I love this statement, ltwin. It acknowledges that there was a Catholic Church in the 3rd and 4th centuries.
Origen eh? About fifty years before that we have Tertullian make the same claim that what he received was passed down; and also relates this to Baptism:
The Chaplet Chapter 3
If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed it.** For how can anything come into use, if it has not first been handed down?** Even in pleading tradition, written authority, you say, must be demanded. Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should not be admitted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be admitted, if no cases of other practices which, without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone, and the countenance thereafter of custom, affords us any precedent.** To deal with this matter briefly, I shall begin with baptism**. When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel.
And of course his beliefs on Baptism are as follows:
***But they whose office it is, know that baptism is not rashly to be administered. *Give to every one who begs you, has a reference of its own, appertaining especially to almsgiving. On the contrary, this precept is rather to be looked at carefully…
…. And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; **principally, however, in the case of little children.
Another great argument that the early Church was baptizing children! For why would Tertullian address “the case of little children” being baptized, unless it was already an established practice?
Well I will modify my statement saying I do not have direct source , only the distinct memory of a book I read that wrote that .Take it for what little that means, then as I ask if has anyone heard of that before, or have any other (name removed by moderator)ut. Does anyone know why we validate other baptisms and did Pope Stephen make such a ruling and why ?
No pope ever made any “ruling” that baptism wasn’t for regeneration and new life.
Incidentally, benhur, I want to make sure you understand a point made in the Scriptures:
Nothing wrong with Baptizing children f they understand what’s happening.Another great argument that the early Church was baptizing children! For why would Tertullian address “the case of little children” being baptized, unless it was already an established practice?
As late as 340-380:
Very Catholic, this!
Yes. That’s also great apologia.
So some agreed and some disagreed?
Irrelevant, even if true. The Church is not a democracy. The Church has continued what it practiced from the beginning even in the face of disagreements between individual members. It is divinely protected.
But some of these misunderstandings were by Bishops who are considered Saints. Some by theologians as early as the 2nd century. Shouldn’t tradition have prevented such a confusion over the truth by all the Bishops of the Church?
Correct. The ruling is that baptisms are accepted at the hand of other "churches’’. That is the ruling from Pope Stephen in 3rd century. As to the theology/reasoning behind it (him) that I shared is my hearsay (readsay).
Yes, I know what you mean. Yet I offered a little more to say can one be righteous without faith, and in what ? When did the gospel begin ? I said it began at the garden of eden with the Promise of the One who would crush the head of serpent.That is good news. There has always been a promise,a way to God thru faith, a covenant , from the beginning. There was a "gospel’’ before the NT gospel . So was not Cornelius righteous via OT gospel ? Did he not hear of the Jewish God Jehovah ? Maybe he was like a catechumen in a sense, you know believed in Judaism yet not circumcised and still a gentile. The bible says no man seeks after God, unless he be drawn by Him. He may have been regenerated/converted in OT fashion. You do agree the new covenant began after Calvary? Do you believe saints in OT were born again, converted and justified before God ? Why else would Jesus tell Nicodemus, an OT leader of being born again ? I do not think he was speaking prophetically of after Pentecost ? Born of the flesh and born of the spirit is old stuff…Anyways my main point is that Cornelius received the full package from God, same as the apostles, before any water baptism. He was baptized in the Holy Ghost. John said I baptized in water, He will baptize in the Holy Ghost.
No. Cornelius contradicts a paradigm that says one needs water baptism for regeneration/conversion. It contradicts those who say that earlier in the gospel discourse of John 3 that being born of water and of the spirit is equating water with water baptism.
??? he was righteous but unconverted/unregenrated ? Yes we differ hear.
Yes. What does that mean ? Good ? Righteous ? Gospel, yes the gift of faith in the NT, new covenant gospel is what baptized him in the Holy Ghost.
So, it’s true then: you believe that we are saved through our works (our belief), and not solely through God’s Grace?
Let’s take a step back from that question, dronald.
The reason, benhur, is because baptism does regenerate and offer new life. It cleanses original sin, whether it was done in a Baptist church, or the Free Methodist church, or the storefront church down the street–as long as it was done using water and the Trinitarian formula, and had the intention of baptizing, it’s valid because…
Firstly, Cornelius was a ROMAN centurion. He was a gentile. Not a Jew.
No. It began at the Last Supper.
So he was righteous before he was regenerated.
Then you are saying there is salvation/conversion, new life in other churches, even lapsed churches, even cults almost if they use trinitarian formula. This was the dilemma facing Stephen.