Brick Walls and Picket Fences

[Duane1966]

I’ve read all three. Plus a bunch of other church fathers.

I find the Didache to be a very Baptist document. The Dicache shows the early church practiced believers baptism, appointed their own bishops and deacons, met on Sundays and was suspicious of those who claimed to be prophets.

It also calls the Eucharist a sacrifice. How Baptist is that? As for believers baptism, many scholars view the Didache as formation for adult converts, which is why there is no mention of infant baptism. Not only that, but from the martyrdom of Polycarp, we know He was baptized by the Apostle John, as an infant.

The First Apology also indicates believers baptism and describes how the second century church met. There is not much there that 21 century protestants wouldn’t accept. We wouldn’t say it is prescriptive (it has to be that way) but is descriptive (is how that particular church did things).

You have a problem here. Justin makes clear that those who have been baptized are illuminated. And in his first apology he talks of those who were illuminated since childhood (some translations say illuminated as infants).

Ignatius was obviously reacting to something that had happened in his church. Somebody somehow did something to disrespect bishops. To guess what it is would be speculation and you can’t form truth from speculation. However, we get the message loud and clear. Follow the teachings of the bishops and don’t do anything without the knowledge of the bishops. Again, that is not exactly something most protestants would have a problem with. Of course, we call our bishops elders or pastors but the role is the same.

Does your pastor have the authority to bind and loose you? Do you confess your sins to your pastor?

I find Apostolic Succession to be problematic because so many of those who became bishops were probably not even members of the body of Christ.

What objective way do you have of determining who is a member of the body of Christ? Jesus makes it clear that there will be many who think they are members of His body that He will say He never knew them.

They may have been good Roman Catholics in following the rules of the church, but evidence says that did not have a faith that “makes all things new” and they didn’t seek “to know Christ and the Power of His resurrection”.

If they are good Roman Catholics, then they are saints. By following the rules of the Catholic Church, one can be guaranteed to have a faith that makes all things new, and a guarantee that you will know Christ intimately and the power of His resurrection. Can you give us some examples of people who are good Roman Catholics, but the evidence shows otherwise?

can the power of the apostles pass to those who don’t have faith in Christ and how can they then pass it on to someone else?

Can you give me an example of someone who was made a bishop, that did not have faith in Christ? And if so, are you stating for the record, that said person is in Hell? Because if not, then you are not the person to determine who has faith.

 

[Duane1966]

One of the acknowledged problems is that some make Picket Fence doctrines Brick Wall doctrines and vice-versa.

Who has the authority to decide what is a picket fence doctrine, and what is a brick wall doctrine in Protestantism?

Is same sex marriage a picket fence or brick wall doctrine?

For instance, I know of no denomination that recognizes the LDS or JW churches as authentic Christianity. There may be some that do but they are few and far between. The Baptist, Methodist, Assembly of God and Reformed folks I’ve had contact with in my life all view both the LDS and JW as cults.

What is the principled reason given that they do not recognize LDS as Christians?

 

[Vonsalza]

So the Roman Catholic church is asking me to believe that apostolic succession has been passed down through non-Christians?

Not at all. The overwhelming majority of of the Church leadership throughout all time, including just before and during the reformation, were good and righteous men who were faithful to the sacrament of holy orders established in the dawning days of the Church.

It seems most of your understanding about Catholicism has come from teachers that were biased against it. That’s unfortunate.

Is it that the Baptist Church is asking me to believe in a denomination that didn’t exist in its current form before the early American 19th century and didn’t exist in any form prior to the 17th century despite claiming to represent a 1st century faith?

---

As the the OP, Duane1966 hit the nail on the head - "Who has the authority to decide what is a picket fence doctrine, and what is a brick wall doctrine in Protestantism? "

I know the answer. No one.

 

[exnihilo]

This sounds a lot like what the preacher at my husband’s church talked about one Sunday. He said we need to agree on the essentials and not argue about the non-essentials. Who determines what the essentials are? Once I know who has authority to determine the essentials that’s what I’ll do…oh wait, I already know, the magestrium of the Catholic Church.

This is why I am Catholic. I knew that Protestants clung to this essential and non-essential distinction. That makes sense. But what could never be answered is how we know what is essential and non-essential. The Bible certainly isn’t clear about that. It was obvious enough to me that there was no real workable method in Protestantism for telling me what I had to believe or what belief shouldn’t be required. At the end of the day Protestant essentials are just whatever the individual decides is essential. Groups of like minded individuals come together to form denominations.

One of the acknowledged problems is that some make Picket Fence doctrines Brick Wall doctrines and vice-versa. That is one of the issues the writer is trying address. However, if you look at the statement of faiths of the established denominations you will find much more in common than you will be to be different. It is also important to note that the various established denominations agree on who does and doesn’t teach authentic Christianity. For instance, I know of no denomination that recognizes the LDS or JW churches as authentic Christianity. There may be some that do but they are few and far between. The Baptist, Methodist, Assembly of God and Reformed folks I’ve had contact with in my life all view both the LDS and JW as cults. They also view each other as brothers and sisters as Christ despite differences of opinions on some topics.

You are right that established denominations do tend to hold to a core set of beliefs. But that is only because they are still clinging to a subset of core Catholic and Orthodox beliefs. Many of the ‘churches’ not considered authentic are just resurrecting heresies that were so judged centuries ago. The reasons they were heresies is because one could read these beliefs into Christianity. We needed an authority to say these beliefs are in fact wrong. The established denominations are just relying on the judgment of that authority, the Catholic Church. But really if all you have is the Bible to guide you then these heresies have life.

 

[exnihilo]

Yes, but baptist preachers don’t claim to have apostolic authority or be part of an infallible magisterium or have the ability to pass on that authority to the next preacher. It is one thing to be a sinful preacher, it is another to claim special authority descended directly from the apostles and be a bad Christian or worse yet, not even a Christian. I don’t think that some of the bishops in history and even some Popes were even Christians.

Baptist preachers do claim to have some kind of authority. A preacher doesn’t preface his sermons with, ‘for your consideration but I may be wrong’. I’m no expert but in my understanding Quakers and the Church of Christ may be actually approaching no authority in how they conceive themselves to be and work.

No, all popes and bishops were Christian. They were baptized. That is what makes you a Christian. Of course being a Christian doesn’t mean you always or even frequently live as a Christian. A bad pope is no less an authority than a bad father is. The difference being a pope is in very limited circumstances infallible because of a special grace from a God.

 

[lanman87]

It also calls the Eucharist a sacrifice.

I just read the Didache again and don’t see where it calls the Eucharist a sacrifice. Please point it out to me.

You have a problem here. Justin makes clear that those who have been baptized are illuminated. And in his first apology he talks of those who were illuminated since childhood (some translations say illuminated as infants).

I’ve seen children as young as 4 years old baptized. It is possible for young children to believe. Polycarp being baptized as an infant is speculation.

Does your pastor have the authority to bind and loose you? Do you confess your sins to your pastor?

I have, in the passed confessed sins to my pastor. However, my normal routine it to examine my heart each day and confess my sins directly to God.

The Pastor of any church has the responsibility to fight against sinful behavior. Even in protestant churches Christians are subject to church discipline. Even in my own church we have “excommunicated” someone when they wouldn’t repent of an adulterous relationship.

What objective way do you have of determining who is a member of the body of Christ? Jesus makes it clear that there will be many who think they are members of His body that He will say He never knew them.

If they are good Roman Catholics, then they are saints. By following the rules of the Catholic Church, one can be guaranteed to have a faith that makes all things new, and a guarantee that you will know Christ intimately and the power of His resurrection. Can you give us some examples of people who are good Roman Catholics, but the evidence shows otherwise?

Can you give me an example of someone who was made a bishop, that did not have faith in Christ? And if so, are you stating for the record, that said person is in Hell? Because if not, then you are not the person to determine who has faith.

I don’t have the power to determine who is going to heaven or hell. However, I do know the Bible says to watch out for wolves in sheep’s clothing and that false teachers will come from among you.

The evidence is the bishops and popes in the middle ages who engaged in everything from fornication to simony to bribery to extortion and some even say murder. Many of them were never removed from their positions because the held so much power in the church. I can’t say for sure that they were Christians or not, only God judges the heart, but their works show a lack of faith.

My point is that if Apostolic succession is an unbroken chain handed down from bishop to bishop then there are certainly holes in that chain.

By following the rules of the Catholic Church, one can be guaranteed to have a faith that makes all things new, and a guarantee that you will know Christ intimately and the power of His resurrection.

I totally disagree with this statement. Being a follower of Christ is about what happens inside a person and then what happens inside the person changes their attitudes and actions. A person can perform every act of piety and service and follow all the “rules” to a letter but still never have faith in Christ. And because they never had faith they are not Christians. This is true of anyone. Baptist, Methodist or Catholic… Being a Christian requires faith (belief, agreement, trust) in Christ. The church introduces us to Christ but we each must have a personal faith. Just being a Catholic or Baptist or Methodist…without an internalized faith just makes us religious.

 

[lanman87]

Baptist preachers do claim to have some kind of authority. A preacher doesn’t preface his sermons with, ‘for your consideration but I may be wrong’. I’m no expert but in my understanding Quakers and the Church of Christ may be actually approaching no authority in how they conceive themselves to be and work.

No, all popes and bishops were Christian. They were baptized. That is what makes you a Christian. Of course being a Christian doesn’t mean you always or even frequently live as a Christian. A bad pope is no less an authority than a bad father is. The difference being a pope is in very limited circumstances infallible because of a special grace from a God.

Actually, I’ve heard many Baptist preachers say “this is my opinion” when speaking about disputable or controversial doctrines.

Faith is what makes someone a Christian. Being baptized without faith is just getting wet.

 

[exnihilo]

Actually, I’ve heard many Baptist preachers say “this is my opinion” when speaking about disputable or controversial doctrines.

Faith is what makes someone a Christian. Being baptized without faith is just getting wet.

Who determined what is disputable or controversial? Everything is just his opinion. What makes his opinion better than another man’s? If everything is not his opinion then some things are articles of faith. By what authority has he so judged such articles?

No, baptism makes you a Christian like cirumcision made you a Jew. Yes, faith (and a very elementary or implicit one only) is an element necessary for Baptism, but once the sacrament is performed then you are a Christian. You could lose your faith but you’d still be a Christian.

 

[Vonsalza]

The evidence is the bishops and popes in the middle ages who engaged in everything from fornication to simony to bribery to extortion and some even say murder.

Can you get specific about these Bishops?

Interesting aside, last spring a Baptist Pastor in my hometown shot and killed someone outside of his pawnshop. Think it was a bad drug deal or something like that. Even made national news.

My point is this; all men are burdened by temptation; 16th century Catholic clergy, 21st century Baptist ministers. Ergo “He acted bad and he was a member of that group!” is not a sufficient reason to disparage the group. If you gaze in the same mirror, you see the same activities going on around you in your group.

As an ex-Baptist, trust me on this. Trust me.

My point is that if Apostolic succession is an unbroken chain handed down from bishop to bishop then there are certainly holes in that chain.

Seriously, where? I’d really like to know. As a Baptist-turned-Catholic, I saw none.

 

[Church_Militant]

I’ve seen children as young as 4 years old baptized. It is possible for young children to believe.

You have a scriptural problem here because we have Christ telling us to let the little children come to me and there is nowhere in the New Testament is there any kind of statement that there is any such “age of reason” for kids. Also we know that every child has a guardian angel “who stands in the presence of God”, so why should they not be baptized even as Jewish infants are circumcised as infants by command of God himself to enter into the covenant with Him. How then can one scripturally deny Christian baptism to infants under the new covenant in Christ?

Polycarp being baptized as an infant is speculation.

It is not speculation at all since it is recorded history (See The Case For Infant Baptism) in the Martyrdom of Polycarp

 

[susanlo]

Really? I spent a little more than a quarter century as a Baptist and could not disagree more. The Didache allows for baptism to be completed with methods other than full immersion.

The Didache allows for sprinkling if no other water is available. However the one being baptized must fast for 1-2 days. It seems unlikely that newborns were included in this.

There is also very little that a Catholic wouldn’t accept; as the text was written by one. For example, he was rather aware of what was being done at the Church in Rome in his 1st Apology. Like Rome was a almost a model or seat of authority…

Wasn’t Justin Martyr addressing his Apology to the Emperor in Rome? What did he say that was specific about the church in Rome? Rome was one of many large and influential early churches, but I don’t recall Justin Martyr mentioning it as the seat of authority.

Also martyred while on his way to Rome for Church business…

I thought Ignatius was arrested in Antioch and transported by soldiers to Rome where he was executed. I don’t recall that he was travelling when he was arrested. Rome was the capital of the empire and it was where the trials and executions took place.

If these guys weren’t Catholic, they sure had a lot of respect for the Roman Church. Ya kinda think the respect should have been shown more to the original Church in Jerusalem if all bishops were truly equals, right?
But of course they weren’t. The Petrine seat was in Rome.

Did Ignatius or Justin Martyr write that the Petrine seat was in Rome? What authority did their writings reveal that Rome had over the other churches?

 

[susanlo]

It also calls the Eucharist a sacrifice. How Baptist is that?

I don’t think that most Baptists or Protestants would object to considering the Eucharist as a sacrifice of praise or a thank offering. Although the term “sacrifice” is not frequently used, the concept of this type of sacrifice or offering is what is done in Eucharist or communion. The disagreement would be whether there is also a propitiatory sacrifice taking place.

As for believers baptism, many scholars view the Didache as formation for adult converts, which is why there is no mention of infant baptism. Not only that, but from the martyrdom of Polycarp, we know He was baptized by the Apostle John, as an infant.

What chapter mentions that John baptized Polycarp? All it says is that he served the Lord for 86 years. We don’t know his exact age, and it isn’t impossible for a young child to serve God with his family prior to his baptism.

You have a problem here. Justin makes clear that those who have been baptized are illuminated. And in his first apology he talks of those who were illuminated since childhood (some translations say illuminated as infants).

Justin Martyr says that those who are illuminated are baptized (washed). He doesn’t say that the baptism causes one to become illuminated.
“And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed.”
Chapter 61 newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

Where does he mention those who were illuminated since childhood? The entire Chapter 61 describes believer’s baptism. He contrasts being born without knowledge and choice as compared to “him who chooses to be born again.”

 

[lanman87]

You have a scriptural problem here because we have Christ telling us to let the little children come to me and there is nowhere in the New Testament is there any kind of statement that there is any such “age of reason” for kids. Also we know that every child has a guardian angel “who stands in the presence of God”, so why should they not be baptized even as Jewish infants are circumcised as infants by command of God himself to enter into the covenant with Him. How then can one scripturally deny Christian baptism to infants under the new covenant in Christ?
It is not speculation at all since it is recorded history (See The Case For Infant Baptism) in the Martyrdom of Polycarp

From what I can tell from reading church history. Infant baptism started to be practiced sometime at the end of the 2nd century. The first explicit mention of it is by Tertullian around 200 who, ironically, advises against it due to the erroneous believe that some sins couldn’t be forgiven after baptism. Hyppolytus is the first (I can find) to advise the baptizing of infants around 215. It seems to have been an accepted practice by 250 and most of the church fathers from that time forward supported infant baptism. This makes sense in that infant baptism solved the theological issue of what happens to infants when they die. The church leaders around 200 came to believe baptism as being a like circumcision under the old law. Something being taught by bishops in the year 250 does not make it apostolic. For it to be apostolic it has to be something taught by the apostles. To say infant baptism was taught by the apostles is a stretch as the only evidence offered is Polycarp.

The idea that Polycarp was baptized as an infant is speculation on “the 86 years he served faithfully”. It came to be believed that he was 86 years old at the time of his death but there is no documentation to back that up. It was just assumed that he was 86 at his death. He could have been 96 or 106. There is a claim by some that he was actually 104 at the time of his death and he was baptized at age 18. It could also just be that he was speaking generally such as how we may say “I’ve been a Christian all my life” when what I really mean is that I was taught to believe in Christ my entire life.

In most Protestant circles infant baptism is a “Picket Fence” doctrine. We may disagree about it but we also understand that both sides are genuine followers of Christ and while it can make some ugly (or fun) discussions, belief one way or anther doesn’t nullify their faith in Christ.

 

[Vonsalza]

The Didache allows for sprinkling if no other water is available. However the one being baptized must fast for 1-2 days. It seems unlikely that newborns were included in this.

Then my statement that this is incompatible with the full-immersion doctrine of the great majority of Baptists seems on point…

Lets not forget the additional difference between Baptists and Justin on the Eucharist:

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology.

Wasn’t Justin Martyr addressing his Apology to the Emperor in Rome? What did he say that was specific about the church in Rome?

In section 67 he was describing the Church he most regularly went to. You know, the Roman one. The standard setter. No surprise that upon his conversion he sought the chair of Peter; same as Paul did.

He may have been born in ancient Palestine, but after becoming a Christian, he left for the “capital” of the Church. Again, similar to Paul.

Neither did much work west of Rome; as such, it was rather out-of-the-way for administering to their dominant mission fields in Asia Minor. They picked it because that’s where the Chair was.

God knows they weren’t particularly welcomed there… Ephesus would have been a much better choice for the sake of logistics and relative safety. But Peter didn’t pick Ephesus as the place where he’d follow Christ’s command to “Shepard the sheep”. He picked Rome.

I thought Ignatius was arrested in Antioch and transported by soldiers to Rome where he was executed. I don’t recall that he was travelling when he was arrested. Rome was the capital of the empire and it was where the trials and executions took place.

He was arrested on summons by the emperor; you are correct about that. He also desired his martyrdom and wrote the Christians in Rome to do nothing to stop it.

But be sure, one didn’t have to go to Rome for trial and execution - a la Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[Vonsalza]

I don’t think that most Baptists or Protestants would object to considering the Eucharist as a sacrifice of praise or a thank offering.

Luther sure balked at the idea. HARD.

What chapter mentions that John baptized Polycarp?

I’ve always found the literalist approach to Christianity a little one-sided. You need explicit, unambiguous proof not even Thomas would doubt that Polycarp was baptized as a baby. But then you don’t need any for ecclesial alter calls or separated youth groups as well as the trinity and sola scriptura…

 

[Vonsalza]

From what I can tell from reading church history. Infant baptism started to be practiced sometime at the end of the 2nd century.

Started? That’s not what the evidence gives. You mean recorded in Christian writings beyond Acts 2:39, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:31–33 and 1 Corinthians 1:16.

First reference appears to be Irenaeus around 180 AD. Given that the last of the Apostles died just shy of 100 AD, that’s not much of a gap. And given that Christian writing is generally pretty hard to come by until the Roman Authorities became “okay” with Christianity in the 4th century, that’s not terribly unreasonable.

Between pre-Constantine emperors, the sacks of Rome, the rise of Islam in the east, and the flammability of paper, I’m thrilled that what has survived HAS survived.

In most Protestant circles infant baptism is a “Picket Fence” doctrine.

During my college years, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary considered it to be a very “brick wall” doctrine.

 

[lanman87]

Luther sure balked at the idea. HARD.

I’ve always found the literalist approach to Christianity a little one-sided. You need explicit, unambiguous proof not even Thomas would doubt that Polycarp was baptized as a baby. But then you don’t need any for ecclesial alter calls or separated youth groups as well as the trinity and sola scriptura…

To be fair, there is a difference between determining if writings are speaking figuratively or literally (or using some other literary device) and establishing if something is a historical fact. Some claim it is a historic fact that Polycarp was baptized as an infant.
I think what we are saying is that it isn’t that clear one way or the other.

 

[Vonsalza]

I think what we are saying is that it isn’t that clear one way or the other.

I’m not sure. I think ambiguity, especially when one needs it in order to persist in their belief, is generally pretty easy to generate.

The trinity in scripture is a fine example. Sure, Christ mentions them in the great commission. But he most certainly didn’t fully define the relational doctrine.

Thus for the non-trinitarians, here’s a great opportunity for ambiguity. It’s like you’ve got to drag people kicking-and-screaming to the truth.

 

[lanman87]

Started? That’s not what the evidence gives. You mean recorded in Christian writings beyond Acts 2:39, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:31–33 and 1 Corinthians 1:16.

First reference appears to be Irenaeus around 180 AD. Given that the last of the Apostles died just shy of 100 AD, that’s not much of a gap. And given that Christian writing is generally pretty hard to come by until the Roman Authorities became “okay” with Christianity in the 4th century, that’s not terribly unreasonable.

Between pre-Constantine emperors, the sacks of Rome, the rise of Islam in the east, and the flammability of paper, I’m thrilled that what has survived HAS survived.

During my college years, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary considered it to be a very “brick wall” doctrine.

Yes, they consider it very important, but not important enough to say that those who practice infant baptism aren’t Brother’s and Sisters in Christ. Southern Baptist worship with Methodist and Presbyterians who practice infant baptism without any hesitation. I’ve heard Southern Baptist preachers speak at Methodist churches and Methodist Preachers preach at Southern Baptist churches. In the area I grew up in it was a frequent occurrence.

None of those passage say an infant was baptized. You have to infer that infants were part of the household.

 

[Vonsalza]

Yes, they consider it very important, but not important enough to say that those who practice infant baptism aren’t Brother’s and Sisters in Christ.

From personal experience, I wouldn’t be so sure. The more hard-liners were doubting of the salvation of anyone with a “satan-influenced” theology. But in fairness, they were fringe.

None of those passage say an infant was baptized. You have to infer that infants were part of the household.

I’ll concede that. You have to infer that any particular person was part of the household.

But then you’d also need to concede that none of the so-called “believer’s baptisms” performed by John the Baptist (save maybe one supernatural exception) we’re valid baptisms as the trinity was almost certainly not invoked and the death and resurrection of Christ had yet to occur. Moreover, when it did finally happen, it presented the savior in a way that many Jewish people (some probably disciples of John) did not accept, obviously.

That hyper-literal knife cuts both ways.

So how do we decide? We don’t. The Church does.

What’s the Church? The Apostles and those visibly succeeded from them unto this day.