Thread to determine some basic tenets of Christianity

[sculleywr]

My point was that the fact that the letters weren't addressed to leaders doesn't mean leaders didn't exist.

Except that 3 of Paul's letters were specifically written to the leaders of the Church in particular places. Timothy was the leader in Ephesus, standing in administrative charge of all churches in the cities, which counted for many people.

 

[sunlover1]

But if the new sign of faith was to be no longer given to infants, don't you think that would be explicitly specified?

Circumcision wasn't a sign of faith, it was "the sign of the covenant"

 

[FreedByte]

Except that 3 of Paul's letters were specifically written to the leaders of the Church in particular places. Timothy was the leader in Ephesus, standing in administrative charge of all churches in the cities, which counted for many people.

Oh good point

 

[FreedByte]

Circumcision wasn't a sign of faith, it was "the sign of the covenant"

And baptism is the sign of the New Covenant

 

[sculleywr]

Circumcision wasn't a sign of faith, it was "the sign of the covenant"

And baptism is the sign of the New Covenant

Bingo!

Baptism is cleansing to those who have sinned, but it does much more than that. It places an individual in Christ. Like vaccines, we Baptize our infants because it is best for their spiritual health.

 

[sunlover1]

And baptism is the sign of the New Covenant

Water baptism isn't a baptism of repentance?

 

[FreedByte]

Water baptism isn't a baptism of repentance?

I didn't say that

 

[sunlover1]

I didn't say that

Nobody accused you of saying that.
I was asking.
So if water baptism is a baptism of repentance,
and if the apostles spoke of another baptism
besides Johns.
The baptism of Christ.

And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. 7And all the men were about twelve.
​

 

[sculleywr]

Nobody accused you of saying that.
I was asking.
So if water baptism is a baptism of repentance,
and if the apostles spoke of another baptism
besides Johns.
The baptism of Christ.

And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. 7And all the men were about twelve.
​

Still trying to find the point you're driving at...

 

[sunlover1]

Still trying to find the point you're driving at...

Hi.
I'm just looking at it... musing.
Water baptism doesn't seem like the a replacement for
circumcision for me even though the word circumsicion
is used in the Collosians passage.

Im late to the discussion. Has anyone suggested
the Lord's supper?

 

[sculleywr]

Hi.
I'm just looking at it... musing.
Water baptism doesn't seem like the a replacement for
circumcision for me even though the word circumsicion
is used in the Collosians passage.

Im late to the discussion. Has anyone suggested
the Lord's supper?

Circumcision was not replaced by Baptism, but superceded. Circumcision was only an identification as a Jew, following God.

However, Baptism goes beyond identifying with God. It identifies one with God, puts one into Christ, and grants remission of sins.

It is important to realize that remission is not the same as forgiveness. Forgiveness is given by Christ in the cross, but remission is given in all of the sacraments. Remission cleanses us of the stains in our temporal life, while forgiveness cleanses our eternal stains.

It is also important to remember that neither remission, nor forgiveness, removes the temporal consequences of sin. Murder will be forgiven and remitted from the truly penitent, but the legal, personal, and physical consequences will not be removed, though Christ may move the judge to be lenient, HE will not just wipe that away.

 

[stan1953]

From what I have observed, there are two things that seem to separate Christians the most: polity and baptism.

Which polity is Apostolic? Congregationalist, Presbyterian, or Episcopal?

Is infant baptism Apostolic? If someone argues that it isn't, then when and how did it originate?

Resolving these two questions once and for all, though some of you might think it's impossible to try and resolve them, would bring us much closer to Christian unity, in my opinion.

The basic tenets of the Christian faith are noted in the following link in the middle of the page, as far as this forum is concerned.

http://www.christianforums.com/rules/#faq_sof_creed

Polity is not a basic tenet and neither is infant baptism, except maybe in the RCC, COE or EOC.

 

[sculleywr]

The basic tenets of the Christian faith are noted in the following link in the middle of the page, as far as this forum is concerned.

http://www.christianforums.com/rules/#faq_sof_creed

Polity is not a basic tenet and neither is infant baptism, except maybe in the RCC, COE or EOC.

Since his topic was clearly explained in the following paragraph, I feel this is off-topic. I may be wrong, but not everyone agrees that the Creed is all that is basic. Most would declare the nature of salvation SHOULD be considered basic to the faith, though it is obvious that not all agree.

I digress though.

 

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

Is the Gospel of Thomas Scripture?



And those same people who determined "which were in and which were out" also believed in infant baptism. Does that not concern you?

The saved of God determined which were in and which were out. The Church did not get around to their list for almost 300 years.

Sorry the use of HIS-story is always plagued by the use of bad logic.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The saved of God determined which were in and which were out. The Church did not get around to their list for almost 300 years.

Sorry the use of HIS-story is always plagued by the use of bad logic.

I'm not arguing for or against infant baptism, but just in the "ways of looking at things".

This seems to be saying that what the church established by the Apostles did for 300 years is irrelevant to truth. But what letters they established as being from the Apostles 300 years later is relevant?

If the activity and teachings of the church for the first 300 years were irrelevant, how can you be sure the men who came generations later were able to determine the correct canon of Scripture? (I'm not questioning them, I trust their decisions.) But they didn't develop in a vacuum?

 

[MKJ]

Water baptism isn't a baptism of repentance?

I think the answer would be that it isn't only that. It actually has several different elements, and some don't apply to every person who might be baptized. The repentance aspect applies to those who are able to repent and have something to repent for. But the aspect of being grafted into the body of Christ would apply to all.

But historically, that was not the only time a person could participate in a sacrament around repentance - in confession, the same thing happened, the individual was ritually lifted of the burden of sin if he was repentant after doing wrong. In a real way that was understood to be kind of renewing of the baptismal vows on the part of the individual.

 

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

I'm not arguing for or against infant baptism, but just in the "ways of looking at things".

This seems to be saying that what the church established by the Apostles did for 300 years is irrelevant to truth. But what letters they established as being from the Apostles 300 years later is relevant?

If the activity and teachings of the church for the first 300 years were irrelevant, how can you be sure the men who came generations later were able to determine the correct canon of Scripture? (I'm not questioning them, I trust their decisions.) But they didn't develop in a vacuum?

The early church is in Acts and in the letters of Paul. Infant baptism is not mentioned at all.

The cannon of scripture was given by inspiration of God by 70AD and the saved had determined which books were the New Testament. That is the 27 books in today's bible.

The latter churches reaffirmed what had already been determined to be the cannon of scripture for the NT and it is still the same 27 books of the New Testament.

The word of God as found in the Holy Bible is the absolute source of truth.

 

[MKJ]

The basic tenets of the Christian faith are noted in the following link in the middle of the page, as far as this forum is concerned.

http://www.christianforums.com/rules/#faq_sof_creed

Polity is not a basic tenet and neither is infant baptism, except maybe in the RCC, COE or EOC.

Somehow I don't think CF has the authority to decide what constitutes basic Christianity. Nor do they claim to - they just define them for the purposes of participation on the site.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The early church is in Acts and in the letters of Paul. Infant baptism is not mentioned at all.

The cannon of scripture was given by inspiration of God by 70AD and the saved had determined which books were the New Testament. That is the 27 books in today's bible.

The latter churches reaffirmed what had already been determined to be the cannon of scripture for the NT and it is still the same 27 books of the New Testament.

The word of God as found in the Holy Bible is the absolute source of truth.

Ok. But as I said I wasn't arguing for or against infant baptism. I'm aware though that there is debate as to whether it is mentioned in the later-decided NT or not.

My question was simply - you seemed to be discounting what happened in the early church as a matter of course, while affirming the decisions of men who came out of it generations later.

I wondered if that was an accurate understanding of your position, was all?

 

[MoreCoffee]

There is a difference between canon and scripture. Canon is to scripture what a table of contents is to your bible. The table of contents is not inspired.