2 Questions on the Early Church and Scripture

[PLeeD]

Thank you for you gnetle reply. I’m sure that we do agree on baptism, at least in the essentials.

I agree to what the CC considers a valid baptism. My baptism fits that teaching. I also think it’s the right thing to do.

But, I won’t criticize someone who doesn’t think it’s necessary. I’ll argue and debate, but won’t assume they are unsaved because of their stance on baptism. In other words, I don’t find myself worthy to judge the servant of another.

So, while the council’s decsion may not have specifically forbade the Hebrews from continuing the pious practice of circumcision, the council’s decision DID, just as specifically remove circumcision from the level of “requirement”.

Point taken. But it does still teach that differences in the practice of other Christians should be tolerated.

Would you agree that teaching a false Gospel is a sin? If it is a sin, is it not agianst the “Entire Body” of Christ, and therefore, is it not a sin against you as a part of that body?

I suppose we differ on what we think the Gospel is. I think the Gospel is the “Good News”, that God sent Jesus to live a sinless life, and die on the cross, and to rise again to redeem us from our sins. Once someone has confessed and believed that, I can tolerate differences in the practice of the ensuing faith.

I think teaching a false Gospel is a sin, e.g. teaching that Jesus is not divine, or that he wasn’t resurrected. Is it a sin against me personally? No, I don’t think so. It doesn’t affect me and my faith one way or the other. I’ll leave it up to God to sort it out.

But again, I’m not sure disputes over baptism rise to the level of a false Gospel. And I don’t see doctrine, defined as specific implementations of scripture, as equal to the Gospel.

Where matters of disagreement are difficult and obstinate, then Christ tells us to “Tell it to The Church”.

I’m not sure I buy that. If that’s the case, then there is no room for Romans 14, and we might as well as discard the chapter.

I wouldn’t go to Mt 18 to buttress the argument for an infallible final authority. I truly believe that Mt 18 is talking about disputes between individuals. The sin might be theft, or lying about a person, in which case we should follow the instructions. We should consult them personally, then get other believers to help, and take it to the church as a last resort. I see it as more a model for resolution of disputes between individuals in a “court of law” style, rather than an argument for a “one-size-fits-all” religion.

My reply is already quite lengthy, so I’ll end with this.

We do this to preserve the unity for which Christ prayed:
John 17:20-21
"I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Boiling down the quote from John 17:

that they may all be one; …so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

I see this as the “capital G” Gospel. We should be unified in belief that God sent Jesus. The “small g” gospel books are there to instruct us in who Jesus is, and of God’s love for us. Beyond that, there should be some “freedom in Christ”.

Otherwise, as I said, we should throw out Romans 14. There Paul describes differences in opinion over keeping the Sabbath as acceptable. Keeping the Sabbath is one of the ten commandments. If we are instructed to accept differences regarding the Sabbath, then why is difference in belief over baptism of a higher order?

 

[PLeeD]

This goes on and on.

Have the original questions been forgotten?

It seems we are still talking about question # 2, and how a Christian should respond.

And further, in regard to the original post, whether it’s acceptable to consider the protestant lady to be “swine”.

 

[JRKH]

I agree to what the CC considers a valid baptism. My baptism fits that teaching. I also think it’s the right thing to do.

But, I won’t criticize someone who doesn’t think it’s necessary. I’ll argue and debate, but won’t assume they are unsaved because of their stance on baptism. In other words, I don’t find myself worthy to judge the servant of another.

Neither do I feel confident to Judge, but neither do I feel confident in saying, or accepting, that the Scriptures say that Baptism both is, and is not necessary. In other words agreeing to disagree.

Point taken. But it does still teach that differences in the practice of other Christians should be tolerated.

To a point yes, and perhaps the “Baptism debate doesn’t rise to the same level as say the “real presence” issue.
I believe it was St Augustine who said something to the effect of, " in essentials unity, in non-essentials diversity”. Then the question becomes, what are essentials?

I suppose we differ on what we think the Gospel is. I think the Gospel is the “Good News”, that God sent Jesus to live a sinless life, and die on the cross, and to rise again to redeem us from our sins. Once someone has confessed and believed that, I can tolerate differences in the practice of the ensuing faith.

I don’t think we disagree on what the Gospel is. Perhaps we disagree on the various applications. For instance, we both agree that we must have faith in Christ, repent and be baptized. But is that it?? Is it a done deal?? Just what does Faith mean?? What does repenacne entail?? and so on…
It’s easy for all Christians to say - I have faith…It’s easy for all Christians to say "I believe the Bible… and so forth, but when we start looking at the applications and the essential beliefs, that’s where we begin to diverge.
And it is in determining essentials as well as non-essentials that we need the Church/Ekklesia/Community.

I’m not sure I buy that. If that’s the case, then there is no room for Romans 14, and we might as well as discard the chapter.

Again I would refer to the quote above from St Augustine. Some things need to be professed universally (Doctrines and Dogmas) while other things can be expressed in different ways (Practice).

I think teaching a false Gospel is a sin, e.g. teaching that Jesus is not divine, or that he wasn’t resurrected. Is it a sin against me personally? No, I don’t think so. It doesn’t affect me and my faith one way or the other. I’ll leave it up to God to sort it out.
I wouldn’t go to Mt 18 to buttress the argument for an infallible final authority. I truly believe that Mt 18 is talking about disputes between individuals. The sin might be theft, or lying about a person, in which case we should follow the instructions. We should consult them personally, then get other believers to help, and take it to the church as a last resort. I see it as more a model for resolution of disputes between individuals in a “court of law” style, rather than an argument for a “one-size-fits-all” religion.

First of all, let me make note here that I am not trying to use Mt 18 to say that the RC model is the only one. Only that Christ told us to take obstinate disputes to The church for resolution.
I think it is a mistake to try to restrict the meaning there only to stealing or lying. Teaching a false doctrine or something heretical is just as sinful - and even more sinful than these personal sins. What did Jesus say about those who teach falsely…It is better for them to have a millstone tied about their neck and cast into the sea…
So - If your brother believes falsely and is teaching falsely is it not your Christian duty to point out his error, even involving the whole Church if necessary?

(Cont)

 

[JRKH]

(Cont)

My reply is already quite lengthy, so I’ll end with this.
Boiling down the quote from John 17:
that they may all be one; …so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
I see this as the “capital G” Gospel. We should be unified in belief that God sent Jesus. The “small g” gospel books are there to instruct us in who Jesus is, and of God’s love for us. Beyond that, there should be some “freedom in Christ”.

Yet look at the early years of Christianity. Before the bible was compiled. Heresies had already sprung up from the Gnostics to the Arians and more, large and small. It was not “Freedoms in Christ” that prevented the Truth of the Gospel from being lost in the confusion. It was the authority of the Christ established Church working through her bishops in council that fought and defeated these heresies, developed the creeds, and even assembled the Bible NT that you hold today.

Otherwise, as I said, we should throw out Romans 14. There Paul describes differences in opinion over keeping the Sabbath as acceptable. Keeping the Sabbath is one of the ten commandments. If we are instructed to accept differences regarding the Sabbath, then why is difference in belief over baptism of a higher order?

I personally won’t take a position on whether the sabbath issue is of higher importance than the baptism issue. I don’t need to since The Church long ago established teachings on these matters so that we, as individuals do not have to constantly argue them out.
But this does not necessitate tossing out Romans 14 either. As an example.
In the RCC there are two forms of mass the Ordinary form and the Extraordinary form. The OF is the more common form, while the EF, or the older Latin Mass is used less often. There are Catholics who hold strongly to one or the other - even arguing over which is better. Yet within those two masses is the same “Real Presence” of Our Lord on the Altar in the Eucharist. The form varies, but the essential truth of the real presence is not debatable. One is dogmatic belief and the other is practice.
So you see there is room for both Romans 14 AND Mt 18 within the RCC Church.

Peace
James

 

[PJM]

=PRmerger;6975069]Sufficient? I see not a single word that looks like “sufficient” or any of the other synonyms you listed in that verse.

At any rate, even if we did believe that this verse says “sufficient”, does that mean that the books of Titus, Peter, Timothy are not sufficient, as they weren’t even written at the time this passage was written?

My dear friend in Christ;

**2 Tim. 3:16-17 **“All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

John.20: [31] but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.

2 Pet.1: [20] First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,

**2 Pet.3:[16] **speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

Your are RIGHT in understanding that Scripture Alone is NOT suficient by itself for ones salvation. Sacred Tradition and Good works also have there role in the process.**

 

[Mathetes2010]

1. I don’t know how to respond to her belief that Jesus’s disciples all believed in “faith alone”, then the Church Fathers perverted the doctrine right after they died, then for 1500 years til Martin Luther, the Church got salvation completely wrong. That idea’s so absurd, I don’t know how to respond. Any thoughts?

You must first challenge the premise that they are proposing. You cannot accept the first premise = the disciplies all believed in “faith alone.” Not Paul, not Peter, not any of the disciples taught “faith alone.” She must first establish this before she can make the claim that the CFs perveted the doctrine. Only James uses the phrase “faith alone” in all of Scripture and there he says that we are not justified by faith alone (James 2:24). Based on this Biblical data, the disciples taught we are not saved by “faith alone.” Anyone that teaches to the contrary, is perverting the teaching of Scripture. This perversion flourished beginning in the 16th Century.

1. She also wrote that because Paul never wrote about Baptism as saving people, it didn’t. How do I respond?

First off, Paul taught that baptism justifies the believer when he said, “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11; see also Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12). Secondly, where does the Bible state that we are only to believe something if Paul wrote it? You will not find the virgin birth anywhere in Paul’s writings so should we not believe in it? As you can see, her argument is completely flawed. Third, Peter explicitly states that, “Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience–through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:21). Fourth, and more importantly, Jesus revealed that baptism saves when he said, “Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born of water, and the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the reign of God” (John 3:5).

 

[PLeeD]

Fourth, and more importantly, Jesus revealed that baptism saves when he said, “Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born of water, and the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the reign of God” (John 3:5).

Something occurred to me. What chance is there that Jesus was talking about the living water?

 

[PRmerger]

Something occurred to me. What chance is there that Jesus was talking about the living water?

Indeed, that is what the Catholic Church teaches!

From the Didache:

“After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in** living** [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days” (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

And from Hippolytus:

Hippolytus

“[P]erhaps someone will ask, ‘What does it conduce unto piety to be baptized?’ In the first place, that you may do what has seemed good to God; in the next place, being born again by water unto God so that you change your first birth, which was from concupiscence, and are able to attain salvation, which would otherwise be impossible. For thus the [prophet] has sworn to us: ‘Amen, I say to you, unless you are born again with** living **water, into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ Therefore, fly to the water, for this alone can extinguish the fire. He who will not come to the water still carries around with him the spirit of insanity for the sake of which he will not come to the living water for his own salvation” (Homilies 11:26 [A.D. 217]).
source

 

[PLeeD]

I don’t mean running water, or even H2O, but the living water from John 4:13-14:

Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t mean running water, or even H2O, but the living water from John 4:13-14:

Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

Well, yes, Jesus is the Living Water of Baptism.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t mean running water, or even H2O, but the living water from John 4:13-14:

Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

From our Catechism:

694 Water. The symbolism of water signifies the Holy Spirit’s action in Baptism, since after the invocation of the Holy Spirit it becomes the efficacious sacramental sign of new birth: just as the gestation of our first birth took place in water, so the water of Baptism truly signifies that our birth into the divine life is given to us in the Holy Spirit. As “by one Spirit we were all baptized,” so we are also “made to drink of one Spirit.” (1 Cor 12:13.) Thus the Spirit is also personally the **living water **welling up from Christ crucified (Jn 19:34; 1 Jn 5:8.) as its source and welling up in us to eternal life. ( Jn 4:10-14; 738; Ex 17:1-6; Isa 55:1; Zech 14:8; 1 Cor 10:4; Rev 21:6; 22:17.)

 

[PRmerger]

Mt 18 (I assume you are talking about verses 15-20) starts with “If your brother sins against you”. It doesn’t say “If your brother teaches doctrine that you disagree with”.

I would say that teaching someone heresy and proclaiming it as truth is a great sin indeed!

 

[PJM]

=PLeeD;6978103]Something occurred to me. What chance is there that Jesus was talking about the living water?

It is Christ who is the living water: John 4:14

Christ is the Vine John 15:2

Christ is the Bread of Life ohn 6: 35

Christ is the Way, The TRUTH, and The Life: John 14:6

Christ is our Reedemer: Gal. 3:13

Christ is the means of our POSSIBLE Salvation: Acts 13: 47, Rom. 13: 11, 2 Cor. 7:10, and Phil. 2:12

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[Mathetes2010]

Something occurred to me. What chance is there that Jesus was talking about the living water?

No doubt there is a play on words. Recall that the sacrament is a sign or symbol of the effect on the soul. Hence the outpouring of water on the body is a physical symbol of the inward effect on the soul (outpouring of the Spirit). We know that Jesus meant physical water in this passage because immediately after his conversation with Nicodemus we are informed that they were baptizing people with water (see John 3:22, 23).

 

[Pat_De]

Then why did St. Peter say that “baptism now saves you”?

Now, clearly, it is not the “water” that saves–for all that is is H20. So why would St. Peter say that baptism saves us if it’s not for our salvation?

You make that passage mean what you chose to make it mean and NOT what God has said it means as Peter clearly states. ***“NOT the removal of dirt from the flesh”, ***which is Peter telling a true believer that it is not speaking of Christian water baptism.

In fact in that passage the water represents JUDGMENT!!

 

[Pat_De]

Why doesn’t it. you admit above that teaching fals doctrine is a “real bad thing” (aka sin) but then you say that Christ’s own instructions which are contained in Scripture don’t apply???
Remarkable

All fine and good that you believe you are correct. Others here who have been talking with you also believe they are correct and have been using Scripture to support their position.
Thus it can be said that, while Truth may be established in Scripture, Proper ununderstanding of Scripture may not be so self evident. Hense Christ’s clear instructions on how to handle such situations.

And so - how can their general profession be of any salvic merit when they immediately engage in a, “direct act of disobedience…because it is a direct command throughout the NT”, against God? In this one statement you’ve made the for the salvic necessity of water baptism.
Thank you very much.

Actually - Yes it is a simple concept and a very simple set of instructions.
Too bad that you don’t properly understand it.
I can virtually guarantee that if I gave a bible to someone who never read the bible before, never attended Church before, that they would not get your understanding from that passage.

Ponder this:
If we take away your obvious fear of anything heirarchial or “authoritative” (such as the RC Structure) and look at the term “Church” only in the sense of “community” (ecclesia) the third step in Christ’s instruction reads as follows:
""If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the community; and if he refuses to listen even to the community let him be as a tax collector.
The following verse then carries on this theme
Truly I say to you (the community), whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

So from the above we can see that where their ar contentious issues between individual members it is the “community” that makes the determination as to what shall be “bound or loosed”. Naturally this determination is made (or should be made) humbly, prayerfully and charitably, under the Guidance of the Holy Spirit.

So far we have been looking and thinking in terms of a “local community”. Now we need to take this to the next level. What happens when one local community makes one determination and another local community makes a different and essentially opposing or incompatable determination? After all this is what happened betweent he local communities of Antioch and Jerusalem, or more generally between the Gentile Christians and the Jewish Christians.
This is where Acts 15 comes in. The two local communites could not settle the matter between themselves, nor could they settle it with the help of the great teacher they had in St Paul. But - rather than each treating the others as “tax collectors”, they appealed to the “elders of the community”, in council for a determination.
Why did they do this? Very simple - to maintain the Unity for which Christ prayed in John 17:20-21. For just as any individual is a member of the local community (church) so is each local community (church) a member of the universal community (church) and Unity of the universal community demands unity on what is “bound and loosed”.

So - your contention that “binding and loosing” is somehow “individual” just does not fly.
surely you are correct in saying that if someone refuses to hear the Gospel that we can say tehy remain “bound in their sin” but all we are doing their is expressing through ourselves what is the belief of the universal Church (community), and not something that we have determined individually and seperate from the community.

Peace
James

James i am praying for you!! Nothing more needs to be said.

 

[Pat_De]

It does? It says Scripture is “sufficient”? Where?

Indeed.

Did you know that there were over hundreds of different manuscripts/texts that were “in circulation” that spoke about the life of Christ and the early Christians? It wasn’t until the Catholic Church, in the 4th century, codified this book and told you that the Gospel of Thomas was not inspired and that the Gospel of Mark was.

See this list of the many early “Christian” writings that were considered:

30-60 Passion Narrative
40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q
50-60 1 Thessalonians
50-60 Philippians
50-60 Galatians
50-60 1 Corinthians
50-60 2 Corinthians
50-60 Romans
50-60 Philemon
50-80 Colossians
50-90 Signs Gospel
50-95 Book of Hebrews
50-120 Didache
50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-100 Epistle of James
70-120 Egerton Gospel
70-160 Gospel of Peter
70-160 Secret Mark
70-200 Fayyum Fragment
70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
73-200 Mara Bar Serapion
80-100 2 Thessalonians
80-100 Ephesians
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-110 1 Peter
80-120 Epistle of Barnabas
80-130 Gospel of Luke
80-130 Acts of the Apostles
80-140 1 Clement
80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians
80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews
80-250 Christian Sibyllines
90-95 Apocalypse of John
90-120 Gospel of John
90-120 1 John
source

If you ever got serious about reading and studying the Scripture you would not need to ask these questions in my opinion. I’ll start a thread in the near future on the attributes of Scripture.

 

[Pat_De]

Goodbye and good luck on your paths to God and His Kingdom.

 

[PRmerger]

You make that passage mean what you chose to make it mean and NOT what God has said it means as Peter clearly states. ***“NOT the removal of dirt from the flesh”, ***which is Peter telling a true believer that it is not speaking of Christian water baptism.

Pat, you are quite mistaken if you believe that we teach that Baptism removes dirt from the flesh. Baptism, as Scripture says, is not the removal of dirt from the flesh. But it does indeed save you, as St. Peter said.

I hope your church does indeed teach that baptism saves, otherwise it is teaching a non-biblical doctrine.

In fact in that passage the water represents JUDGMENT!!

That’s your fallible, non-authoritative interpretation. But other Christians, also claiming to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, have not made that interpretation.

In fact, in your paradigm of private interpretation, you cannot tell anyone what the passage represents. It’s up to the individual, right?

 

[PRmerger]

If you ever got serious about reading and studying the Scripture you would not need to ask these questions in my opinion. I’ll start a thread in the near future on the attributes of Scripture.

Scripture is only that which the Catholic Church declared to be Scripture.

It is because of the CC that you know that Hebrews is inspired but the Didache is not.

To say, “I know what’s Scripture because it’s inspired” is begging the question.