• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,590
11,476
Space Mountain!
✟1,356,593.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
This part - it's not always easy to outright validate the whole of the Bible on historical grounds - flew over my head, I'm sorry. Can you please elaborate, on what you mean by that?
There's many of the usual examples that can be mentioned and brought forth, but since as fellow Christian I'm not here to purposefully besmirch the Bible, I'm not going to list all of them here. It'll suffice to mention merely three significant issues that presently have had people feeling baffled with the Bible for the last several hundred years and, because of which, a number of people find it very difficult to believe today:
The issue of the historicity of Adam and Eve in light of the Theory of Evolution​
The Problem and the Argument from Evil and Catastrophic Suffering​

The apparent Hiddenness of God argument​

I agree with this.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,437
28,878
Pacific Northwest
✟809,601.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
assuming that all understand that baptism is a symbolic act.

Given what Scripture says of baptism, why would anyone assume an understanding that baptism is a symbolic act? At no point does the Bible even come close to hinting at this.

Instead we see that baptism is a powerful work and act of God's grace, and it does what it promises.

The trouble seems to be that people like to think in binary ways, if a person can be saved that isn't baptized, then baptism must not be necessary; or if baptism is necessary than it isn't possible for someone to be saved without baptism.

But that's simply not the way Scripture talks about it, and it's not how Christianity historically has talked about it.

Instead the historic, and biblical, position is this: Baptism is necessary, but it is not absolutely necessary. Baptism isn't optional.

What we see in Scripture is that God works through means, the means of Word and Sacrament. When the Gospel is preached, God is saving us; when we are baptized God is saving us, when we receive the body and blood of the Lord Jesus in His Supper God is saving us, when we hear that our sins are forgiven, God is saving us.

Salvation is not us doing the right things, believing the right things, thinking the right things, and then a big switch gets flipped on labeled "Saved". Salvation is the generous coming down of God in His grace, in His Word, in His Sacraments; it is Jesus Christ Incarnate, crucified and risen from the dead, it is the Holy Spirit poured out into our hearts, it is faith--faith given, faith created in us, faith strengthened, faith worked continually in us as God gives Himself to us. It is an everflowing spring of mercy and love of God rescuing us. This is why it is by grace alone, through faith alone, and not of our works; because of, in, and by way of Christ alone. In Christ alone is salvation, and God is declaring us just, justified, holy for Christ's sake.

It is grace and grace and grace and more grace. Unceasing grace. And it comes from the Infinite Well of Mercy that is God Himself, which He is pouring out on us all the time--in Word and Sacrament. When we read and hear the Scriptures, when we remember our baptism, He is always giving Himself, reminding us, strengthening us, encouraging us, working in us and upon us faith and renewing us day by day.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,478
8,147
50
The Wild West
✟754,150.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
You said Early Church, but I don't think you meant the early Church.

I absolutely meant the Early Church, and not just the Early Church but the Very Early Church, before the Diocletian Persecution and the Ilumination of the Armenians and the miraculous conversion of Emperor Constantine (before, unfortunately, his son Constantius was induced by the evil Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia to reject the doctrine of the Incarnation and to believe in the heresy of the deposed presbyter Arius, who blasphemed Christ by teaching that He was not God, but an exalted divine creation, which was clearly influenced by the heresy of Paul of Samosata, who was basically the first Unitarian in history, who denied the divinity of Christ altogether, teaching that he was an enlightened holy man like so many 18th century Unitarians taught. The only extent to which I have made use of the Fourth and Fifth century Fathers in the above is to the limited degree that I paraphrased the recension of the Nicene Creed, which is part of our Christian Forums statement of faith, adopted at the Second Ecumenical Synod in Constantinople in 381 AD. Also, the liturgical practice of commemorating the Fathers of the Council of Nicaea on the last Sunday of the Pentecostarion is specific to the Byzantine Rite liturgy and probably originated at the Mor Sabbas Monastery in the Holy Land or the Studion monastery in Constantinople between the seventh and ninth century, when most details of our Typikon such as that and a large number of our hymns were composed.

But the core of our doctrine, as defined by the Holy Apostles and their disciples such as St. Clement, St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Justin Martyr, St. Cyprian of Carthage, and others, and also the ancient liturgical texts such as those of St. James, St. Mark, St. Cyril, St. Sarapion of Thmuis, Saints Addai and Mari and that of the Apostles, used in Jerusalem, Alexandria and the rest of Egypt such as the diocese of Thmuis, the Eastern church in Mesopotamia and India, and in Antioch and Ethiopia, respectively, date to the second century, dates to the First and Second Century, and we have ancient manuscripts and manuscript fragments which attest to these documents.

based on the writings of the Holy Bible, Ante-Nicene Fathers of the 1st and 2nd centuries, such as the Holy Martyrs Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch,Justin Martyr, Polycarp of Smyrna, Cyprian of Carthage, Evagrius of Pontus and Irenaeus of Lyons, and the liturgical texts composed in those churches founded or led by the Holy Apostles Mark, James, and the disciples of St. Thomas the Apostle, Addai and Mari.

We know, with certainty, from the writings of the second century church, such as of St. Justin Martyr, that the early Church believed in the doctrine of the Real Presence, which makes sense, since it is the only logical interpretation of the Eucharistic texts in the New Testament.

So yes, I do need to be aggrieved about churches failing to teach the doctrine of the Real Presence and failing to baptize infants. I can only assume you are confusing the description of it provided by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica, based on the philosophy of Aristotle and the commentary on it by Avicenna (the early church was never comfortable with Aristotle, but rather associated him with the Gnostic heresy, and was always extremely cautious about using Aristotelian categories). Thomas Aquinas was neither a Patristic author nor an Orthodox scholar of theology. There is a sharp disconnect in the ninth and tenth century between Roman Catholic theology prior to that time, and after that time, so that the Roman Catholics believe that the eighth century Syro-Grecian monk St. John of Damascus, who lived at the aforementioned Mar Sabbas Monastery in the Holy Land, was the last of the Patristic Fathers, and every theologian after him is a Scholastic theologian, and as far as Roman Catholic theologians are concerned, this is true, since after this time, they took a radically different approach and introduced doctrinal innovations such as Papal Supremacy and Purgatory.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,478
8,147
50
The Wild West
✟754,150.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Now, if you want another example of an issue which largely postdates the first two centuries of the church, but which has emerged as a major problem in the past century:

While I am most aggrieved by those Restorationist denominations like the Quakers and the Salvation Army which fail to engage in either the celebration of the sacred mysteries of Baptism and Holy Communion even in the very limited way we see among other Restorationist denominations and Protestant denominations of the Radical Reformation (such as Plymouth Brethen, Anabaptists, Mennonites, the Stone / Campbell Movement, the Zwinglians (the Reformed Church in Zurich), the Fundementalist Calvinists and Particular Baptists, and those Evangelical, Fundementalist and Pentecostal churches, it is extremely frustrating how so many churches of these denominations have now moved to reject the traditional hymns and liturgical music of their own denomination and of the rest of the Christian religion (the traditional hymns by Martin Luther, Charles Wesley, etc, consist of simple songs in four part harmony called chorales, some of which were composed recently, by the likes of Sir Arthur Sullivan and Robet Vaughan Williams, but which in many cases, such as “The Old Hundredth” originally used to sing Psalm 100 in French in John Calvin’s church in Geneva, and in English chiefly associated with the hymns “All People On Earth Do Dwell” and the Doxology (“Praise God from whom all blessings flow!”), date from the late 15th and early 16th centuries.

And Gregorian Chant, Mozarabic Chant, Gallican Chant and Ambrosian Chant used in traditional Protestant and Roman Catholic churches, and also in Western Rite Orthodox churches, and their Eastern counterparts such as Byzantine Chant, Znamenny Chant and Georgian Three Part Harmony used in Eastern Orthodoxy, Tasbeha used in Coptic Orthodoxy, the hymns of the Beth Gazo used by the Syriac Orthodox, and the East Syriac chant of the Assyrian Church of the East, are over a thousand years old. Most of this music is closely related, consisting of eight modes or tones (the eight tone system was combined with Renaissance Polyphony and Tonality to produce the esteemed Baroque music of Dieterich Buxtehude, Johann Sebastian Bach and his sons, and other Anglican, Lutheran and Catholic composers, and in the Orthodox East, the exquisite Church Slavonic chant that emerged in Ukraine and Russia in the 18th century, and in the congregational singing known as Prostopinije of the Carpatho-Rusyn Christian minority ethnic group in Eastern Europe, and the related hymnody of the equally persecuted Unitas Fratrum, the Czech Protestants also known as Moravians and as Hussites, who represent the oldest doctrinally orthodox Protestant church in existence, and whose founders, St. Jan Hus and St. Jerome of Prague, are, uniquely among Protestant Reformers, venerated as martyrs by the Eastern Orthodox (specifically by the Orthodox Church of Czechia and Slovakia).

Separately, the music of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church also dates to the First Millenium, and was originally developed by the Ethiopian Jews, who continue to use it, however, the majority of Ethiopians converted from Judaism to Christianity in the fourth century, and unfortunately after the martyrdom of Emperor Haile Selassie in 1974 by the Derg Communist regime, an anti-Semitic policy like that adopted by Stalin in the 1940s and by many other Communist despots was put into place, which resulted in the majority of the Ethiopian Jews, who call themselves the Beta Israel (meaning “House of Israel”), and who, like the Christians, are descended from King Solomon and the Kandake, or Queen, of Sheba, as the country was then known, were forced to flee to Israel, where sadly some of the Rabinnical Jews have treated them in a discriminatory manner (likewise the Karaite Jews, who fled to Israel from Egypt and Syria, and who reject the Talmud and the institute of the Chief Rabbinate, have experienced discrimination; neither group can operate a “Kosher Deli” for example according to their own interpretation of the rules on Kosher, rather, only those delicatessens which follow the interpretation of Jewish law held by the Chief Rabbinate are allowed to call their businesses Kosher, but I digress. Only a few thousand Jews remain in Ethiopia, although I hope that, since the Derg is long gone, more will return, but there is a problem of Islamic terrorism in the country, conducted not so much by the ancient Muslim minority in places like Harar but by Somali and Shifta terrorists who infiltrate the country from the border with Kenya (although most terror attacks against Ethiopian Christians have occurred abroad, for example, about a decade ago, 60 Ethiopian Orthodox were martyred by ISIS in Chad, shortly after the aforementioned martyrdom of 18 Coptic Orthodox Christians and a Ghanaian who declared his faith and was baptized in his own blood, receiving a crown of martyrdom, in Libya.

At any rate, the Ethiopian Orthodox music is particularly interesting, in that it has the oldest system of musical notation in continual use in any country in the world, and is of extreme elegance and sophistication. Ethiopian Christians, along with the Coptic Orthodox and Russian Old Rite Orthodox (many of whom, after Tsar Peter attempted to suppress the Old Rite, much like what Pope Francis is doing, were forced to emigrate to Turkey, Romania, and elsewhere, with many winding up in the US, in Pennsylvania and in Oregon), have the longest church services of any Christians, but of these, the Ethiopian services are definitely the longest, with 24 hour services being held in many churches during Lent and on major feast days (there are breaks where people eat a communal meal, and even at some feasts are given a small ration of beer, which is the only time the more devout Ethiopians will consume alcohol).

Obviously, we are not required to use this traditional music, and there are some good contemporary composers of church music, such as the Estonian Orthodox composer Avro Part, the British Eastern Orthodox convert John Taverner, the Ukrainian Catholic composer Roman Hurko, and the Anglican composer John Rutter, to name four that are well known, three of whom I listen to with some regularity, of whom Hurko and Rutter compose in traditional Church Slavonic and Anglican styles, and Avro Part and John Taverner on the other hand are much more experimental (I have not yet been able to get into John Taverner’s music, but I love the music of Avro Part). But what we are required to do is worship decently and in order, according to St. Paul, and I believe that is impossible when we use Christian Contemporary Music, Praise and Worship Music, “Christian Rock Music” (which I regard as being something of an oxymoron), whereas the ancient liturgical music, the Protestant hymns and the traditional classical worship music I have mentioned does facilitate that.

And among the Restorationist denominations I mentioned at the start, the traditional brass band music of the Salvation Army is lovely, as is the A Capella singing of the portion of the Stone/Campbell movement known as the Churches of Christ, and the beautiful traditional Protestant hymns and organ music used by the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ. Likewise, Baptists historically used a number of traditional forms of hymn singing as well as A Capella exclusive psalmody, which is still the norm among the Reformed Presbyterian Churches in Scotland, North America, and elsewhere, also known as “Covenanting Presbyterians” (whose denominational symbol is a blue flag with the words “For Christ’s Crown and Covenant” written on it. Indeed, I introduced their Psalters into my congregational parishes in order to facilitate congregational singing of the Psalms, which accomplished two objectives: facilitating a transition to Orthodox music while making sure people continued to hear the traditional Protestant chorales they were accustomed to, and also making the Psalms easy to sing, so we would not fall into the trap of having the choir sing them while everyone else merely listened. It is vastly preferrable to the approach taken by most liturgical Protestant churches and a great many Roman Catholic churches using the banal “Ordinary Form” of the mass rather than the traditional Tridentine liturgy (and related uses such as the Lyonaise, Norbertine, Carmelite, Dominican, Bragan, and others), whereby the pastor reads one line of the Psalm and the congregation reads the next line in unison. That approach might be decent and in order, but it is still deeply flawed, because it fails to emphasize the value of the Psalter as the hymnal of the Bible, and also of the value of the Psalms as prayers, for each Psalm is both a prayer and a hymn.

Indeed, the problem with CCM was so bad at my friend Fr. Steve’s Episcopal parish, which I attended for the last year of his ministry before he reached mandatory retirement age (he was the last conservative, traditional Episcopalian Anglican priest that I am personally aware of to serve in the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles), due in part to their organist being an enthusiast of it who would work it into the music of their traditional Choral Eucharist so aggressively that the music at their monthly Contemporary Service was actually more relaxed, that except on those occasions when the organist was forced to behave, such as on Christmas Eve, I followed the example of CS Lewis and attended the early morning “Said Service”, which is the traditional Anglican worship service read clearly but without music. In Orthodoxy, except in Western Rite Orthodoxy, we do not have Said Services or the pre-Vatican II equivalent in the Roman Catholic Church, the Low Mass (which was replaced in 1969 with what is basically a Said Service; in a low mass the priest said all of the prayers silently, so all the congregation heard was the appointed Scripture readings and the sacring bell that Roman Catholics ring when they consecrate the Eucharist, except in France where beautiful organ music was played while the priest said the mass; these are sometimes known elsewhere as Organ Masses.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,437
28,878
Pacific Northwest
✟809,601.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
You said Early Church, but I don't think you meant the early Church.
The later "church" had these beliefs. Was that around the 13th century or so?

1st century, 2nd century, 3rd century, and so on.

We have clear testimony from the earliest Christian witnesses, of the Apostolic and sub-Apostolic periods, who are quite clear on what they believed about Baptism and the Eucharist.

As just one example among many, St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop of Antioch who inherited the Apostles' Paul and Peter ministry there sometime in the late 60's early 70's AD, was arrested by Roman authorities around 107 AD. After his arrest he was taken by a group of soldiers to Rome, and during his captivity he wrote seven letters. Five letters addressed to churches in the East, one sent ahead to the Church in Rome, and a personal letter to his brother-bishop Polycarp in Smyrna. In his letters he talks about many different topics, and he warns of the growing Docetist heresy, those who denied the real humanity, flesh and blood of Jesus--and included in there heresy was a rejection of the Eucharist as the true flesh and true blood of Jesus.

That the Eucharist, the Lord's Supper, is the real and actual flesh of Jesus and the real and actual blood of Jesus is something we see explicitly stated in the Bible, explicitly stated in the earliest Christian writers of the time after the Apostles, and continually for centuries afterward.

Belief in the Real Presence was as normal for Christians as was belief that Jesus died for our sins. That only changed among some Radical Protestants of the 16th century, like the Zwinglians.

Prior to the Radical Protestants (making a distinction with the Evangelical Protestants, aka Lutherans) only blatant heretics--those who denied the Incarnation, the atoning death of Jesus, His resurrection (etc) denied the Real Presence. So a rejection of the Real Presence was a brand new innovation of five hundred years ago.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,478
8,147
50
The Wild West
✟754,150.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Given what Scripture says of baptism, why would anyone assume an understanding that baptism is a symbolic act? At no point does the Bible even come close to hinting at this.

Probably for the same reason that many members of Protestant and Restorationist denominations, such as Evangelicals, Adventists, Fundamentalist Calvinists and Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians support the erroneous view that the Eucharist is a symbolic act: because the Roman Catholics teach that it is not symbolic, and whatever the Roman Catholics teach must be wrong, according to this warped guilt-by-association worldview. There is a very good book on this subject, which I have read, but the title of which I forget, about how anti-Catholicism is the last remaining socially acceptable prejudice. The way Catholics are depicted in the media, for example, used to be how racial minorities and other religions such as Islam were depicted.

The problem is of course that anti-Roman Catholic sentiment affects all traditional liturgical churches, even those which have never been under the control of the Pope or even in direct communion with the Pope, such as the Lutherans, and the Ethiopian Orthodox (who were, to be clear, briefly in communion with the Roman church, until the Chalcedonian schism, but during that time, their only interaction was with Coptic Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox Christians, which remained the case after the schism, for the Ethiopian church was an autonomous part of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. The fact is that many Roman Catholic beliefs, as Martin Luther understood, were the beliefs of the early church (and indeed, it recently came to my attention that Martin Luther realized he could form a legitimate church government if the Pope refused to implement the reforms he felt were neccessary, when he came across the example of the Oriental Orthodox churches such as the Ethiopian Orthodox). This is particularly interesting in light of the historic connections between Anglicanism, and between John Wesley, and the Eastern Orthodox.

And it has been my experience that most of the traditional Lutheran theologians from the period of Lutheran Orthodoxy and from the Evangelical Catholic Movement share with their Oriental Orthodox counterparts share a focus on the doctrinal importance of communicatio idiomatum and the importance of rejecting all forms of Nestorianism. So, while clearly, a lot separates the two churches, such as the filioque, sola fide, sola scriptura, and the use of Augustinian hamartiology on the part of the Lutheran church, they also have quite a lot in common, such as their rejection of Nestorianism, veneration of the Theotokos, and uncompromising belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
 
Upvote 0

CoreyD

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2023
3,139
624
64
Detroit
✟82,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Are you suggesting that infant baptism wasn't the main form of baptism prior to the 13th century?
I'm asking where in the Bible have you ever read of baptism of persons who have not believed, and commited their life to God - like infants.
 
Upvote 0

CoreyD

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2023
3,139
624
64
Detroit
✟82,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
1st century, 2nd century, 3rd century, and so on.

We have clear testimony from the earliest Christian witnesses, of the Apostolic and sub-Apostolic periods, who are quite clear on what they believed about Baptism and the Eucharist.

As just one example among many, St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop of Antioch who inherited the Apostles' Paul and Peter ministry there sometime in the late 60's early 70's AD, was arrested by Roman authorities around 107 AD. After his arrest he was taken by a group of soldiers to Rome, and during his captivity he wrote seven letters. Five letters addressed to churches in the East, one sent ahead to the Church in Rome, and a personal letter to his brother-bishop Polycarp in Smyrna. In his letters he talks about many different topics, and he warns of the growing Docetist heresy, those who denied the real humanity, flesh and blood of Jesus--and included in there heresy was a rejection of the Eucharist as the true flesh and true blood of Jesus.

That the Eucharist, the Lord's Supper, is the real and actual flesh of Jesus and the real and actual blood of Jesus is something we see explicitly stated in the Bible, explicitly stated in the earliest Christian writers of the time after the Apostles, and continually for centuries afterward.

Belief in the Real Presence was as normal for Christians as was belief that Jesus died for our sins. That only changed among some Radical Protestants of the 16th century, like the Zwinglians.

Prior to the Radical Protestants (making a distinction with the Evangelical Protestants, aka Lutherans) only blatant heretics--those who denied the Incarnation, the atoning death of Jesus, His resurrection (etc) denied the Real Presence. So a rejection of the Real Presence was a brand new innovation of five hundred years ago.

-CryptoLutheran
Late 1st century, 2nd century, thanks. Yes. I understand. That's the era the apostles warned about Acts 20:29, 30; 2 Thessalonians 2:3; 2 Peter 2:1, 3Acts 20:29, 30; 2 Thessalonians 2:3; 2 Peter 2:1, 3. Isn't it?
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,478
8,147
50
The Wild West
✟754,150.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
If you love me, keep my commands. John 14:15

Of course we must try to do that. But when we fail, and it is a matter of when, and not if, we must repent of our mistake and humbly ask Christ our True God for forgiveness.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,478
8,147
50
The Wild West
✟754,150.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Late 1st century, 2nd century, thanks. Yes. I understand. That's the era the apostles warned about Acts 20:29, 30; 2 Thessalonians 2:3; 2 Peter 2:1, 3Acts 20:29, 30; 2 Thessalonians 2:3; 2 Peter 2:1, 3. Isn't it?

Nope. They warned of an era much later, immediately before the end of the world. In the late 1st century, St. John the Apostle was still alive. And St. Ignatius of Antioch was his disciple. So unless you’re going to dismiss John as a non-Apostle (and there was an ancient cult which did that, who St. Epiphanios of Salamis called the “Alogi”, both because they rejected the Incarnation of the Word, as described in John 1:1-18, and because they were unreasonable, a pun which is quite amusing in the original Greek), this moving of the goal posts from the 13th century to the 1st century doesn’t work.

By the way, just to make sure we aren’t wasting each other’s time, you have read and agree with the Christian Forums Statement of Faith, right? CF Statement of Faith
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,478
8,147
50
The Wild West
✟754,150.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
I'm asking where in the Bible have you ever read of baptism of persons who have not believed, and commited their life to God - like infants.

In Acts, where entire households were baptized. Since the text does not say that the infants were not baptized, and since the early church baptized infants, and since there was never any controversy about this practice until the 16th century, we can positively assert that it was the norm. After all, Jewish boys were circumcised on the eight day after birth, and thus it makes perfect sense that Christian infants should be baptized at the same time, particularly since St. Paul declares that this is how we are grafted onto the Body of Christ in 1 Corinthians, and our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ commanded the disciples to allow the little children to come to Him.

The only way for someone to come to Christ is by being grafted onto His Body, the Church, and partaking of His Eucharist, therefore, God Himself has commanded that infants be baptized.

I also lament to say that I have seen some people argue that children who die before they can develop faith in Christ and thus be baptized according to the principles of credobaptism, as well as mentally disabled people, are incapable of being saved, which I find to be an idea that is as repulsive as it is unsavory, and entirely contradictory to the clear statements throughout Scripture that our God is love, the source of love, who loves all of us to the extent that in the person of the Son and Word, He became man and was crucified so as to restore and glorify our fallen human nature.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,478
8,147
50
The Wild West
✟754,150.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
The apostle Paul described it this way... 1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.

Clearly that is happening now, with the mainline churches encouraging people to engage in the sins of pride and homosexuality. It did not happen in the early church, which was undivided, and which produced those articles of the faith which are still shared by all Christians, such as the 27-book New Testament canon (which was the result of much debate, with a 22 book canon lacking Revelation, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John and Jude nearly being adopted, and in fact being used by the initial version of the first complete Syriac Aramaic translation of the New Testament, the Peshitta). Fortunately, the 27 book canon was made definite through the work of St. Athanasius of Alexandria, who also defended the doctrine of the Trinity against the Arians at the Council of Nicaea, and who spent many years in exile, for Arianism was the religion of all the Roman emperors from Constantius through Valens, except for the neo-Platonist pagan Julian “the Apostate” (whose nickname I regard as a misnomer, since Arians are not Christians). It was not until 12 years after the death of St. Athanasius that another Christian emperor, Theodosius I, came to power.

What St. Athanasius did specifically was take the consensus view on the canon as described in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius of Caesarea, who had been an opponent of his at the Council of Nicaea, until he later repented and rejected the Arian heresy, and use that as the basis for the 27 book canon, which he then commended to all the bishops of Egypt in the 39th year of his reign as Bishop of Alexandria, in his Paschal Encyclical, a letter he would send to all his churches containing the date he had calculated for Pascha according to the formula agreed upon at the Council of Nicaea (where he was present as protodeacon to Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, and effectively was the chief prosecutor of Arius) and some of the other Egyptian bishops were also present, but over time, many of them died off, and not all bishops could do the math, and those who could benefitted from having a letter from the metropolitan bishop of their province explaining providing the date for the Feast of the Resurrection, which they could check against their own calculations. And this ensured that all of his bishops learned how to calculate the date for Pascha. But his 39th encyclical also included the 27 book New Testament canon, and this was extremely influential, and was quickly adopted by all the bishops in his province, and was then adopted by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and by the Archbishop of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople, and once they had adopted it, the Patriarch of Antioch, who had a historical rivalry with Alexandria, was comfortable in adopting it, and from there it spread to the remote churches under his jurisdiction: the churches of Armenia, Georgia, and the East, the latter of which by the fourth century not only included the Mesopotamian and Indian churches, but was beginning to grow into Persia, Sri Lanka and Central Asia, from which it would reach China, Tibet, and Mongolia in the East, and Yemen and the island of Socotra off the coast of Yemen in the South, and the lost city of Merv in the North.

Martin Luther considered removing four books from the New Testament but thankfully was persuaded not to.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,478
8,147
50
The Wild West
✟754,150.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
At any rate, the strange thing is why in a thread on “Invalidating God’s Word” the focus seems to be on attacking the early church rather than rebuking those modern day churches which are, this very month, encouraging their members to commit the sins fornication and sodomy, and to sin without compunction but with pride, in direct contradiction to what the Holy Apostle Paul and our Lord Himself taught, in both the Old and New Testaments.
 
Upvote 0

jas3

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2023
1,259
901
The South
✟87,581.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'm asking where in the Bible have you ever read of baptism of persons who have not believed, and commited their life to God - like infants.
I was referring to your quotation of The Liturgist where he referenced a variety of topics, including infant baptism, and you responded that those beliefs weren't held until much later, which especially in the case of infant baptism is completely false. You've said you don't want to debate Scripture in this thread, which I agree would be a distraction from the original topic. I'm talking historically - although your latest response to ViaCrucis suggests that even if you're shown evidence from the 1st century you'll just say that that's the deception of the faithful that we were warned about.

If that's the case, then no evidence will ever be able to convince you, because your belief is unfalsifiable: if something contradicts what you believe, it's either early deception of the faithful or a later innovation; there's no scenario where you might just be mistaken about what the early Church believed.
 
Upvote 0

CoreyD

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2023
3,139
624
64
Detroit
✟82,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
There's many of the usual examples that can be mentioned and brought forth, but since as fellow Christian I'm not here to purposefully besmirch the Bible, I'm not going to list all of them here. It'll suffice to mention merely three significant issues that presently have had people feeling baffled with the Bible for the last several hundred years and, because of which, a number of people find it very difficult to believe today:
The issue of the historicity of Adam and Eve in light of the Theory of Evolution​
The Problem and the Argument from Evil and Catastrophic Suffering​

The apparent Hiddenness of God argument​
I understand those issues are not easy for many to validate the Bible, but that doesn't mean it's not easy for some to validate the Bible.
We have to remember that the Christian depends not on worldly wisdom, but godly wisdom, and that does not mean a lack of reason, but very much involves reason.
The apostle Paul was very educated, and Luke was a reputable historian.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,590
11,476
Space Mountain!
✟1,356,593.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I understand those issues are not easy for many to validate the Bible, but that doesn't mean it's not easy for some to validate the Bible.
We have to remember that the Christian depends not on worldly wisdom, but godly wisdom, and that does not mean a lack of reason, but very much involves reason.
The apostle Paul was very educated, and Luke was a reputable historian.

Sure. Paul and Luke were educated individuals for their time, but that doesn't mean they were given supreme knowledge or the understanding of everything God is doing, has done, or will be doing. They, like Pascal, were a product of their own times and cultures, and they lived on the side prior to Copernicus, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein (among many others).

Moreover, it's a specious contrast to draw between "worldly wisdom" and "godly wisdom" when the biblical books don't comprehensively inform about the purpose and meaning and workings of everything under the Sun. So...........naturally, this will leave many people asking questions that either don't get answered well by Christians, or those questions turn out to not have any discernibly accessible answers.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

CoreyD

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2023
3,139
624
64
Detroit
✟82,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Nope. They warned of an era much later, immediately before the end of the world. In the late 1st century, St. John the Apostle was still alive. And St. Ignatius of Antioch was his disciple. So unless you’re going to dismiss John as a non-Apostle (and there was an ancient cult which did that, who St. Epiphanios of Salamis called the “Alogi”, both because they rejected the Incarnation of the Word, as described in John 1:1-18, and because they were unreasonable, a pun which is quite amusing in the original Greek), this moving of the goal posts from the 13th century to the 1st century doesn’t work.
If you are right, the apostles were wrong.
Acts 20:29
New International Version
I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.

New Living Translation
I know that false teachers, like vicious wolves, will come in among you after I leave, not sparing the flock.

English Standard Version
I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;

Berean Standard Bible
I know that after my departure, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.

Berean Literal Bible
I know that after my departure, grievous wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock,

King James Bible
For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

New King James Version
For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.

New American Standard Bible
I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;

NASB 1995
“I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;

NASB 1977
“I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;

Legacy Standard Bible
I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;

Amplified Bible
I know that after I am gone, [false teachers like] ferocious wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;

Christian Standard Bible
I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.

American Standard Version
I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock;

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“For I know that after I go, powerful wolves will enter with you that will not spare the flock.”

Contemporary English Version
I know that after I am gone, others will come like fierce wolves to attack you.

Douay-Rheims Bible
I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

English Revised Version
I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock;

GOD'S WORD® Translation
I know that fierce wolves will come to you after I leave, and they won't spare the flock.

Good News Translation
I know that after I leave, fierce wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock.

International Standard Version
I know that when I'm gone, savage wolves will come among you and not spare the flock.

Literal Standard Version
for I have known this, that there will enter in, after my departing, grievous wolves to you, not sparing the flock,

Majority Standard Bible
For I know this, that after my departure, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.

New American Bible
I know that after my departure savage wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock.

NET Bible
I know that after I am gone fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.

New Revised Standard Version
I know that after I have gone, savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.

New Heart English Bible
For I know that after my departure, vicious wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

Webster's Bible Translation
For I know this, that after my departure grievous wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

Weymouth New Testament
I know that, when I am gone, cruel wolves will come among you and will not spare the flock;

World English Bible
For I know that after my departure, vicious wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

Young's Literal Translation
for I have known this, that there shall enter in, after my departing, grievous wolves unto you, not sparing the flock,

2 Thessalonians 2:6-9
6 And you know what is now restraining him, so that he may be revealed at the proper time.
7 For the mystery of lawlessness is working already; there is only the one at present restraining it, until he might be gone out of the midst.
8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will consume with the breath of His mouth and will annul by the appearing of His coming,
9 whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in every power, and in signs, and in wonders of falsehood,

I don't think you believe the apostles are wrong, so can we agree that you are?

By the way, just to make sure we aren’t wasting each other’s time, you have read and agree with the Christian Forums Statement of Faith, right? CF Statement of Faith
If that is what you are worried about, you have nothing to worry about.
I'm not worried that you asked such a strange question, 'by the way, in a middle of a conversation where I said nothing against the Christian Forums Statement of Faith.
 
Upvote 0

Guojing

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2019
13,052
1,396
sg
✟270,878.00
Country
Singapore
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Actually, all on these forums who identify as Christian consider themselves recipients of this promise, as well as being born again.
I don't.

Seriously, all Christians you have met here think they will also be sitting on one of the 12 thrones to judge the 12 tribes of Israel?

There are only 12 correct? So how can all of us sit on them? Can you elaborate what you meant here?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Ain't Zwinglian

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2020
1,261
802
Oregon
✟164,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

CoreyD

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2023
3,139
624
64
Detroit
✟82,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
In Acts, where entire households were baptized. Since the text does not say that the infants were not baptized, and since the early church baptized infants, and since there was never any controversy about this practice until the 16th century, we can positively assert that it was the norm. After all, Jewish boys were circumcised on the eight day after birth, and thus it makes perfect sense that Christian infants should be baptized at the same time, particularly since St. Paul declares that this is how we are grafted onto the Body of Christ in 1 Corinthians, and our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ commanded the disciples to allow the little children to come to Him.
So, you never read it anywhere in the Bible, but you made an assumption, based on what you believe, and since the clergy decides it is good, you accept it as good.
Did I say anything incorrectly? Please correct what I said wrong.

Scripture don't mean much to most persons in the world of Christianity, but since this thread is about invalidating God's word, I'll like to let you know that you just gave a perfect example of what that means.

When Jesus addressed the Pharisees at Mark 7:7, 8, he drew attention to the fact that they made many commands, and held many traditions, that were never required of God.
Let's all make our own commands, based on our assumptions, and ideas, and God is good with that.
Jesus said no.
Jesus answered them, “Isaiah prophesied correctly about you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘These people honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me. They worship Me in vain; they teach as doctrine the precepts of men.’ You have disregarded the commandment of God to keep the tradition of men.” Mark 7:6-8

This is what the apostle Paul referred to, at 1 Timothy 4:1-6, when he said... some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods...

Depending on our ideas, or accepting the ideas of those who assume positions in the congregation, are also spoken against, in the scriptures.
Galatians 1:8, 9
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

1 Corinthians 4:6
...that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.

The only way for someone to come to Christ is by being grafted onto His Body, the Church, and partaking of His Eucharist, therefore, God Himself has commanded that infants be baptized.
Why can you not show me where "God Himself has commanded that infants be baptized", in the scriptures.

Don't you consider it foolishness, when a command God wants us to carry out is not found in scripture - his word, for which the inspired words are found - All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16, 17), but people who claim to speak for God, has to tell us to carry out this command that no one can find anywhere on any page of the Bible?
People talk about red flags, but that has to be more than red.

I also lament to say that I have seen some people argue that children who die before they can develop faith in Christ and thus be baptized according to the principles of credobaptism, as well as mentally disabled people, are incapable of being saved, which I find to be an idea that is as repulsive as it is unsavory, and entirely contradictory to the clear statements throughout Scripture that our God is love, the source of love, who loves all of us to the extent that in the person of the Son and Word, He became man and was crucified so as to restore and glorify our fallen human nature.
Here is an exercise you can try...
Think about what you just said, the next time you present an idea that no one can find written in scripture, and imagine how some of the people listening to you feel.
 
Upvote 0