J
JBaker45
Guest
Well, try and keep in mind NotWorthy, that the specifics of the date are not relevant to the point.
From the fact that an individual teaches a thing we can not conclude that the teaching was universal.
- Status
From the fact that an individual teaches a thing we can not conclude that the teaching was universal.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Screeeeech!!! Apply the brakes. But, you stated 370 by a council. I’ve seen where its recorded that IB’s were done in the 80’s and 90’s. This is far removed from 370Ad. There are teachings in the 2nd century.
Yes, but we can tell by the acceptance among his peers, and how much it is cited in other people’s works. Or, as proven by Tertullian, how much others berate the opinions.
J
JBaker45
Guest
Because it is not found explicitly stated in scripture that the acceptance of the RP is a requirement for salvation.
Again, the primary essential doctrines are stated explicitly in scripture to be requirements (or barriers in some cases) to salvation.
For example, if there was a verse that said, “if you believe in the doctrine of the real presence, then you will be saved”, then we would be dealing with an essential doctrine.
I will make a deal with you…
You can define “basic-essentials” to refer to long held church teachings, and I will define “primary-essential” to refer to doctrines that are explicitly cited in the scriptures as being salvational.
How’s that?
Not a rebuttal in so much as it is the answer to your question.But they didn’t cast out these demons by teaching in error, for that was the point of this rebuttal.
You had asked :
My answer, therefore, is that the body of Christ is not contained within the boundaries of one worldly group (or hierarchical structure or church entity).
- Lol, but it is you my friend who keeps sidetracking me
Just as I am not aware of any scriptural reason that Apostles and Bishops should hold a monopoly on baptism.
J
JBaker45
Guest
Great.
Now if you can show me how (by your date) we can show that (A) one example of a teaching implies (B) universal teaching by all, then I will conceed the point
Which proves what exactly? Inerrancy perhaps?
Look… We need to keep our focus on the word of God.
If we allow ourselves to be tempted to take our eyes off of the word of God and to place them instead on the words of men, then we will be led astray into error.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
So a verse that says, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you will not have life in you” (paraphrase) doesn’t qualify? And it’s simply because you don’t say so!
Let’s see, John (Notworthy) will follow the long held beliefs of the Church since Her birth, and Jbaker will follow a group of men that broke away from the same Church and then made up new rules?
But my question remains. Both of our churches preach and teach the truth with the guidance of the Holy Spirit (I assume you believe yours does. I truly believe that mine does. I certainly wouldn’t follow a Church that I felt was teaching from the Traditions of Men that St. Paul condemns). Whether essential or non-essential, the Church teaches with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Two (and more) Churches teach two (and more) doctrines.
Something doesn’t add up. And it’s got nothing to do with casting out demons!
Differences in disciplines between two brotherhoods have absolutely nothing to do with the Teaching of the Church. They are simply the disciplines of each brotherhood. I’m quite sure they differ in discipline, but not in teaching.Actually, you had stated that the RCC teaches one thing. Yet I am aware that those who become Carmelites v/s those who become Opus Dei (just for example) are given special instruction within those branches.
- Lol, but it is you my friend who keeps sidetracking me
I stated that Apostles and Bishops do not hold a monopoly on Baptism.
As a matter of fact, I stated that you and I could baptize and it would be recognized by the Catholic Church.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
This simply shows that you don’t understand (OK, or you don’t agree with) the development of doctrine. The Catholic Church teaches some Truth universally throughout the Church. Only when that teaching is faced with a big enough controversy, does the Papacy and/or an Ecumenical Council define the Church as a Dogma or Doctrine. That’s why is was the 4th century before infant baptism was significantly addressed. That’s why Transubstantiation was addressed in the 12th century. That’s why Trent addressed the Canon, Purgatory, and probably a few other issues in the 15th century (thanks to those “pesky Reformers”Great.
Now if you can show me how (by your date) we can show that (A) one example of a teaching implies (B) universal teaching by all, then I will conceed the point
).And that Scripture that you place so much emphasis on tells us of the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth - Mater Ecclesia!!!
N
NotWorthy
Guest
BTW, JBaker, your Pacific Coast Time is killing me!!! :coffeeread:
M
MariaG
Guest
Well… you did bring the date up
And respectfully, dates ARE in fact, important.However, I agree with you that evidence of an individual taught a thing does not imply that the teaching was universal. However, how many “individuals” do you need, without ANY voices saying anything contrary, when is it enough to show it was a universal teaching?
From This Rock
*The Epistle of Barnabas *
"Now let us see if the Lord has been at any pains to give us a foreshadowing of the waters of baptism and of the cross. Regarding the former, we have the evidence of Scripture that Israel would refuse to accept the washing which confers the remission of sins and would set up a substitution of their own instead… [circa A.D. 70]).
Hermas
" ‘I have heard, sir,’ said I, ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is’<|>" (The Shepherd 4:3:1-2 [A.D. 140]).
Theophilus
“Moreover, those things which were created from the waters were blessed by God, so that this might also be a sign that men would at a future time **receive repentance and remission of sins through water and the bath of regeneration–all who proceed to the truth and are born again **and receive a blessing from God” (To Autolycus 12:16 [A.D. 181]).
Justin Martyr
“Whoever are convinced and believe that what they are taught and told by us is the truth, and professes to be able to live accordingly, is instructed to pray and to beseech God in fasting for the remission of their former sins, while we pray and fast with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water, and** they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: In the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they receive the washing of water.** For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.’…The reason for doing this, we have learned from the Apostles” (The First Apology 61:14-17 [inter A.D. 148-155]).
Tertullian
"A treatise on our sacrament of water, by which the sins of our earlier blindness are washed away and we are released for eternal life will not be superfluous… Taking away death by the washing away of sins. The guilt being removed, the penalty, of course, is also removed… Baptism itself is a corporal act by which we are plunged into the water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from our sins" (On Baptism 1:1, 5:6, 7:2 [inter A.D. 200-206]).
Clement of Alexandria
“When we are baptized we are enlightened. Being enlightened, we are adopted as sons. Adopted as sons, we are made perfect. Made perfect, we become immortal… ‘and sons of the Most High’ [Ps. 81:6]. This work is variously called grace, illumination, perfection, and washing. It is a washing by which we are cleansed of sins, a gift of grace by which the punishments due our sins are remitted, an illumination by which we behold that holy light of salvation–that is, by which we see God clearly, and we call that perfection which leaves nothing lacking. Indeed, if a man know God, what more does he need? Certainly, it were out of place to call that which is not complete a true gift of God’s grace. Because God is perfect the gifts he bestows are perfect” (The Instructor of Children, 1:6:26:1 [ante A.D. 202]).
Origen
"Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way…now, however, in full view,** there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit**. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ (John 6:56) (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [post A.D. 244]).
Aphraates
“From baptism we receive the spirit of Christ. At that same moment in which the priests invoke the Spirit, heaven opens, and he descends and rests upon the waters, and those who are baptized are clothed in him. The Spirit is absent from all those who are born of the flesh, until they come to the water of rebirth, and then they receive the Holy Spirit**…n the second birth, that through baptism, they receive the Holy Spirit” (Treatises 6:14:4 [inter A.D. 336-345]).**
M
MariaG
Guest
How many writings without one person saying NO, shows it to be universal belief?
Not one Christian in over 1500 years ever suggested that infants cannot be baptized, not just dedicated nor suggested that baptism is just a ritual and not a regenerative act from God. You read into some words and think “dedication”, but these further words posted above speak even more plainly.
Dates are in fact important. Can you even show me ONE Christian in the first 1500 years of Christianity who believes as you do about baptism? Who interprets scripture as you do?
Respectfully,
your sister in Christ,
Maria
Not one Christian in over 1500 years ever suggested that infants cannot be baptized, not just dedicated nor suggested that baptism is just a ritual and not a regenerative act from God. You read into some words and think “dedication”, but these further words posted above speak even more plainly.
Dates are in fact important. Can you even show me ONE Christian in the first 1500 years of Christianity who believes as you do about baptism? Who interprets scripture as you do?
Respectfully,
your sister in Christ,
Maria
J
JBaker45
Guest
Yes. His name is Paul
In 1 Cor 1:14-18, Paul makes it clear that baptism is not of primary importance.
M
MariaG
Guest
Scripture itself tells us that Paul’s words can be hard to understand and that you need to have good teachers. Respectfully, you are not giving me a Christian who interprets God’s inspired word, you are giving me the words and your interpretation of those words.Yes. His name is Paul
In 1 Cor 1:14-18, Paul makes it clear that baptism is not of primary importance.
Please, quoted me one Christian in the last 1500 years who interprets Paul as you do? You have given me scripture which all Christians for 1500 years *never *interpreted as you do. I say to you, one individuals opinion, your opinion, does not show universal belief. However, I would be happy if you could show me even ONE that interprets scripture to mean baptism is not regenerative. Can you show me even one Christian who was lived during the first 1500 years of Christianity who interprets scripture to mean that baptism is not regenerative?
M
MariaG
Guest
And that is not what Paul was saying. Paul was chastizing them for bringing up WHO baptized them, ie the human person. This says nothing about baptism not being regerative nor does it say baptism is not important. (1Cor 1:11-18)Yes. His name is Paul
In 1 Cor 1:14-18, Paul makes it clear that baptism is not of primary importance.
What is not of primary importance is the human person who performs the baptism.
Which interestingly enough, reflects Catholic teaching since although Priests are preferred by people, anyone can baptize another in a case of emergency.
1Cor 1:11] For it has been reported to me by Chlo’e’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren.
12] What I mean is that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apol’los,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.”
13] Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
14] I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Ga’ius;
15] lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name.
16] (I did baptize also the household of Steph’anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)
17] For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
18]
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
J
JBaker45
Guest
Lol - Obviously a symbolic reference.So a verse that says, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you will not have life in you” (paraphrase) doesn’t qualify? And it’s simply because you don’t say so!
But we are not talking about rules, we are talking about definitions of terms used to communicate with each other.
If we wish to have a serious dialog then we need to agree on terms.
Do you seriously disagree with this?
And this is why we must keep our focus on the word of God :
1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they who are approved may be made manifest among you.
Exactly. And this is the nature of the difference between orthodox Protestant denominations.
J
JBaker45
Guest
An absence of information is not proof.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
And yet this invalidates your above statement, that the Catholic Church invented this teaching in 370AD.Yes. His name is Paul
In 1 Cor 1:14-18, Paul makes it clear that baptism is not of primary importance.
But in regards to your point, no, Paul makes it clear in Corinthians that Baptizing in the name of anyone other than the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit is of no importance. He states this so that no one claim to be “Baptized in Paul” as stated in verse 13.
Context, JBaker, Context!
N
NotWorthy
Guest
But you see, it’s not obvious. Disciples walked away from Jesus, believing He was being literate, and yet he didn’t correct them.
Heavens yes, I disagree with this. You’ve taken one of the core beliefs of the Church since it’s infancy, and relegated it to “Non-Essential”.
You’ve got no History and No Tradition, so you sweep our History and Tradition (which is actually YOUR History and Tradition, even if you deny it) under the carpet. You have no clue how offensive that is.
AMEN!!! Who are “They who are approved”? The Church leaders?
You honestly believe that the differences in religious orders (color of the robes, what days to fast, etc.) equals differences in Orthodox Protestant Denominations (baptism differences, Sacramental differences, etc.)??? BTW, who determines what Protestant Faiths are orthodox and what Faiths are unorthodox?!?
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
You have no idea how tiresome this is. I post the following link countless times per week to those who believe that the Word of God is Scripture. And folks just go on as though I had never posted it.
The Word of God is not Scripture. It never has been. It is Jesus.
Logos. The Word of God is not textual. It is Personal.
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
*Please show us the scripture passages that state these 5 are the essentials. *
J
JBaker45
Guest
I made no such claim.
I merely noted that infant baptism was documented at that time.
J
JBaker45
Guest
- Status