007, 04:28 PM
I don't want to derail this into a Baptism thread but it seems that according to your last post, you are basing these things on your interpretation of scripture NOT simply on the early church writings. I have no issue with those who interpret scripture differently, who are truly following the word of God as they understand it. But I thought we were discussing following the writings of early church leaders not simply a different interpretation. Scripture tells us not to let contention cause division amongst believers, and with that I agree. Where I seem to be in disagreement (not as if to divide) is concerning the belief that scripture does not hold a higher position than writings which were NOT canonized. I believe that scripture MOST definitely holds a higher position. That's what I thought we were debating. :hmm:

KATA_LOUKAN
Dec 7th 2007, 04:37 PM
The reason being that one cannot know that the infant is not crying out to God for His salvation.

Now thats just silly. A product of a more ignorant time.

If you explained that the sacraments are efficacious, that is one thing, but this is a silly superstition.


Do you see how these things can be decided by the Apostles and Christ.

Yeah, I actually really see the case for infant baptism from scripture.


Thanks for the reply, Teke. When reading Diadache (Didache) as concerning water baptism it is written that baptism 'should be' done in running water but if that is not possible, it gives other options. However, there are many who use other options when running water IS possible. Would that be considered going against the 'church fathers'? Also, Diadache does not mention families being baptized together. In scripture the places where it says that a whole household was saved or was baptized, how can it be assumed that there were infants present within that particular family? I know that if I said my whole household was baptized it would not be including any infants. Is this not something that some early writings are in conflict regarding?

I know that the Orthodox church does practice triple immersion, and I also know that a church father can be "wrong" if he contradicts the majority of fathers (ex. the papacy). But that still does not resolve the issue of which fathers are authoritative.

And im kinda getting what you are saying about religion from a text as well. The more I read the Bible and the more it is explained to me, the more church tradition we need to explain the Bible!

A question for Studyin,

how do you explain the fact that "sola scriptura" was not taught until 1200 at the earliest?

Studyin'2Show
Dec 7th 2007, 05:16 PM
Thanks for jumping back in Kata. As for 'sola scriptura', I'm not Lutheran or Protestant so I don't really explain it as doctrine or dogma, however, I believe from reading scripture, that EVERYTHING we need to know in order to walk in a Christlike way, is in there! A faithful witness led me to scripture, the word of God, and scripture has been enough to guide me. I did not come from an evangelical background, nor did I come to faith through a particular denomination. Someone encouraged me to read the Bible. I consider myself a disciple of Messiah; not Calvin or Luther or the pope, or Augustine, or Origen or anyone else. Scripture has been enough to lead me to His Holy Spirit which has been my Teacher and my Comforter (as scripture told me would be).

So, I guess for me it's like the water baptism issue. If the scripture is available, by all means, use that, however, in the case of those who either can not read scripture or have no access to scripture, following the example of others who are following Messiah would be best. And as they do that, those ambassadors of Messiah should be taking the time to teach them scripture so that they can be discipled to teach others. Understanding all that, the bottom line should be scripture FIRST in my understanding. That's my take on it. :D

God Bless!

Teke
Dec 7th 2007, 07:15 PM
Now thats just silly. A product of a more ignorant time.

If you explained that the sacraments are efficacious, that is one thing, but this is a silly superstition.



Yeah, I actually really see the case for infant baptism from scripture.

There are a few ways to explain infant baptism. But what I've said is not superstition, but a spiritual truth. God watches over children.

Gen 21:17 And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he [is].

And Jesus also spoke of their guardian angels.

Mat 18:10 ¶ Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.




I know that the Orthodox church does practice triple immersion, and I also know that a church father can be "wrong" if he contradicts the majority of fathers (ex. the papacy). But that still does not resolve the issue of which fathers are authoritative.

Fathers are as varied as people are. The eastern church prefers the eastern fathers and the west prefers theirs. But both consider all fathers authoritative. Even when one is wrong you learn something.;)


And im kinda getting what you are saying about religion from a text as well. The more I read the Bible and the more it is explained to me, the more church tradition we need to explain the Bible!

:amen:

Christ is sacrificial (the office of a priest), latreutic (worshipful), and soterial.

Teke
Dec 7th 2007, 07:21 PM
I believe that scripture MOST definitely holds a higher position. That's what I thought we were debating. :hmm:

I already stated that scripture holds a higher position. In EO the 4 Evangelist are in a book at the altar and only the priest reads them aloud. The rest of the letters are in a separate book which is read by whoever is designated reader to read aloud. This designates the 4 Evangelists writings above the others.
It's just a hierarchy. Jesus>Apostles>fathers

Studyin'2Show
Dec 7th 2007, 08:48 PM
I already stated that scripture holds a higher position. In EO the 4 Evangelist are in a book at the altar and only the priest reads them aloud. The rest of the letters are in a separate book which is read by whoever is designated reader to read aloud. This designates the 4 Evangelists writings above the others.
It's just a hierarchy. Jesus>Apostles>fathersWell then! That's the the position they should be in! :D I'm glad we cleared that up. The 4 Evangelist I'm assuming are the Gospels and when you say only the priest reads them aloud, that would be in church, right? Or when you read them at home do you have to do it without speaking? It may seem a silly question but I am curious. :blushhap: I don't want to assume anything.

As for what you posted concerning God watching over the children, I agree which is why I don't see that not baptizing an infant would somehow be seen as keeping them from Yeshua. :hmm: I don't know what others may think but I do not believe that an infant who passes away would be separated from God, so them being baptized symbolically or not would have no bearing on them being with God, in my view. The act of the water physically touching us does not bring us closer to Him. It is a symbol of our sins being cleansed through repentance. So, I believe the issue becomes one of interpretation to which I would encourage any other believer to continue to serve and worship God and you interpret as I continue to do the same. :)

God Bless, and thanks for the dialog!

Teke
Dec 7th 2007, 09:20 PM
Well then! That's the the position they should be in! :D I'm glad we cleared that up. The 4 Evangelist I'm assuming are the Gospels and when you say only the priest reads them aloud, that would be in church, right? Or when you read them at home do you have to do it without speaking? It may seem a silly question but I am curious. :blushhap: I don't want to assume anything.

I can read them aloud at home if I choose to. I don't usually read aloud when reading tho. But there is no rule IOW. In church it's just according to the order of worship.


As for what you posted concerning God watching over the children, I agree which is why I don't see that not baptizing an infant would somehow be seen as keeping them from Yeshua. :hmm: I don't know what others may think but I do not believe that an infant who passes away would be separated from God, so them being baptized symbolically or not would have no bearing on them being with God, in my view. The act of the water physically touching us does not bring us closer to Him. It is a symbol of our sins being cleansed through repentance. So, I believe the issue becomes one of interpretation to which I would encourage any other believer to continue to serve and worship God and you interpret as I continue to do the same. :)

God Bless, and thanks for the dialog!

I agree nothing separates us from God. There are plenty of infants who are not baptized. Usually their baptism depends on their parents commitment to raise them in a godly manner in the Church. So infants who are not born of Christian parents aren't baptized.
I also don't believe that children (not infants) should be baptized without their parents approval. As their parents are their God given authority while young, the church shouldn't override that authority.

jeffreys
Dec 7th 2007, 11:15 PM
There are a few ways to explain infant baptism. But what I've said is not superstition, but a spiritual truth. God watches over children.

Gen 21:17 And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he [is].

And Jesus also spoke of their guardian angels.

Mat 18:10 ¶ Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

Fathers are as varied as people are. The eastern church prefers the eastern fathers and the west prefers theirs. But both consider all fathers authoritative. Even when one is wrong you learn something.;)

Christ is sacrificial (the office of a priest), latreutic (worshipful), and soterial.

I'm going to step into it here and say, simply, that infant baptism was not practiced during the New Testament era - nor is it mentioned in the Bible. You will never see mention of babies being sprinkled in the NT - only believing adults.

punk
Dec 8th 2007, 12:07 AM
I'm going to step into it here and say, simply, that infant baptism was not practiced during the New Testament era - nor is it mentioned in the Bible. You will never see mention of babies being sprinkled in the NT - only believing adults.

As they say:

the absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence

The mere fact that it isn't mentioned doesn't prove it wasn't done.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 8th 2007, 01:13 AM
As they say:

the absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence

The mere fact that it isn't mentioned doesn't prove it wasn't done.To be completely fair, neither is it the evidence of presence. :)

KATA_LOUKAN
Dec 8th 2007, 01:30 AM
So, I guess for me it's like the water baptism issue. If the scripture is available, by all means, use that, however, in the case of those who either can not read scripture or have no access to scripture, following the example of others who are following Messiah would be best. And as they do that, those ambassadors of Messiah should be taking the time to teach them scripture so that they can be discipled to teach others. Understanding all that, the bottom line should be scripture FIRST in my understanding. That's my take on it. :D


I've never heard it phrased that way before. Very coherent!


I'm going to step into it here and say, simply, that infant baptism was not practiced during the New Testament era - nor is it mentioned in the Bible. You will never see mention of babies being sprinkled in the NT - only believing adults.

Of the 6 household mentioned in the new testament, you believe that not a single one had a baby or a young child?

Also remember, the letters were written to adults, not babies. The first generation of Christians was all converts.

And for those who say that the faith should be the child's, not the parents', I have this bit of information for you.

When we are raised by our parents, our views on God are pretty much set for the rest of our lives when we are 9, and our morals are pretty much set by the age of 12. (there are exceptions, but this is the case for the vast majority of people) So much of my faith really is the faith of my parents, who were the ones praying with me each night, teaching me scripture, and taking me to church, even when I wanted to stay home. To say that they are instrumental would be an understatement. This was from a famous psycholocial study, I dont have it right now, but if anyone really wants the source I can get it in two weeks when I see my pastor again.

jeffreys
Dec 9th 2007, 11:32 PM
Of the 6 household mentioned in the new testament, you believe that not a single one had a baby or a young child?

Let's take that vein of thought one step further.

My household contains both a dog and a cat (this is fact).

If you were to say that my household and I were all baptized, using that same line of thinking, would that not assume that my cat and dog were also baptized? Would you not have to make that assumption?


It would be logical to make the assumption that there were babies baptized, during the baptisms of the 6 households if we read of babies being baptized elsewhere in the New Testament. But we don't. In addition, there would be no reason for babies - who have absolutely no way of coming to faith in Jesus and accepting the gift of grace, through faith - to be baptized.

Is it possible that babies were baptized? Yes.
Is it likely that babies were baptized? No.

jeffreys
Dec 9th 2007, 11:34 PM
As they say:

the absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence

The mere fact that it isn't mentioned doesn't prove it wasn't done.

This is true. But the burden of proof is on those who claim claim that it was done, despite the fact that it is nowhere mentioned.

If I make the allegation that you killed somebody, I better have a better argument than simply to say, "I never saw him not kill somebody!"

punk
Dec 9th 2007, 11:56 PM
This is true. But the burden of proof is on those who claim claim that it was done, despite the fact that it is nowhere mentioned.

If I make the allegation that you killed somebody, I better have a better argument than simply to say, "I never saw him not kill somebody!"

Well if you made that allegation with no support on your side, I don't need an argument.

One cannot argue from nothing and get something.

From nothing we simply withhold judgement - maybe it happened, maybe it didn't, and there is no argument for or against either side.

jeffreys
Dec 10th 2007, 12:01 AM
Well if you made that allegation with no support on your side, I don't need an argument.

One cannot argue from nothing and get something.

From nothing we simply withhold judgement - maybe it happened, maybe it didn't, and there is no argument for or against either side.

That is not correct.

We do not see - anywhere in the Bible - evidence of babies being baptized. None.

So why would, or should, we just make the assumption that they were? That'd be no different than making the assumption that pets were also baptized? :hmm:

KATA_LOUKAN
Dec 10th 2007, 12:28 AM
Let's take that vein of thought one step further.

My household contains both a dog and a cat (this is fact).

If you were to say that my household and I were all baptized, using that same line of thinking, would that not assume that my cat and dog were also baptized? Would you not have to make that assumption?


No offense, but that argument is rather puerile.

Perhaps animals can accept Christ's gift of salvation as well?

Perhaps I can rape children, because there is never a passage in the Bible that "explicitly" says otherwise?

We have to assume that Biblical promises are for HUMANS, not for animals.

And where does it say in the Bible that the old children and spouses came to faith? It does not. We only assume that they did.


It would be logical to make the assumption that there were babies baptized, during the baptisms of the 6 households if we read of babies being baptized elsewhere in the New Testament.

The new testament contained the stories of the first generation of Christians. So isnt 6 (perhaps 5 or 4) times enough? The implication is very strong.

Not to mention, we see that infant is already an established practice as early as AD 140. We read here.


"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).


If the church became corrupt, it became corrupt very early indeed!

punk
Dec 10th 2007, 01:34 AM
That is not correct.

We do not see - anywhere in the Bible - evidence of babies being baptized. None.

So why would, or should, we just make the assumption that they were? That'd be no different than making the assumption that pets were also baptized? :hmm:

Absense of evidence doesn't translate to evidence of absense.

Where does it say not to baptize infants?

jeffreys
Dec 10th 2007, 03:57 AM
No offense, but that argument is rather puerile.

Perhaps animals can accept Christ's gift of salvation as well?

Animals are just as capable of accepting by faith, Jesus as Savior, as are babies.

jeffreys
Dec 10th 2007, 04:05 AM
Perhaps I can rape children, because there is never a passage in the Bible that "explicitly" says otherwise?
Only if you're going to ignore such passages as Deuteronomy 22, et al.

We have to assume that Biblical promises are for HUMANS, not for animals.
My point still stands.
There is no more evidence of babies being baptized, then of pets being baptized. And to assume that babies were baptized, because a "household" accepted Christ is to assume - and read into a text - something that isn't there.

And where does it say in the Bible that the old children and spouses came to faith? It does not. We only assume that they did.
This is irrelevant.
Why?
Because we have evidence of "people who are old enough to respond" coming to faith in Jesus, and being baptized.


The new testament contained the stories of the first generation of Christians. So isnt 6 (perhaps 5 or 4) times enough? The implication is very strong.
There are absolutely no implications here, that would EVER lead us to believe that babies were baptized. That is nothing more than speculation.

Not to mention, we see that infant is already an established practice as early as AD 140. We read here. If the church became corrupt, it became corrupt very early indeed!
The Church did indeed become corrupt, and did so very very early indeed! In fact, there were many - whom considered themselves "The Church" - who had engaged in false teaching almost immediately. That's a good share of why the Epistles were written. Was Paul not preaching and teaching against corrupted teaching?


Again, no evidence that babies were baptized. Only assumptions.

jeffreys
Dec 10th 2007, 04:07 AM
Absense of evidence doesn't translate to evidence of absense.

Where does it say not to baptize infants?

Where does it say not to baptize dogs?

David Taylor
Dec 10th 2007, 04:42 AM
Where does it say not to baptize dogs?

Why not baptize birds...:rofl:

...or houses? :rofl:

Leviticus 14:50 And he shall kill the one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water: And he shall take the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the scarlet, and the living bird, and dip them in the blood of the slain bird, and in the running water, and sprinkle the house seven times:

:bounce:

jeffreys
Dec 10th 2007, 05:07 AM
Why not baptize birds...:rofl:

...or houses? :rofl:

Leviticus 14:50 And he shall kill the one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water: And he shall take the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the scarlet, and the living bird, and dip them in the blood of the slain bird, and in the running water, and sprinkle the house seven times:

:bounce:


So we have precedent! :D


No wait! Wait! Sprinkle would be "rantizo" not "baptizo" or "bapto" - so I guess that couldn't have been a baptism. NEVER MIND!

KATA_LOUKAN
Dec 10th 2007, 11:29 AM
My point still stands.
There is no more evidence of babies being baptized, then of pets being baptized. And to assume that babies were baptized, because a "household" accepted Christ is to assume - and read into a text - something that isn't there.


Household never included dogs. Being non-human, they were simply not included in households. Slaves, however, were. As were young children and babies. This is historical fact. People of this time only assumed human to be in their households. Again, a very weak argument.


Only if you're going to ignore such passages as Deuteronomy 22, et al.


Hmm. Dont seem to see EXPLICIT statements that says something to the effect "Thou shalt not rape little children, murder innocent civilians, (fill in the blank). This isnt really an argument as much as it is my criticism of people who think "if ___ isnt explicitly addressed in the Bible then whatever you think is ok".


Because we have evidence of "people who are old enough to respond"

But not in said households.


The Church did indeed become corrupt, and did so very very early indeed! In fact, there were many - whom considered themselves "The Church" - who had engaged in false teaching almost immediately. That's a good share of why the Epistles were written. Was Paul not preaching and teaching against corrupted teaching?


Irenaeus (quoted above) was baptized in AD 140 by the bishop of Smyrna, who at that time would have been Polycarp. Polycarp was one of the Apostle John's followers....

The church became VERY corrupt VERY early indeed!

jeffreys
Dec 10th 2007, 01:50 PM
Household never included dogs. Being non-human, they were simply not included in households. Slaves, however, were. As were young children and babies. This is historical fact. People of this time only assumed human to be in their households. Again, a very weak argument.
Really? And what do you have, as credible proof, that households never included dogs? Or you could give me a Scripture that says something to the effect of, "Dogs are never part of a household..."

What I'm pointing out is the absurdity of arguing a positive from silence. You simply can't do it. Assuming something was present because Scripture does not say it was absent is very dangerous. You will NOT find a Scripture that says, "King David did NOT drive a Ford Taurus." Does that mean I should assume he DID drive a Ford Taurus?


Hmm. Dont seem to see EXPLICIT statements that says something to the effect "Thou shalt not rape little children, murder innocent civilians, (fill in the blank). This isnt really an argument as much as it is my criticism of people who think "if ___ isnt explicitly addressed in the Bible then whatever you think is ok".
Then I guess if you think it's okay to rape little children - again based on the absence of a Scripture explicitly saying don't, that's a risk you'll have to take.

Something tells me, however, that you're not going to go do that, based on the absence of a direct Scripture saying, "Don't rape a child."


But not in said households.
Credible evidence, other than your opinion, please...


Irenaeus (quoted above) was baptized in AD 140 by the bishop of Smyrna, who at that time would have been Polycarp. Polycarp was one of the Apostle John's followers....
It is interesting, here, that Irenaeus doesn't specifically mention baptism in the writing you quoted. It is also interesting that it isn't until the later writings, of the church fathers, that infant baptism is mentioned - and claimed in retrospect.

The church became VERY corrupt VERY early indeed!
And, as I've earlier said, Gnosticism was present - even during NT times. So was the false teaching of the Nicolatians.

I presume then, based on this argument, that you think their teaching is okay?


And once again, you're arguing from the point of silence.

Absolutely no Scripture that indicates infants were baptized, or that we should baptize babies.





...and for the record, Irenaeus also taught that Adam & Eve were created as children, and weren't responsible for the fall. Interesting teaching from one who is thought to be so perfect in his teaching.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 10th 2007, 02:10 PM
Okay, let's lose the 'rape' analogy. It's in very poor taste. :rolleyes:

jeffreys
Dec 10th 2007, 02:23 PM
Okay, let's lose the 'rape' analogy. It's in very poor taste. :rolleyes:

I agree wholeheartedly. It is an absurd argument to even mention!

KATA_LOUKAN
Dec 10th 2007, 03:38 PM
Okay, let's lose the 'rape' analogy. It's in very poor taste. :rolleyes:

Ok. It really isnt central to the discussion anyways.


Really? And what do you have, as credible proof, that households never included dogs? Or you could give me a Scripture that says something to the effect of, "Dogs are never part of a household..."


This has reached the point of absurdity. No, dogs are not included in households. An animal, not having a soul, does not count. Do we see circumcision (to which baptism is compared) in animals? I think not. You seem to be grabbing at straws here. Any rational person can understand that animals do not have immortal souls.

Do we see anywere in the Bible animals coming to Christ? I could quote every scripture where "men" are referenced, but this is a waste of my time because you are arguing an absurd point.


What I'm pointing out is the absurdity of arguing a positive from silence.

If households contain children and slaves

and entire households were baptized,

then it follows that children and slaves were baptized.

You could criticize this argument by arguing that the households might not have children and slaves, although this is unlikely. There are so many holes in Biblical logic that it is astounding, and to criticize it from a philosophical perspective will always result in the Bible losing. Hence we need to use a little intuition and historical context to determine the validity or invalidity of infant baptism (or any biblical doctrine). EDIT: Can you find sripture that says households contain only adults?

Stick with the dog argument, it is more convincing than this.

Speaking of positives from silence, how many wills do you think Jesus has? How many persons make up the Godhead? Is Jesus co-eternal with God?


It is interesting, here, that Irenaeus doesn't specifically mention baptism in the writing you quoted.

How else can an infant be sanctified?


It is also interesting that it isn't until the later writings, of the church fathers, that infant baptism is mentioned - and claimed in retrospect.


OK here are some others.



Hippolytus


"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).


Origen


"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).


Cyprian of Carthage


"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

"If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (ibid., 64:5).


So it wasnt just an isolated instance. Although Irenaeus DID teach some wacky stuff about adam and eve, it was just his interpretation and not elaborated on by later fathers. All this is, of course, well before the state church.

Also, how can we be certain that believers baptism only isnt a heresy? It came along pretty late in the game with the Anabaptists (and in small sects during the middle ages). Find some evidence that supports believers baptism to the exclusion of all others in any historical context (preferably before AD 300).


And, as I've earlier said, Gnosticism was present - even during NT times. So was the false teaching of the Nicolatians.

I presume then, based on this argument, that you think their teaching is okay?


So Christ allowed for a huge, blasphemous heresy to creep into the church and become completely assimilated not even two generations after he ascended?

Btw- I trust the Holy Spirit kept the body of Christ as a whole free from assimilating wrong doctrine. The entire church never accepted the papacy. We can see that it developed in the middle ages. The entire church never accepted indulgences. It too crept in during the middle ages. The entire church never believed in purgatory. BUT - infant baptism was taught since the very beginning, and great spiritual leaders taught that it was truth (even Luther).

jeffreys
Dec 10th 2007, 03:58 PM
Kata;

I see you are good at the copy & paste - though I'd suggest that you should give credit to the sites you plagiarize. http://www.catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_of_Infant_Baptism.asp

If you want to believe in, and practice, the sprinkling of infants as baptism - even though there is absolutely no Scriptural precedent for it - be my guest.

But please note...
1. A Catholic site - that is bent on pulling small, select quotes - and these out of context - from selected "church fathers" in order to substantiate their own bias, is not necessarily weighty. Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why that site simply omits so many other early church writings? Have you stopped to wonder why it doesn't once quote the Didache?

2. You proved the point I said earlier. The "church fathers" you quoted, wrote nearly 200 years after Jesus. Would you also take my personal opinions, about the Declaration of Independence, as authoritative? Are you going to try to assert that there was no heresy and/or false teaching that had crept into the Church within 100-200 years? Again, you are free to adhere to doctrine preached nearly 200 years after Christ. I prefer to at least try to follow Scripture.

3. You asked, "So Christ allowed for a huge, blasphemous heresy to creep into the church and become completely assimilated not even two generations after he ascended?" One answer to that is that perhaps Christ "allowed" it. But the real answer is, YES there ABSOLUTELY WAS heresy and false teaching that emerged ALMOST IMMEDIATELY within the Church. Are you unaware that a good share of the apostle Paul's writing was in refutation of the heresy of the Judaizers?


Again, if you want to stake your salvation on - and follow - a practice that simply is not followed in the New Testament, you are free to do so. But I have noticed that, once again, you have failed to provide any Scripture to verify your position.

I'd be careful doing that...

KingFisher
Dec 10th 2007, 08:11 PM
So we have no scriptural proof of infants not being baptized.
Can't argue with that…

But when some take that and say this is reason to baptize infants.
What do we do?

Let's look at the scriptures we do have. Do any show conflict with
infants being baptized?

One comes to mind...
Act 8:34 So the eunuch answered Philip and said, “I ask you, of whom
does the prophet say this, of himself or of some other man?”

35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture,
preached Jesus to him.

36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the
eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?”

37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he
answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the
eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.

So if I am asked "See, here is water. What hinders a baby from being baptized?"

I will answer like Philip…

“If they believe with all their heart, they may.”

Can they answer as the eunuch did?

God bless,
KingFisher

Studyin'2Show
Dec 10th 2007, 08:56 PM
So Christ allowed for a huge, blasphemous heresy to creep into the church and become completely assimilated not even two generations after he ascended?Okay, I may be different than some but I don't see infant baptism as heresy. More like overzealousness. I was baptized as an infant in the RCC but it didn't mean anything to me because I was not conscious of it. I don't think it was a bad thing but as an adult I don't believe I was really saved until I personally accepted Messiah for myself at age 31. So, I don't have trouble with a parent having their child baptized but they should encourage that child to come to Messiah once they come to the age of reason and can make the choice to follow Him and be baptized as the eunuch did.

God Bless!

KATA_LOUKAN
Dec 10th 2007, 10:00 PM
I see you are good at the copy & paste - though I'd suggest that you should give credit to the sites you plagiarize. http://www.catholic.com/library/Earl...nt_Baptism.asp (http://www.catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_of_Infant_Baptism.asp)


I quoted them, and I am NOT I repeat NOT a Catholic! No way.

They have several misquotes in their library, I agree (their contraception section and immaculate conception sections, along with the papacy, are a mess), but we cant simply ignore 2000 years of Church tradition.


ritings? Have you stopped to wonder why it doesn't once quote the Didache?

It does, under the abortion section. Again, I am not a catholic, and I do not agree with many of the quotes on that site.

Do you see anything in the Didache that would suggest otherwise? I have a copy right in front of me.


You proved the point I said earlier. The "church fathers" you quoted, wrote nearly 200 years after Jesus. Would you also take my personal opinions, about the Declaration of Independence, as authoritative? Are you going to try to assert that there was no heresy and/or false teaching that had crept into the Church within 100-200 years? Again, you are free to adhere to doctrine preached nearly 200 years after Christ. I prefer to at least try to follow Scripture.


Ok, I see your point and you are correct, although I couldnt imagine that the church managed to completely assimilate something that wrong so quickly. Irenaeus knew Jesus through two people, and he advocated infant baptism (or at lest the possibility of infantile sanctification). It is very possible that the church became apostate very early on, only to be saved by Luther and Calvin, but as possible as it is, i think it is rather unlikely.


You asked, "So Christ allowed for a huge, blasphemous heresy to creep into the church and become completely assimilated not even two generations after he ascended?" One answer to that is that perhaps Christ "allowed" it. But the real answer is, YES there ABSOLUTELY WAS heresy and false teaching that emerged ALMOST IMMEDIATELY within the Church. Are you unaware that a good share of the apostle Paul's writing was in refutation of the heresy of the Judaizers?


Of course there was heresy, there was a huge heresy problem. But I dont believe that the holy spirit would allow the entire church to assilimate this heresy so completely and for so long. What of Christ's promise to be with us? What of the power of the holy spirit? I know the mormons believe that the apostacy began only years after John the apostle died. Hence the title of this thread.


Okay, I may be different than some but I don't see infant baptism as heresy. More like overzealousness. I was baptized as an infant in the RCC but it didn't mean anything to me because I was not conscious of it. I don't think it was a bad thing but as an adult I don't believe I was really saved until I personally accepted Messiah for myself at age 31. So, I don't have trouble with a parent having their child baptized but they should encourage that child to come to Messiah once they come to the age of reason and can make the choice to follow Him and be baptized as the eunuch did.

God Bless!

I can see that, although the Bible seems very clear on the issue to me!


Can they answer as the eunuch did?


Again, converts would be treated differently. Back to the purpose of Baptism. It is essentially a spiritual transformation that signifies the beginning of an earthly Christian ministry (hence Jesus). When I was born, I was baptized a lutheran. As I grew, and very early on, I was beginning my spiritual journey. I never had a "born again expereince" where I could calculate the exact hour I was saved. I feel that my baptism is valid, and if you see my earlier post, I believe I articulated why.

As for those who might have been baptized and then lapsed only to come back to Jesus later (Studyin comes to mind), how do we know that God's grace was not present from the time of baptism onward?

And for those who reject the gift of baptism, well, there will always people who will reject God's gift. Hence 50% of people after being "saved" will fall away (although ive heard it closer to 80%!).

Studyin'2Show
Dec 11th 2007, 01:31 AM
And for those who reject the gift of baptism, well, there will always people who will reject God's gift. Hence 50% of people after being "saved" will fall away (although ive heard it closer to 80%!).I wonder what percentage of those who are baptized as babies do the same? :hmm: It seems that it would be the same or higher considering so I don't think it's really a valid thing to attempt to pit one against the other. Some may be led through strong faithful parents whereas others are led in another way. Isn't what is important that as many are led to Him as can be led, whatever way they may be led! :yes:

God Bless!

KATA_LOUKAN
Dec 11th 2007, 01:06 PM
I wonder what percentage of those who are baptized as babies do the same? :hmm:

youre right, its probably higher, from what I gather.


Isn't what is important that as many are led to Him as can be led, whatever way they may be led! :yes:

Finally something we all agree on!

threebigrocks
Dec 11th 2007, 04:31 PM
The latest I've heard: 90%+ profess faith fall away, meaning produce good fruit, walk the talk. ;) That's from "Way of the Master" by Comfort and Cameron. I wish I was surprised by that.

Teke
Dec 11th 2007, 08:28 PM
The question of baptism isn't a matter of what the fathers said necessarily, but what Jesus said. No clergyman in his right mind is going to go against what Jesus Christ Himself said, even if he questions it. If Jesus meant suffer the children (infants or older children) to come to Him, then what other way where they to come than by baptism.

Personally I've never met any clergy who would deny a child the grace of God's salvation.

Teke
Dec 11th 2007, 08:34 PM
Isn't what is important that as many are led to Him as can be led, whatever way they may be led!

I don't believe numbers are what is to be so important to us. We are to have faith that God is leading all to Himself. Faith should have no doubt with God.

punk
Dec 11th 2007, 09:23 PM
Where does it say not to baptize dogs?

It doesn't say not to baptize dogs.

Point?

jeffreys
Dec 11th 2007, 11:03 PM
The question of baptism isn't a matter of what the fathers said necessarily, but what Jesus said. No clergyman in his right mind is going to go against what Jesus Christ Himself said, even if he questions it. If Jesus meant suffer the children (infants or older children) to come to Him, then what other way where they to come than by baptism.

Personally I've never met any clergy who would deny a child the grace of God's salvation.

I'm sorry, but this is just plain wrong.

When Jesus said to allow the little children to come unto him, he was NOT saying ANYTHING about baptism!

How else would they come to him? I can think of several ways: Walk. Run. Be carried.

CONTEXT is extremely important!

jeffreys
Dec 11th 2007, 11:04 PM
It doesn't say not to baptize dogs.

Point?

Then I can only assume you baptize dogs, right?

I mean, after all, isn't that what this argument from absence is all about? "Hey - it doesn't say they DIDN'T baptize babies - so it must mean they did!"

Silly logic.

punk
Dec 11th 2007, 11:34 PM
Then I can only assume you baptize dogs, right?

I mean, after all, isn't that what this argument from absence is all about? "Hey - it doesn't say they DIDN'T baptize babies - so it must mean they did!"

Silly logic.

Well you see, now you've gone beyond anything I said.

Where did I advocate baptizing babies?

Show me.

I simply pointed out that the argument given didn't remotely justify the conclusion.

And it didn't.

Similarly an argument from "nowhere does the Bible advocate baptizing dogs", to "we should never baptize dogs" doesn't fly either.

You need to find something a bit better if you really want to give a reason not to baptize babies.

If you can't then just let people be and don't bother with it, because you have no good reason to oppose them.

Similarly if a group did baptize dogs, it would seem you have no good reason to tell them to stop either.

jeffreys
Dec 11th 2007, 11:48 PM
Well you see, now you've gone beyond anything I said.

Where did I advocate baptizing babies?

Show me.

I simply pointed out that the argument given didn't remotely justify the conclusion.

And it didn't.

Similarly an argument from "nowhere does the Bible advocate baptizing dogs", to "we should never baptize dogs" doesn't fly either.

You need to find something a bit better if you really want to give a reason not to baptize babies.

If you can't then just let people be and don't bother with it, because you have no good reason to oppose them.

Similarly if a group did baptize dogs, it would seem you have no good reason to tell them to stop either.

What "better" do you want - other than the fact that there is absolutely no mention of it in the New Testament, and the people who were specifically recorded as being baptized were always adults, who made a conscious faith-based decision to do so?

Would you like something more clear than that? Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? :hmm:

punk
Dec 11th 2007, 11:55 PM
What "better" do you want - other than the fact that there is absolutely no mention of it in the New Testament, and the people who were specifically recorded as being baptized were always adults, who made a conscious faith-based decision to do so?

Would you like something more clear than that? Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? :hmm:

Well a statement like "Thou shalt not baptize babies" would be better now wouldn't it?

jeffreys
Dec 11th 2007, 11:56 PM
There's no mention of wearing pants in the NT either, but I assume you do wear pants.
I'm done here.

If all you want to do is throw around inane arguments, just for the sake of arguing, you'll need to do it with somebody else.

Either that, or you could actually try to provide a Scripture that mentions infant baptism... :rolleyes:

jiggyfly
Dec 19th 2007, 12:42 PM
What "better" do you want - other than the fact that there is absolutely no mention of it in the New Testament, and the people who were specifically recorded as being baptized were always adults, who made a conscious faith-based decision to do so?

Would you like something more clear than that? Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? :hmm:

1Corinthians 1:16 Paul baptized the household of Stephanas
Acts 10 Peter baptizes everyone at Cornelius' house and if you look to Acts 11 Peter is re-telling the incident and says in verse 14, " He will tell you how you and all your household will be saved!"

Studyin'2Show
Dec 19th 2007, 01:03 PM
1Corinthians 1:16 Paul baptized the household of Stephanas
Acts 10 Peter baptizes everyone at Cornelius' house and if you look to Acts 11 Peter is re-telling the incident and says in verse 14, " He will tell you how you and all your household will be saved!"So, you have a list of those in the household of Stephanas and Cornelius and on the list it says there were infants? Otherwise, IMO, these examples do not show that any infants were baptized.

God Bless!

jiggyfly
Dec 19th 2007, 01:12 PM
So, you have a list of those in the household of Stephanas and Cornelius and on the list it says there were infants? Otherwise, IMO, these examples do not show that any infants were baptized.

God Bless!
No. Do you??? My point was there are implications of more than just adults being baptized as Jeffreys' post implied.

jeffreys
Dec 19th 2007, 02:41 PM
No. Do you??? My point was there are implications of more than just adults being baptized as Jeffreys' post implied.

No, there are no implications of "more than adults" being baptized. There's no implication at all. That's a classic case of reading into Scripture something that simply is not there.

jiggyfly
Dec 19th 2007, 10:31 PM
No, there are no implications of "more than adults" being baptized. There's no implication at all. That's a classic case of reading into Scripture something that simply is not there.
I guess our definition of households are very different where do you get your definiton from?

I get mine from Webster's dictionary which says it is the people of a house collectively including servants. A household without any children is very sad to me.

One could say that to say only adults were baptized by the first century church would be reading into scripture something that simply is not there. Kinda goes both ways doesn't.

jeffreys
Dec 19th 2007, 10:35 PM
I guess our definition of households are very different where do you get your definiton from?

I get mine from Webster's dictionary which says it is the people of a house collectively including servants. A household without any children is very sad to me.

One could say that to say only adults were baptized by the first century church would be reading into scripture something that simply is not there. Kinda goes both ways doesn't.

My household is "without children". Should that make me sad? Our sons are grown, and our daughter will graduate all too soon. My wife and I are one of millions of "households" where there are no children or babies.


And yes, the "cuts both ways" is correct - which has been my point all along. So let's not read "only adults were baptized" into any of those Scriptures. Let's just look at who, specifically, is recorded as having been baptized. Fair enough?

Studyin'2Show
Dec 20th 2007, 12:36 AM
I agree with jeffreys that it can go both ways. I've got no problem with symbolically baptizing children. Once I got saved, my children went through a dedication ceremony. However, I've looked at a lot of scripture on baptism and it seems clear that it is more about a repentant heart than just a ceremony. My son accepted Jesus at a VERY young age. He had just turned six but when the pastor asked why he wanted to be baptized, he completely understood the concept of being a sinner and repentance. I know a few people who were baptized at as early as four and again, they understood. I just believe that even if you baptize a baby, they have to at some point recognize they are sinners and come to repentance. Scripture seems to be clear on that. :hmm:

David Taylor
Dec 20th 2007, 07:16 PM
I guess our definition of households are very different where do you get your definiton from?

I get mine from Webster's dictionary which says it is the people of a house collectively including servants. A household without any children is very sad to me.

Never is a household defined only as a household if it contains infants.

My household has 5 people in it, and the youngest is a teenager.

If my whole household were baptised, where would an infant come from?

As Jeffrey said, superimposing an infant into a 'household' is reading into scripture.

Find and supply any scripture that clearly show an infant is baptised, and then you will have provided clear proof that can be discussed and considered.

However, wanting to turn 'households' into "infant-inclucive households" is reading something into the word to fit an arguement you want to substantiate...it is not reading from the text.






One could say that to say only adults were baptized by the first century church would be reading into scripture something that simply is not there. Kinda goes both ways doesn't.

No they couldn't say that. Because in every example where someone is baptized in the N.T., and they are identified individually, they are 100% always adults.

So it doesn't go both ways.

Many examples from scripture have shown adults being baptized.
Zero examples from scripture have shown infants being baptized.

KATA_LOUKAN
Dec 20th 2007, 08:09 PM
Never is a household defined only as a household if it contains infants.

My household has 5 people in it, and the youngest is a teenager.

If my whole household were baptised, where would an infant come from?

As Jeffrey said, superimposing an infant into a 'household' is reading into scripture.

Find and supply any scripture that clearly show an infant is baptised, and then you will have provided clear proof that can be discussed and considered.

However, wanting to turn 'households' into "infant-inclucive households" is reading something into the word to fit an arguement you want to substantiate...it is not reading from the text.


Well, given the circumstances of palestine at that time and in that culture, it would seem odd that a household would NOT include babies. To compare a household of long ago to a household of today is not a sound argument.

So why does it never specifically state that the teenagers, servants, and spouses come to faith before they were baptized? Wouldnt Luke want it to be known that everyone was of believing age when mentioning an inclusive word like "household"?

Studyin'2Show
Dec 20th 2007, 09:29 PM
All the household stuff aside, what of repentance? Scripture seems clear that we are to repent AND be baptized. So, how is someone who is not able to understand repentance, able to repent? :hmm:

jiggyfly
Dec 21st 2007, 02:46 PM
Never is a household defined only as a household if it contains infants.

My household has 5 people in it, and the youngest is a teenager.

If my whole household were baptised, where would an infant come from?

As Jeffrey said, superimposing an infant into a 'household' is reading into scripture.

Find and supply any scripture that clearly show an infant is baptised, and then you will have provided clear proof that can be discussed and considered.

However, wanting to turn 'households' into "infant-inclucive households" is reading something into the word to fit an arguement you want to substantiate...it is not reading from the text.






No they couldn't say that. Because in every example where someone is baptized in the N.T., and they are identified individually, they are 100% always adults.

So it doesn't go both ways.

Many examples from scripture have shown adults being baptized.
Zero examples from scripture have shown infants being baptized.

I am not an advocate of infant baptizing but I made my point that household may also include infants and children as much as it can only mean adults so to read it as "only adults were baptized" is just as bad as reading it as "infants were baptized" plain and simple we don't know. Households were baptized--- fact.

jiggyfly
Dec 21st 2007, 02:54 PM
All the household stuff aside, what of repentance? Scripture seems clear that we are to repent AND be baptized. So, how is someone who is not able to understand repentance, able to repent? :hmm:

Very good point and I think this is of much more importance than the sketchy argument that "only adults were baptized". Age has absolutely nothing to do with it. I merely pointed out the error of "only adults were baptized". Another point to make in this is what form of repentance is required? Is it the remorse for committing sin or is it to change the way you think?

David Taylor
Dec 21st 2007, 03:43 PM
I am not an advocate of infant baptizing but I made my point that household may also include infants and children as much as it can only mean adults so to read it as "only adults were baptized" is just as bad as reading it as "infants were baptized" plain and simple we don't know. Households were baptized--- fact.

Sorry, but you didn't really make the point you thought you made, and what you think is equal both ways really isn't when scrutinized with scripture; and therefore can't be the fact you want it to be.

Let me explain it another way.
#1 Fact: Scripture does give account of households being baptized.
.
#2 Fact: There are no examples in the bible, that specifically name each member and age of a household that is baptized.
.
#3 Fact: There are Zero examples in scripture showing 'infants' being baptized.
.
#4 Fact: There are Many examples in scripture showing 'adults' being baptized.So the only point we can accurately make, and the only fact we can accurately present from the scriptures, is that 'adults' are confirmed to have been baptized' and children are never mention being baptized in the scriptures.

We could assume that households being baptized includes infants, puppies, kittens, goldfish, long-eared rabbits, and parakeets......however Scripture only tells us that adult humans are baptized....and adults who have repented, and knowingly and understandingly are seeking the Lord by faith....something unaware babies and goldfish are unable to do.

jeffreys
Dec 21st 2007, 04:50 PM
Well, given the circumstances of palestine at that time and in that culture, it would seem odd that a household would NOT include babies. To compare a household of long ago to a household of today is not a sound argument.

So why does it never specifically state that the teenagers, servants, and spouses come to faith before they were baptized? Wouldnt Luke want it to be known that everyone was of believing age when mentioning an inclusive word like "household"?

My household no longer includes babies. Our "baby" is in high school. And my household is no different than millions of other households.

jiggyfly
Dec 22nd 2007, 01:36 AM
Sorry, but you didn't really make the point you thought you made, and what you think is equal both ways really isn't when scrutinized with scripture; and therefore can't be the fact you want it to be.

Let me explain it another way.

#1 Fact: Scripture does give account of households being baptized.
.
#2 Fact: There are no examples in the bible, that specifically name each member and age of a household that is baptized.
.
#3 Fact: There are Zero examples in scripture showing 'infants' being baptized.
.
#4 Fact: There are Many examples in scripture showing 'adults' being baptized.So the only point we can accurately make, and the only fact we can accurately present from the scriptures, is that 'adults' are confirmed to have been baptized' and children are never mention being baptized in the scriptures.

We could assume that households being baptized includes infants, puppies, kittens, goldfish, long-eared rabbits, and parakeets......however Scripture only tells us that adult humans are baptized....and adults who have repented, and knowingly and understandingly are seeking the Lord by faith....something unaware babies and goldfish are unable to do.
I have baptized a few puppies and goldfish need to stay baptized in order to survive but kittens don't like it at all.

So are you saying that children or teenagers can't be baptized?

jeffreys
Dec 22nd 2007, 04:37 PM
Sorry, but you didn't really make the point you thought you made, and what you think is equal both ways really isn't when scrutinized with scripture; and therefore can't be the fact you want it to be.

Let me explain it another way.
#1 Fact: Scripture does give account of households being baptized.
.
#2 Fact: There are no examples in the bible, that specifically name each member and age of a household that is baptized.
.
#3 Fact: There are Zero examples in scripture showing 'infants' being baptized.
.
#4 Fact: There are Many examples in scripture showing 'adults' being baptized.So the only point we can accurately make, and the only fact we can accurately present from the scriptures, is that 'adults' are confirmed to have been baptized' and children are never mention being baptized in the scriptures.

We could assume that households being baptized includes infants, puppies, kittens, goldfish, long-eared rabbits, and parakeets......however Scripture only tells us that adult humans are baptized....and adults who have repented, and knowingly and understandingly are seeking the Lord by faith....something unaware babies and goldfish are unable to do.

Thank you for confirming what I've been trying to say.

We can assume all kinds of things about baptism, but - as you pointed out in facts #3 & #4 - there are only recorded instances of adults being baptized.

Is it possible that there were infants baptized (or even sprinkled, though the Greek word for that mode of "baptism" would be entirely different) in New Testament times? Yes, it is possible. However, said infants would have been unable to believe, to have faith and to repent of their sins - all things that people coming to Christ are called to do.

Teke
Dec 27th 2007, 02:53 PM
......however Scripture only tells us that adult humans are baptized....and adults who have repented, and knowingly and understandingly are seeking the Lord by faith....something unaware babies and goldfish are unable to do.


This discounts a great amount of scripture [only] on how children and animals are and can be partakers with God in salvation. Ninevah is an example which comes to mind.....

Studyin'2Show
Dec 27th 2007, 06:22 PM
This discounts a great amount of scripture [only] on how children and animals are and can be partakers with God in salvation. Ninevah is an example which comes to mind.....Absolutely, children can be partakers with God and as I posted earlier, it seems there are animals in glory. However, it seems that children and animals get there due to their innocence, not because they were baptized. I don't believe anyone who has said that infant baptism is not supported scripturally, is thus saying that infants don't go to heaven! :o

Teke
Dec 27th 2007, 08:12 PM
So there is only a difference with God on baptism.....:hmm:
IMHO either we are all equal or not.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 27th 2007, 08:46 PM
So there is only a difference with God on baptism.....:hmm:
IMHO either we are all equal or not.Baptism is not a ticket to heaven, it goes much deeper than that. My son was baptized at age seven and he absolutely understood salvation. I've heard of children as young as four understanding salvation and seeking repentance. That's my only point. There needs to be repentance at some point. I have no problem with those who ritually baptize their infants and children, as long as they encourage them to seek repentance when they mature enough to understand it. It's not like because you were baptized as an infant it means that repentance from sin has no value. Do Eastern Orthodox encourage repentance?

Kat2911
Dec 27th 2007, 08:50 PM
about baptism...

...but kittens don't like it at all.
:rofl::rofl:

punk
Dec 27th 2007, 09:00 PM
One issue that I don't believe has come up:

To those who don't believe in infant baptism:

Is there any harm in it?

I mean if it just does nothing then there is really no harm in dipping someone in some water. And if so, no reason not to ignore it.

If there is harm, what do you suppose that harm to be?

Kat2911
Dec 27th 2007, 09:01 PM
One issue that I don't believe has come up:

To those who don't believe in infant baptism:

Is there any harm in it?

I mean if it just does nothing then there is really no harm in dipping someone in some water. And if so, no reason not to ignore it.

If there is harm, what do you suppose that harm to be?
The first thing that came to my mind after reading this is that some people interpret their sprinkling as a baby as their "way into heaven."

Studyin'2Show
Dec 27th 2007, 09:14 PM
One issue that I don't believe has come up:

To those who don't believe in infant baptism:

Is there any harm in it?

I mean if it just does nothing then there is really no harm in dipping someone in some water. And if so, no reason not to ignore it.

If there is harm, what do you suppose that harm to be?Every once in a while we agree! :lol: But seriously, I see no trouble in ritually sprinkling an infant as a way of symbolically dedicating them to God. My question is simply if that means they will never be taught of repentance. John the Baptist preached the baptism of repentance. Baptism for an infant can not be of repentance because they have no understanding. What is your view on that?

Teke
Dec 27th 2007, 09:35 PM
Baptism is not a ticket to heaven, it goes much deeper than that. My son was baptized at age seven and he absolutely understood salvation. I've heard of children as young as four understanding salvation and seeking repentance. That's my only point. There needs to be repentance at some point. I have no problem with those who ritually baptize their infants and children, as long as they encourage them to seek repentance when they mature enough to understand it. It's not like because you were baptized as an infant it means that repentance from sin has no value. Do Eastern Orthodox encourage repentance?

All Christian faiths encourage repentance from sin.
But not all Christian faiths have an absolute understanding of salvation. Nor does scripture say one must have such an understanding to be baptized. The disciples didn't even possess such understanding.

Whether one is a babe or adult and baptized, they will stumble (sin) sooner or later, but God's forgiveness is always available.

In weakness He perfects us (when we are completely dependent on Him), not in our strength (such as knowledge, or anything we can do ourselves).

Studyin'2Show
Dec 27th 2007, 09:50 PM
I never mentioned 'absolute' understanding; merely understanding. Who of us has 'absolute' understanding of anything really. So, do you believe baptism is the means of being 'born again'?

David Taylor
Dec 27th 2007, 09:54 PM
To those who don't believe in infant baptism:

Is there any harm in it?




I would think that the act itself, no different than a baby-dedication, is harmless, and is an act that's intent is to honor God.

The harm, I could see in it, could only come later; when either:

The parents or teachers that have influence on the child's understanding teach it to believe since it was baptized as a baby, that it shouldn't be baptized as an adult (since it was baptized as an infant)
or the later grown-up infant itself thinks it shouldn't be baptized again, since it had already been baptized as an infantBaptism, is an outward display of an inner change of an individual who has turned to repent and follow Jesus as a believer in Him and His salvation for their sins.

Baptism itself, does nothing, but it follows as a outward profession of faith to all who will witness, of the change that has occurred in a person; when 2 Corinthians 5:17 is manifested in their lives: "if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; all things are passed away, behold all things become new". The baptism symbolizes in that person the understanding and awareness of the 'death of the old man' and the manifestation of 'the new man' in Christ, by belief, faith, and obedience....non of which an infant can participate in.

Teke
Dec 27th 2007, 09:58 PM
I never mentioned 'absolute' understanding; merely understanding. Who of us has 'absolute' understanding of anything really. So, do you believe baptism is the means of being 'born again'?

I believe baptism is a mystery of God. I don't believe men should make rules or rulings on that which pertains to God.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 27th 2007, 10:13 PM
I believe baptism is a mystery of God. I don't believe men should make rules or rulings on that which pertains to God.So, for you what does Yeshua's statement that one must be 'born again' mean?

Teke
Dec 27th 2007, 10:37 PM
So, for you what does Yeshua's statement that one must be 'born again' mean?

It means what He said it means. "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

He didn't say it means you have to be baptized.

Teke
Dec 27th 2007, 10:39 PM
I would think that the act itself, no different than a baby-dedication, is harmless, and is an act that's intent is to honor God.

The harm, I could see in it, could only come later; when either:

The parents or teachers that have influence on the child's understanding teach it to believe since it was baptized as a baby, that it shouldn't be baptized as an adult (since it was baptized as an infant)
or the later grown-up infant itself thinks it shouldn't be baptized again, since it had already been baptized as an infantBaptism, is an outward display of an inner change of an individual who has turned to repent and follow Jesus as a believer in Him and His salvation for their sins.

Baptism itself, does nothing, but it follows as a outward profession of faith to all who will witness, of the change that has occurred in a person; when 2 Corinthians 5:17 is manifested in their lives: "if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; all things are passed away, behold all things become new". The baptism symbolizes in that person the understanding and awareness of the 'death of the old man' and the manifestation of 'the new man' in Christ, by belief, faith, and obedience....non of which an infant can participate in.

Does this mean you understand baptism to be a sign?

David Taylor
Dec 27th 2007, 10:43 PM
Does this mean you understand baptism to be a sign?

Baptism is an outward public confession of an inward private change.

I wouldn't say it is a sign, but rather a public testimony.

It plays no direct part in salvation; but is something that believers do that shows their alignment with Christ as their Lord and Saviour.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 28th 2007, 12:51 AM
It means what He said it means. "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

He didn't say it means you have to be baptized.I was actually asking what your perspective of the term 'born again' is. I know that for me I feel I was born again when I recognized my own sin and my need for repentance, so I accepted Yeshua as my Lord and Savior. Do you feel that an adult who was baptized as a baby must come to the point where they have that type of experience and are 'born again'? Or does it have a different meaning for you?

Teke
Dec 28th 2007, 02:18 PM
Baptism is an outward public confession of an inward private change.

I wouldn't say it is a sign, but rather a public testimony.

It plays no direct part in salvation; but is something that believers do that shows their alignment with Christ as their Lord and Saviour.

I agree this is the experience of some with baptism, but not everyone. Adults who were not previously baptized believers do have the revelation or born again experience which can also lead them onto baptism.

I also believe that babes who are born into Christian families can and should be baptized into the body of Christ. They've already naturally been born into Christ by their parents. Surely Christian parents have faith that God will lead their child in Christ with their help.

As we say at baptisms, "as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

Teke
Dec 28th 2007, 02:30 PM
I was actually asking what your perspective of the term 'born again' is. I know that for me I feel I was born again when I recognized my own sin and my need for repentance, so I accepted Yeshua as my Lord and Savior. Do you feel that an adult who was baptized as a baby must come to the point where they have that type of experience and are 'born again'? Or does it have a different meaning for you?

I've always recognized sin and the need for repentance along with believing in God. So for me, it is like Jesus said, you cannot "see the kingdom" without God revealing it to you thru Christ.

David Taylor
Dec 28th 2007, 02:46 PM
I also believe that babes who are born into Christian families can and should be baptized into the body of Christ. They've already naturally been born into Christ by their parents. Surely Christian parents have faith that God will lead their child in Christ with their help.



So are you saying that if a baby is born in a Christian family, that it is "born again" not on its own repentance, but can reply on its parent's alone to lead the child to Christ?

Seems like you are taking the responsibility to repent and follow Christ away from the individual(baby), and placing it on others(parents).

Inclusion into 'the Body of Christ' isn't something someone does for any of us 'by proxy'. It is something we individually, ourselves must decide as the Holy Spirit leads us.

Teke
Dec 28th 2007, 03:44 PM
So are you saying that if a baby is born in a Christian family, that it is "born again" not on its own repentance, but can reply on its parent's alone to lead the child to Christ?

Seems like you are taking the responsibility to repent and follow Christ away from the individual(baby), and placing it on others(parents).

As I replied to Studyin, I do not see "born again" as repentance. I do realize that each denomination has their own guidelines on who they will baptize. Some say as you, by repentance, while others baptize to add to the body of Christ.


Inclusion into 'the Body of Christ' isn't something someone does for any of us 'by proxy'. It is something we individually, ourselves must decide as the Holy Spirit leads us.

It is my understanding that God joins those who are joined to Christ. So would God give a child to a Christian expecting that child to not be a Christian.

David Taylor
Dec 28th 2007, 04:13 PM
It is my understanding that God joins those who are joined to Christ. So would God give a child to a Christian expecting that child to not be a Christian.

Wicked God-rejecting children have born born to Christian parents throughout history.

It is the child/individual's relationship with God or lack thereof, that determines if it is a Christian, not the status of its parents.

Noone can be born-again based oh the status of someone else (parents).

Teke
Dec 28th 2007, 04:40 PM
Wicked God-rejecting children have born born to Christian parents throughout history.

Children can be rebellious, but that doesn't make them "God rejecting" <not sure what that means anyhow>, it just makes them like the prodigal.


It is the child/individual's relationship with God or lack thereof, that determines if it is a Christian, not the status of its parents.

But that "relationship" is measured by God not parents or religion. Scriptures noted that even before birth God knows us, meaning the direction of the relationship.


Noone can be born-again based oh the status of someone else (parents).

I agree, since "born again" is to "see" the kingdom of God thru Christ.
However, one can be raised to believe in God, and by such faith God is able to reveal His kingdom in Christ to them when they are ready to receive it.
Everyone cannot bear the same things, some are weaker and some are stronger. But God knows when one is able.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 28th 2007, 04:49 PM
It is my understanding that God joins those who are joined to Christ. So would God give a child to a Christian expecting that child to not be a Christian.It seems the Jews were under the impression that it was about being born into the family as well. :hmm: I believe that's why Yeshua said we must be born AGAIN, because it's NOT about what family we were born in but about being spiritually born again.

punk
Dec 28th 2007, 07:22 PM
Every once in a while we agree! :lol: But seriously, I see no trouble in ritually sprinkling an infant as a way of symbolically dedicating them to God. My question is simply if that means they will never be taught of repentance. John the Baptist preached the baptism of repentance. Baptism for an infant can not be of repentance because they have no understanding. What is your view on that?

I happen to be of the opinion that repentance is a life-long process and not a single event. So the church ought always to be teaching repentance and we should always be looking to repent better (for lack of a better phrase).

So, in some sense, baptism simply marks the beginning of a lifetime of repentance, and that could apply equally well to infants and adults.

Of course an infant hasn't actually committed itself to such a life, whereas an adult presumably has (maybe), so in that sense infant baptism doesn't mean much.

But baptism has always been something of a symbol of membership in a community and commitment to that community's standards. Infant baptism is an opportunity for happy parents to show off their baby to the community and make that baby a member of the community in formal and ritualistic manner. In some days (when infant mortality was higher) it provided parents with some solace that they did what they could to protect the infant they had.

I mean if there was a reasonably good chance your baby would die, there would some comfort in being able to say you did all you could to protect it in the short time it was with you, even if that only amounted to sprinkling some water on it.