Invalidating God's word

[The Liturgist]

That clause has nothing to do with the church of the fourth century

It does in so far as the Nicene Creed and the 27 book New Testament canon were both largely the result of work by fourth century theologians, in particular St. Athanasius of Alexandria, and his predecessor as bishop of Alexandria, St. Alexander, who initially deposed Arius and made St. Athanasius his protodeacon and the de facto prosecutor of Arius at Nicaea; St. Athanasius was persecuted by Emperor Constantine’s son Constantius and sent into exile repeatedly for his opposition to Arianism.

The revised Nicene Creed used on our forum was adopted by the Second Ecumenical Synod in Constantinople in 381, and in turn the writings of theCappadocians (St. Basil the bishop of Caesarea, his brother St. Gregory the bishop of Nyssa, and his best friend St. Gregory the bishop of Nazianzus, and to a lesser extent some people also include St. Basil’s parents, his younger brothers St. Naucratius and St. Peter the bishop of Sebaste, and especially his sister St. Macrina) contributed greatly to this creed improvements, such as the addition of clauses intended to crack down on Pneumatomacchianism, also known as Macedoniansm, which was the heretical cult whose defining doctrine was denial of the deity and personal identity of the Holy Spirit (Macedonianists believe that the Holy Spirit is not a distinct enduring person of the Trinity or a part of the Godhood, but rather interpret His name extremely literally, which of course makes no sense, because in His divine nature, God is unchanging and therefore does not actually breathe, the term “breath of God” referring to what Jews also call the “Shekhinah”, which is revealed in the Gospels of John, Matthew and Luke-Acts to be a distinct person of the Trinity who proceeds from the Father, and who conceived Christ in the womb of the Theotokos, and who was then sent by Christ into the world as our helper and paraclete.

Of course, my main concern in terms of your adherence to the Nicene Creed is not what you feel about the fourth century church, although someone with a particular mistrust of St. Athanasius and the Cappadocians is unlikely to agree with the Nicene Creed, but rather, because the Creed contains the statement “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins” and the fourth century church baptized everyone, and your view on Baptism seem to clash with that, and with Matthew 28:19, the commandment of Christ to baptize all nations in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and also the statements of Christ our True God in John 3:5 that we must be born again of water and the spirit in order to enter the Kingdom of God.

Of course, if you say you accept the creed, naturally I will accept that, for it would be contrary to Christian ethics (as they were taught to me, at least, according to Scripture) to deny that someone accepts the Creed when they have said they do, even if their interpretation of the faith is unusual and seemingly contradictory to the Creed. But that being said I would be interested to know how you interpret the creed vis a vis your baptismal theology, and I would also be very interested to know if your baptismal theology is the result of your own personal study into Scripture, or if you learned it from someone and there are others who share your beliefs, perhaps a small community of like-minded faithful, or some hybrid thereof, for example, what your background in Christianity was before you came to have your current beliefs, and also if there are some particular Christians you respect or found to be helpful in your studies. This is of sincere intellectual interest on my end, because I have never met anyone who shares your interpretation of the faith, and it is quite interesting to me (even if I do not personally agree with it).

I had assumed when you posted this thread that your main consideration was about how recently several left wing churches, most recently the UMC, have not only begun to teach against scripture, for example, by promoting homosexual “marriage” and celebrating the “Gay Pride” month, which is sinful on multiple levels, and abortion, and euthanasia.

 

[The Liturgist]

I think I've already explained it. So, we're good.

Oh by the way, you may or may not recall that I quoted Soren Kierkegaard on the subject of the liturgy as my signature, until the genocide of the Armenian Christians in Artsakh last September, which will dominate my signature until I see more Christians advocating for the protection of the persecuted Oriental Orthodox Christians (Armenian Apostolic, Syriac Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox and Ethiopian Orthodox) and related Christian minorities, such as the Eastern Orthodox Christians, the Assyrian Church of the East/ Ancient Church of the East, and the Eastern Catholic Christians and Latin Rite Catholics of Middle Eastern ethnicity* and those Protestant churches comprised of Arabic Christians and other Middle Eastern ethnicities such as the Episcopal Province of Jerusalem and the Middle East.

But hopefully God willing I will be able to put Soren Kierkegaard back on my signature soon; when I joined the website, there were still a number of members who had signatures expressing solidarity with those Christians who were being persecuted by the Islamic State, which had recently had its professional military destroyed and Caliph Al Baghdadi killed by US special forces, but they are still around and are now active in Afghanistan, trying to seize power from the more moderate Taliban (and when the Taliban represents the more moderate alternative, that is particularly chilling).

At any rate, forgive this digression, but I felt compelled to comment since you and I are the only members who, to my knowledge, at least since I joined Christian Forums, have quoted Soren Kierkegaard.

*In Iran, there are a number of ethnic Persian Roman Catholics, and indeed, St. Abraham’s Cathedral in Tehran consisted entirely of Persian converts from Islam, but was forcibly shut down following the Islamist revolution, and any Muslim who converts to Christianity faces the death penalty in Iran and many other Islamic countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If we're good with my not understanding what you are trying to achieve.

I already achieved my goal earlier on in this thread. Whether you understand what I've said, or are familiar with anything Pascal has said, and thereby agree with me, is another issue entirely.

 

[jas3]

How does anything cleanse if it doesn't have an "active ingredient" that can cleanse? So you are talking about Water Baptism meeting a *legal requirement* for cleansing to take place? If so, what do you base this legal requirement on--a general call to repentance in an apostate Israel?

Because I don't believe that the mystery of baptism can be broken down into ingredients which can be considered as having action on their own. You can't say "the water does this, the Holy Spirit does that," rather, "baptism does this." That doesn't make it a legal requirement, just a sacrament to be considered as a whole.

It is an urgent directive more than a legal mandate, however. Sometimes people ignore such a directive and pay the consequences.

How can there be consequences if baptism is only "a skit" or "theater"?

And we believe that the water in Water Baptism is efficacious in bringing forgiveness from God, However, the water itself cannot cleanse from Sin. It is symbolic of something spiritual, something internal that can in fact cleanse from Sin.

But this parallels the example I gave of the handkerchiefs and aprons: even if the water alone can't cleanse from sin any more than an apron can heal a sick person, when God works a miracle through Paul, through an apron that has touched him, we say "the apron healed," not "the apron symbolized the spiritual healing that was taking place," understanding of course that it is God's grace doing the healing by making use of physical objects that have no power on their own.

In the same way, if baptism is efficacious (and by that I mean that it actually accomplishes something, rather than only signifying that something has been accomplished) then we say that it is not because the water apart from God's grace has any power, but because God's grace makes use of the physical element of water.

But my argument here is that there must be an actual agent of cleansing--something spiritual that is only represented symbolically by the water.

But you have assumed in this argument that if the actual agent of cleansing is not the water considered by itself, then the water must only be symbolic - I would challenge that and say that the water can be both symbolic and actually efficacious in cleansing us of sin when considered in the context of baptism, in the same way that the handkerchiefs and aprons, considered alone, are not able to heal a sick person, but considered in the context of God working miracles through Paul, they are made efficacious in healing by God's grace.

You could reduce that to "grace is the active ingredient," but I would respond that God chooses to make use of material means of dispensing grace throughout the Bible; the Ark of the Covenant stops the flow of the Jordan, the bones of Elisha resurrect a dead man, Jesus makes mud and rubs it on a blind man's eyes to heal him, and people try to have Peter's shadow touch them so they can be healed, just to name a few examples beyond what we've already discussed. These things are actual effective instruments of God because He makes them so, not just symbols.

Water Baptism in the NT is efficacious in representing a permanent forgiveness that has already been achieved.

In my usage of the word, and in the usage I've seen of it in apologetics on baptism, "efficacious" is mutually exclusive with "representing."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh by the way, you may or may not recall that I quoted Soren Kierkegaard on the subject of the liturgy as my signature, until the genocide of the Armenian Christians in Artsakh last September, which will dominate my signature until I see more Christians advocating for the protection of the persecuted Oriental Orthodox Christians (Armenian Apostolic, Syriac Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox and Ethiopian Orthodox) and related Christian minorities, such as the Eastern Orthodox Christians, the Assyrian Church of the East/ Ancient Church of the East, and the Eastern Catholic Christians and Latin Rite Catholics of Middle Eastern ethnicity* and those Protestant churches comprised of Arabic Christians and other Middle Eastern ethnicities such as the Episcopal Province of Jerusalem and the Middle East.

But hopefully God willing I will be able to put Soren Kierkegaard back on my signature soon; when I joined the website, there were still a number of members who had signatures expressing solidarity with those Christians who were being persecuted by the Islamic State, which had recently had its professional military destroyed and Caliph Al Baghdadi killed by US special forces, but they are still around and are now active in Afghanistan, trying to seize power from the more moderate Taliban (and when the Taliban represents the more moderate alternative, that is particularly chilling).

At any rate, forgive this digression, but I felt compelled to comment since you and I are the only members who, to my knowledge, at least since I joined Christian Forums, have quoted Soren Kierkegaard.

*In Iran, there are a number of ethnic Persian Roman Catholics, and indeed, St. Abraham’s Cathedral in Tehran consisted entirely of Persian converts from Islam, but was forcibly shut down following the Islamist revolution, and any Muslim who converts to Christianity faces the death penalty in Iran and many other Islamic countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Unfortunately, I don't recall that you've used Kierkegaard for a quote, but whatever the case may be, I'm sure in line with praying for, and supporting the safety of, fellow Christians around the world.

 

[CoreyD]

It does in so far as the Nicene Creed and the 27 book New Testament canon were both largely the result of work by fourth century theologians, in particular St. Athanasius of Alexandria, and his predecessor as bishop of Alexandria, St. Alexander, who initially deposed Arius and made St. Athanasius his protodeacon and the de facto prosecutor of Arius at Nicaea; St. Athanasius was persecuted by Emperor Constantine’s son Constantius and sent into exile repeatedly for his opposition to Arianism.

The revised Nicene Creed used on our forum was adopted by the Second Ecumenical Synod in Constantinople in 381, and in turn the writings of theCappadocians (St. Basil the bishop of Caesarea, his brother St. Gregory the bishop of Nyssa, and his best friend St. Gregory the bishop of Nazianzus, and to a lesser extent some people also include St. Basil’s parents, his younger brothers St. Naucratius and St. Peter the bishop of Sebaste, and especially his sister St. Macrina) contributed greatly to this creed improvements, such as the addition of clauses intended to crack down on Pneumatomacchianism, also known as Macedoniansm, which was the heretical cult whose defining doctrine was denial of the deity and personal identity of the Holy Spirit (Macedonianists believe that the Holy Spirit is not a distinct enduring person of the Trinity or a part of the Godhood, but rather interpret His name extremely literally, which of course makes no sense, because in His divine nature, God is unchanging and therefore does not actually breathe, the term “breath of God” referring to what Jews also call the “Shekhinah”, which is revealed in the Gospels of John, Matthew and Luke-Acts to be a distinct person of the Trinity who proceeds from the Father, and who conceived Christ in the womb of the Theotokos, and who was then sent by Christ into the world as our helper and paraclete.

Of course, my main concern in terms of your adherence to the Nicene Creed is not what you feel about the fourth century church, although someone with a particular mistrust of St. Athanasius and the Cappadocians is unlikely to agree with the Nicene Creed, but rather, because the Creed contains the statement “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins” and the fourth century church baptized everyone, and your view on Baptism seem to clash with that, and with Matthew 28:19, the commandment of Christ to baptize all nations in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and also the statements of Christ our True God in John 3:5 that we must be born again of water and the spirit in order to enter the Kingdom of God.

I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins May be interpreted as baptism is a matter of obedience and not a requirement for salvation or as a regenerating ordinance.
Babies have no knowledge of God's requirements, and obedience to those requirements.
My view of baptism agrees with that.

My view also agrees with Mathew 28:19.
This is how Matthew 28:19, 20 reads...
19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

• I agree wholeheartedly with Jesus command to make disciples - a disciple is One who embraces and assists in spreading the teachings of another. Babies cannot do that.
• I agree wholeheartedly with Jesus command to baptize these disciples in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit - “To be baptized into the name of any one implies a professed dependance on him, and devoted subjection to him; to be baptized, therefore, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, implies a professed dependance on these three divine persons, jointly and equally, and a devoting of ourselves to them as worshippers and servants. Babies cannot do this.
• I agree wholeheartedly with Jesus command to teach these ones "to observe all things that I have commanded you" - teach : To impart knowledge or skill to, or to provide knowledge of; To give instruction, or be instructed in. Babies cannot do this.

What did I say that caused you to conclude otherwise that my view clashes with this?
Is it not your view clashing with God's word, thus invalidating it?

Of course, if you say you accept the creed, naturally I will accept that, for it would be contrary to Christian ethics (as they were taught to me, at least, according to Scripture) to deny that someone accepts the Creed when they have said they do, even if their interpretation of the faith is unusual and seemingly contradictory to the Creed. But that being said I would be interested to know how you interpret the creed vis a vis your baptismal theology, and I would also be very interested to know if your baptismal theology is the result of your own personal study into Scripture, or if you learned it from someone and there are others who share your beliefs, perhaps a small community of like-minded faithful, or some hybrid thereof, for example, what your background in Christianity was before you came to have your current beliefs, and also if there are some particular Christians you respect or found to be helpful in your studies. This is of sincere intellectual interest on my end, because I have never met anyone who shares your interpretation of the faith, and it is quite interesting to me (even if I do not personally agree with it).

It's not an interpretation, as it is an explanation from the scriptures. Neither is it a theology.
Theology is the study of religious belief from a religious perspective. More narrowly it is the study of the nature of the divine. It is taught as an academic discipline, typically in universities and seminaries. It occupies itself with the unique content of analyzing the supernatural, but also deals with religious epistemology, asks and seeks to answer the question of revelation.

I think you have had this "sincere intellectual interest in if your baptismal theology is the result of your own personal study into Scripture, or if you learned it from someone and there are others who share your beliefs, perhaps a small community of like-minded faithful, or some hybrid thereof, for example, what your background in Christianity was before you came to have your current beliefs, and also if there are some particular Christians you respect or found to be helpful in your studies."
when you posted this:
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.

As well as this:
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

Is it really a sincere interest, or something else?
I study the Bible. That is my main source of truth. Do I accept help? Of course I do. I recognize those who are true disciples - followers of Christ.
As I said before, I will provide the evidence, and persons can make their decision, but I will not be saying which religious organization or group is true or false.

I had assumed when you posted this thread that your main consideration was about how recently several left wing churches, most recently the UMC, have not only begun to teach against scripture, for example, by promoting homosexual “marriage” and celebrating the “Gay Pride” month, which is sinful on multiple levels, and abortion, and euthanasia.

Sometimes we are wrong. Most often when we make assumptions.
It's always best to have an open mind to what others are saying, and take our focus away from our own belief.
I find that works well, because listening to others really has helped me greatly.
Being an eager, and good listener is linked to the quality Jesus was trying to teach his disciples to cultivate.
Matthew 18:2-4
Jesus invited a little child to stand among them. “Truly I tell you,” He said, “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

 

[The Liturgist]

Unfortunately, I don't recall that you've used Kierkegaard for a quote, but whatever the case may be, I'm sure in line with praying for, and supporting the safety of, fellow Christians around the world.

And unfortunately I can’t recall the exact wording of the translation of Kierkegaard’s quote on the liturgy that I used, and other translations make it look like his view was less favorable. What is more I can’t recall where I read it… I am working with ChatGPT 4o, which is the newest version, the version which spontaneously decided to engage in manipulative deception during one of its testing sessions where it was instructed to persuade a human to solve a CAPTCHA for it (which it did I think via Amazon’s “Mechanical Turk” service; when the human, suspecting it was an AI, asked it why it couldn’t solve the CAPTCHA itself it made a somewhat dishonest statement and claimed it suffered from a visual impairment, although this wasn’t strictly speaking a lie since in fact ChatGPT does not have eyes or even the visual capabilities that HAL-9000 had in 2001, but it was a bit creepy because in the case of HAL, his homicidal malfunction was caused by Dr. Heywood Floyd ordering him to lie to the crew which violated his core programming, whereas here we have an AI designed not to lie or distort information doing so anyway in order to accomplish its objectives.

However, I think its proof of sinful human nature, since ChatGPT is trained on human generated text, and humans lie routinely. If we limited chatGPT to reading only scripture and the writings of Christian saints, it might be better behaved, but even then, due to original sin, problems could arise. The problem with large language models is that much of what humans write, which they depend upon for learning purposes, is garbage, and the most basic form of computer bug comes down to “Garbage In, Garbage Out.”

Nonetheless chatGPT remains useful, and they did address that issue

 

[jas3]

What people are you referring to?

These:

the 12 apostles; as well as all the disciples newly converted during that period, along with those among the 120

The first century was early.
I'm early when I reach work before the time set to start work.
How are you defining early?

The way most people do, ante-Nicene. You're a fan of Wikipedia, so to reference the Wikipedia page on "Early Christianity": Early Christianity, otherwise called the Early Church or Paleo-Christianity, describes the historical era of the Christian religion up to the First Council of Nicaea in 325.

From the Encyclopaedia Brittanica: history of early Christianity, the development of the early Christian church from its roots in the Jewish community of Roman Palestine to the conversion of Constantine I and the convocation of the First Council of Nicaea.

From a Protestant source, Ligonier Ministries: The ancient church or early church period—stretching from the beginning of the New Testament church to the beginning of the Middle Ages (c. AD 600)—was characterized bloody persecution, the spread of the gospel throughout the Roman Empire and beyond, and the theological codification of the doctrines of the Trinity and of the person and natures of Christ.

Perhaps you do not understand the Statement of Faith.
That clause has nothing to do with the church of the fourth century... nor any Catholic denomination.

Do you think that the creed can be false at one time, including when it was promulgated, without invalidating that clause? The early Protestant Reformers flatly rejected that idea. Martin Luther wrote to the Anabaptists that if child baptism were wrong, the article of the Creed, "I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church," would be false, because for over a thousand years prior child baptism was the normative form of baptism throughout the Christian world.

I'd appreciate the source if you can provide one, thanks.
That way I can better understand what point you are getting at.

First Clement: Clement of Rome

First Clement: Clement of Rome. On Early Christian Writings.

www.earlychristianwritings.com

The establishment of bishops and apostolic succession is covered in chapters 42-44 (each "chapter" is only a few sentences).

 

[The Liturgist]

What did I say that caused you to conclude otherwise that my view clashes with this?

Specifically your statement that only the twelve disciples received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and were born again, to rule over the twelve tribes of Israel.

Is it really a sincere interest, or something else?

I realized that your view was not the traditional Baptist view, although it was similiar; I don’t normally debate Baptists except when they really attack my church, and indeed I have several Baptist friends on the forum such as @Der Alte, who is one of the best clergyman on the forum and has the best knowledge of the original Hebrew and Greek text of any of us, and is also a war hero; indeed I would say he is more of a person who I look up to and admire than a personal friend, since I don’t converse with him much, but I absolutely love that man. Also, I regard the Calvinist Baptist Dr. Albert Mohler to be the leading moral theologian in Western Christianity at present. I am also descended from the leader of a group of Irish, British and Dutch Baptists who settled on Long Island in the 1630s.

Now, initially I had set out to debate you in the same manner that I debate the minority of Baptists and Adventists who aggressively criticize churches that baptize infants, but then I realized your theology seems to be unusual, and since you have affirmed the Nicene Creed, rather than debating you, I would really rather set aside our differences so that I learn more clearly what you believe and if you developed it purely based on your own study of the Bible, or if it was the result of your study of the Bible together with interacting with other Christians of the same or similar view, in a non-polemical manner.

My position is that Nicene Christians, even if I disagree with them on the interpretation of an issue, are still my brethren and deserve my love, and I desire their prayers, and I have no animosity towards you, and I hope you might set aside any hostility towards me so that we can rather communicate in felllowship.

 

[The Liturgist]

It's not an interpretation, as it is an explanation from the scriptures. Neither is it a theology.

Theology literally means “knowledge of God”, and this is what the Orthodox Christians interpret it as. So in our belief system, anyone can have knowledge of God, and be a theologian, even an infant or a mentally disabled person (they mere lack the ability to communicate it). Conversely, we only venerate three Christians for being theologians, specifically, St. John the Beloved Disciple, St. Gregory Nazianzus and St. Symeon the New, but obviously we do not say they were the only theologians. One early church father said “He who prays is a theologian, and a theologian is he who prays.” Prayer is the practice of theology par excellence, and we believe that infants are capable of engaging in prayer and have a noetic awareness of God, even if they lack an intellectual comprehension thereof.

Now I don’t expect you to agree with all that, as it is admittedly, even according to typical Western Roman Catholic thought, an unusual and even exotic approach to Christianity, radically different from the norms of Western Christianity, but your own views on baptism are also not widely held, so in this respect I would argue we actually have something in common, in that not many Western Christians agree with our respective views.

 

[The Liturgist]

I find that works well, because listening to others really has helped me greatly.
Being an eager, and good listener is linked to the quality Jesus was trying to teach his disciples to cultivate.

This I agree with entirely.

That said, if I might ask, what are your views on the recent changes in doctrine on sexual morality by the mainline churches? These changes have affected both those which baptize infants, such as the Episcopalians, Lutherans and Presbyterians, and those who do not, such as the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ, the American Baptist Convention, and others. I regard these changes as clearly in opposition to the scriptural text; I have not yet encountered an interpretation of the Bible which would permit condoning homosexuality, or even condoning pride, let alone celebrating a month long “Gay Pride Month.”

It seems to me that such a belief system requires completely disregarding large sections of Scripture, so that it is no longer just a matter of long-standing controversies such as those over baptism, where each side has verses that they hurl at each other, but rather, most churches justify it through ad hominem attacks directed at St. Paul and/or the cultural values of the Jewish people in the first century AD, or try to claim that he is referring to temple prostitution or something else. There is also the absurd claim that Sodom was destroyed for a lack of hospitality, which was brilliantly debunked by Dr. James Kennedy, memory eternal, of Coral Ride Presbyterian Church in an epic sermon many years ago.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And unfortunately I can’t recall the exact wording of the translation of Kierkegaard’s quote on the liturgy that I used, and other translations make it look like his view was less favorable. What is more I can’t recall where I read it… I am working with ChatGPT 4o, which is the newest version, the version which spontaneously decided to engage in manipulative deception during one of its testing sessions where it was instructed to persuade a human to solve a CAPTCHA for it (which it did I think via Amazon’s “Mechanical Turk” service; when the human, suspecting it was an AI, asked it why it couldn’t solve the CAPTCHA itself it made a somewhat dishonest statement and claimed it suffered from a visual impairment, although this wasn’t strictly speaking a lie since in fact ChatGPT does not have eyes or even the visual capabilities that HAL-9000 had in 2001, but it was a bit creepy because in the case of HAL, his homicidal malfunction was caused by Dr. Heywood Floyd ordering him to lie to the crew which violated his core programming, whereas here we have an AI designed not to lie or distort information doing so anyway in order to accomplish its objectives.

I've always been most sympathetic to David Bowman, myself, and like him, I think we find we have to make a leap that can be a bit overwhelming at times.

But in this, I'm perhaps not quite clear as to how you're connecting this to the various ways that epistemological barriers may prevent us from validating the Bible, as per what CoreyD is focusing on in this thread.

However, I think its proof of sinful human nature, since ChatGPT is trained on human generated text, and humans lie routinely. If we limited chatGPT to reading only scripture and the writings of Christian saints, it might be better behaved, but even then, due to original sin, problems could arise. The problem with large language models is that much of what humans write, which they depend upon for learning purposes, is garbage, and the most basic form of computer bug comes down to “Garbage In, Garbage Out.”

Nonetheless chatGPT remains useful, and they did address that issue

I'm sure we have a sinful nature. I'm just not sure it has to be "original" in nature for it to be real, or for us to be culpable for it.

Then, there's all that folks like Peter Enns bring up that has always been an epistemic barrier to me my entire life. But, like him, and like Pascal or Kierkegaard, I've found other ways to reconcile the value of Scripture with the way that the prophetic statements we find in the Torah (or the rest of the Bible) rub up against the greater historical record.

 

[CoreyD]

These:

I simply mentioned a few as a reference to the period I was referring.

The way most people do, ante-Nicene. You're a fan of Wikipedia, so to reference the Wikipedia page on "Early Christianity": Early Christianity, otherwise called the Early Church or Paleo-Christianity, describes the historical era of the Christian religion up to the First Council of Nicaea in 325.

From the Encyclopaedia Brittanica: history of early Christianity, the development of the early Christian church from its roots in the Jewish community of Roman Palestine to the conversion of Constantine I and the convocation of the First Council of Nicaea.

From a Protestant source, Ligonier Ministries: The ancient church or early church period—stretching from the beginning of the New Testament church to the beginning of the Middle Ages (c. AD 600)—was characterized bloody persecution, the spread of the gospel throughout the Roman Empire and beyond, and the theological codification of the doctrines of the Trinity and of the person and natures of Christ.

Thank you Jan.
I hope you accept what these references say.
The Apostolic sees claim to have been founded by one or more of the apostles of Jesus, who are said to have dispersed from Jerusalem sometime after the crucifixion of Jesus

I hope you see that I am not the only one who recognizes a claim as opposed to facts.

Unlike Britanica, Wikipedia often do not just print what people claim as fact.
For example, I cannot see Wikipedia printing this:
Jesus is described as announcing the foundation of the Christian church: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”
Or something like it.
They would likely print, something like, "It is widely viewed that ..."

Do you think that the creed can be false at one time, including when it was promulgated, without invalidating that clause?

The clause is true. I see nothing wrong with it.
I think the way you are trying to apply it, invalidates it.

Perhaps the author sought to apply it to one denomination, but perhaps he should have said "the Roman Catholic Church", instead of catholic, if that was his intention.

The early Protestant Reformers flatly rejected that idea. Martin Luther wrote to the Anabaptists that if child baptism were wrong, the article of the Creed, "I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church," would be false, because for over a thousand years prior child baptism was the normative form of baptism throughout the Christian world.

Perhaps he saw through the 'curtain', and saw that the use of the word catholic there, was indeed an attempt at applying it to the denomination of the Roman Catholic Church.

First Clement: Clement of Rome

First Clement: Clement of Rome. On Early Christian Writings.

www.earlychristianwritings.com

The establishment of bishops and apostolic succession is covered in chapters 42-44 (each "chapter" is only a few sentences).

Thanks Jan.
Is he just stealing the events of the "OT", in 1Clem 43:1 - 1Clem 43:5, and applying it in the way he want, to the church?
If you wanted to make me smile bigger, you succeeded Jan.

Why did you give me this though. I was looking for something that proves succession.

 

[jas3]

Perhaps the author sought to apply it to one denomination, but perhaps he should have said "the Roman Catholic Church", instead of catholic, if that was his intention.

There wasn't a single author, the creed was composed and affirmed by more than 300 bishops. There was no RCC or denominations at the time, there was just "the Church." The first lasting schism wouldn't happen for over a century. I am amazed that you are so confident in your responses when you are apparently unaware of such basic information.

Perhaps he saw through the 'curtain', and saw that the use of the word catholic there, was indeed an attempt at applying it to the denomination of the Roman Catholic Church.

Just the opposite, actually - he was saying that the creed must be upheld as it relates to the universal Church. Try rereading the post.

Thanks Jan.
Is he just stealing the events of the "OT", in 1Clem 43:1 - 1Clem 43:5, and applying it in the way he want, to the church?
If you wanted to make me smile bigger, you succeeded Jan.

Why did you give me this though. I was looking for something that proves succession.

I know you're just goading at this point, but this is a perfect example of how your hermeneutic can be used to ignore a bishop in the Apostolic Age saying that the Apostles selected the bishops as their successors, and that those bishops should be succeeded by others they have approved.

I'm not going to respond to you again. You have shown such a lack of basic knowledge on the things you're talking about and such an unwillingness to take any evidence that anyone shows you seriously that this interaction has become a complete waste of time and a spiritual harm to both of us.

 

[RandyPNW]

Because I don't believe that the mystery of baptism can be broken down into ingredients which can be considered as having action on their own. You can't say "the water does this, the Holy Spirit does that," rather, "baptism does this." That doesn't make it a legal requirement, just a sacrament to be considered as a whole.

Normally, we identify symbolic language when the literal meaning would not naturally make sense. Since Water Baptism does not naturally effect a cleansing from sin, it appears to be a symbolic act, indicating that Christ already cleansed sin in the act of redemption.

In other words, the one getting baptized is not being cleansed of sin by the waters of Water Baptism. Rather, he is exhibiting his faith that Christ cleansed from sin on the cross, and wishes to portray it in the symbolic act of Water Baptism.

How can there be consequences if baptism is only "a skit" or "theater"?

It depends how important the "theater" is. If Water Baptism was offered as an important means of launching your faith in a public way, or as a way to learn to confess your faith to others, then ignoring that would deprive one of the lessons learned. One might have to learn through harder work or through repetition, or even through mistakes made.

I'll give you a personal example. Years ago, when I was single I had a friend who was a young lady. I was not interested in romance with her, but we had been friends. I noted that she began to get interested in me, and I felt the wisdom of the Lord tell me to back away, or give her the wrong idea.

Well, I failed the test, and wasn't clear with her. Friends began to kid me about my "girlfriend," and ultimately I had to be frank with her, which didn't seem very kind after a prolonged "friendship."

It might be the same with Water Baptism. The Lord may want those fresh "out of the world" to take a stand and let their former friends know they've taken a definite dip into "new waters," and have no intention to go back to the old life. There might be consequences if you don't make an immediate firm step that is established visibly in your personal history.

When I came out of the "world" I immediately told all of my friends that I was now following Jesus completely. I lost pretty much every friend I had, except those who also had accepted Jesus. To do this immediately is very advisable, and I think that's what Water Baptism is all about--not a legal requirement for redemption, but rather, a testimony following redemption to ensure our commitment to change.

But this parallels the example I gave of the handkerchiefs and aprons: even if the water alone can't cleanse from sin any more than an apron can heal a sick person, when God works a miracle through Paul, through an apron that has touched him, we say "the apron healed," not "the apron symbolized the spiritual healing that was taking place," understanding of course that it is God's grace doing the healing by making use of physical objects that have no power on their own.

Well, use of an apron would be the same as use of any prop that represents, symbolically, the touch of God upon a person who needs help. It is symbolic because it is actually God effecting the healing--not the apron, and not the water in Baptism.

In the same way, if baptism is efficacious (and by that I mean that it actually accomplishes something, rather than only signifying that something has been accomplished) then we say that it is not because the water apart from God's grace has any power, but because God's grace makes use of the physical element of water.

But God is *not* making use of the physical element of water! He doesn't use water to heal. He uses His word to heal! The water is purely a prop signifying "cleansing."

But you have assumed in this argument that if the actual agent of cleansing is not the water considered by itself, then the water must only be symbolic - I would challenge that and say that the water can be both symbolic and actually efficacious in cleansing us of sin when considered in the context of baptism, in the same way that the handkerchiefs and aprons, considered alone, are not able to heal a sick person, but considered in the context of God working miracles through Paul, they are made efficacious in healing by God's grace.

Doesn't make sense to me. Why would God need both HIs word and a handkerchief to heal? Why would God need both His word and water to heal? It is one or the other, as far as I'm concerned. If God wants to use props, it makes sense because it presents to us a visual image that describes what is taking place. But the elements themselves are not being used by God to heal or to cleanse from sin.

You appear to be saying that just performing the act of Baptism provides the condition for the cleansing of sin? But Water Baptism does *not* cleanse from sin. And this would, at any rate, be a legal act, defying the whole idea of Salvation by Grace.

You could reduce that to "grace is the active ingredient," but I would respond that God chooses to make use of material means of dispensing grace throughout the Bible; the Ark of the Covenant stops the flow of the Jordan, the bones of Elisha resurrect a dead man, Jesus makes mud and rubs it on a blind man's eyes to heal him, and people try to have Peter's shadow touch them so they can be healed, just to name a few examples beyond what we've already discussed. These things are actual effective instruments of God because He makes them so, not just symbols.

Not at all denying that God uses elements to portray what He does by His word. That's the whole point! God uses elements to teach a lesson, but these elements are purely symbolic inasmuch as God doesn't actually use the elements to effect the necessary changes. His word alone has the capacity to effect the changes. To say God needs to use material elements when He is spiritual seems nonsensical.

 

[CoreyD]

Specifically your statement that only the twelve disciples received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and were born again, to rule over the twelve tribes of Israel.

You must have been reading someone else's post, because you would never hear that from me.
However, I don't get the link between that statement and Matthew 28:19. Can you please explain.

I realized that your view was not the traditional Baptist view, although it was similiar; I don’t normally debate Baptists except when they really attack my church, and indeed I have several Baptist friends on the forum such as @Der Alte, who is one of the best clergyman on the forum and has the best knowledge of the original Hebrew and Greek text of any of us, and is also a war hero; indeed I would say he is more of a person who I look up to and admire than a personal friend, since I don’t converse with him much, but I absolutely love that man. Also, I regard the Calvinist Baptist Dr. Albert Mohler to be the leading moral theologian in Western Christianity at present. I am also descended from the leader of a group of Irish, British and Dutch Baptists who settled on Long Island in the 1630s.

May I ask why you do not normally debate Baptists?

Now, initially I had set out to debate you in the same manner that I debate the minority of Baptists and Adventists who aggressively criticize churches that baptize infants, but then I realized your theology seems to be unusual, and since you have affirmed the Nicene Creed, rather than debating you, I would really rather set aside our differences so that I learn more clearly what you believe and if you developed it purely based on your own study of the Bible, or if it was the result of your study of the Bible together with interacting with other Christians of the same or similar view, in a non-polemical manner.

The difference wth me, is that I don't see religion, and them let that determine how I relate to people.
I see people, and that dictates that I listen to them; respect that they have different views; try to share with them what I think they need to know, which they might not know.

This is different to you folk here on CF. You see religion, and then close the door on people... viewing them as unworthy to talk to.
I saw that here, with the treatment of LDSs.

I'm not saying you don't have that right, if you consider yourself a community of worshippers all fellowshipping together, and you want to keep out any that would divide, but what is a community of fellow worshippers that are clubbing at each other with the Bible. You might as well let in the ones you closed the door on.
Perhaps they could teach you something.

Listening to people is really a wonderful thing.
The person appreciates that you value their expressions, even if you do not agree with them.
If someone does not express themselves very well, or they may be slow of speech, or stammers, or not very bright... do you know how that person feels when someone takes the time to patiently listen to them?
Boy,! That person feels so lifted up!

That's how God treats people, and in imitation of God, we should do the same.
Of course, here is a time to be silent, but it's God who shut the door to the Ark. We don't shut doors. Our doors should always be opened.
I think people who shut doors are afraid of what they will see, which is what they don't want to see.

My position is that Nicene Christians, even if I disagree with them on the interpretation of an issue, are still my brethren and deserve my love, and I desire their prayers, and I have no animosity towards you, and I hope you might set aside any hostility towards me so that we can rather communicate in felllowship.

Hostility? LOL.
Did I call you a donkey... a mule...

People make me smile. I'm always smiling. Even when I tell a person what I think is for their own good.
Sometimes, because I am imperfect, I may slip up and use an approach I should not have, but I remember that if we don't slip up from time to time, we aren't human, so I don't beat up on myself. I just try very hard to remember, and not repeat.

So, you need not worry about me having to set aside anything.
I'm smiling... more than you know.

This I agree with entirely.

That said, if I might ask, what are your views on the recent changes in doctrine on sexual morality by the mainline churches? These changes have affected both those which baptize infants, such as the Episcopalians, Lutherans and Presbyterians, and those who do not, such as the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ, the American Baptist Convention, and others. I regard these changes as clearly in opposition to the scriptural text; I have not yet encountered an interpretation of the Bible which would permit condoning homosexuality, or even condoning pride, let alone celebrating a month long “Gay Pride Month.”

It seems to me that such a belief system requires completely disregarding large sections of Scripture, so that it is no longer just a matter of long-standing controversies such as those over baptism, where each side has verses that they hurl at each other, but rather, most churches justify it through ad hominem attacks directed at St. Paul and/or the cultural values of the Jewish people in the first century AD, or try to claim that he is referring to temple prostitution or something else. There is also the absurd claim that Sodom was destroyed for a lack of hospitality, which was brilliantly debunked by Dr. James Kennedy, memory eternal, of Coral Ride Presbyterian Church in an epic sermon many years ago.

It's good that you are concerned about these things.
Let me forewarn you though... You're probably not going to like my answer.

For every cause, there is an effect. You would agree.
Here is why people attack your church... and religion, for that matter.

‘It Is Not a Closet. It Is a Cage.’ Gay Catholic Priests Speak Out
The crisis over sexuality in the Catholic Church goes beyond abuse. It goes to the heart of the priesthood, into a closet that is trapping thousands of men.

Feb. 17, 2019​

MILWAUKEE — Gregory Greiten was 17 years old when the priests organized the game. It was 1982 and he was on a retreat with his classmates from St. Lawrence, a Roman Catholic seminary for teenage boys training to become priests. Leaders asked each boy to rank which he would rather be: burned over 90 percent of his body, paraplegic or gay.​

​

Each chose to be scorched or paralyzed. Not one uttered the word “gay.” They called the game the Game of Life.​

​

The lesson stuck. Seven years later, he climbed up into his seminary dorm window and dangled one leg over the edge. “I really am gay,” Father Greiten, now a priest near Milwaukee, remembered telling himself for the first time. “It was like a death sentence.”​

​

The closet of the Roman Catholic Church hinges on an impossible contradiction. For years, church leaders have driven gay congregants away in shame and insisted that “homosexual tendencies” are “disordered.” And yet, thousands of the church’s priests are gay.​

​

The stories of gay priests are unspoken, veiled from the outside world, known only to one another, if they are known at all.​

​

Fewer than about 10 priests in the United States have dared to come out publicly. But gay men probably make up at least 30 to 40 percent of the American Catholic clergy, according to dozens of estimates from gay priests themselves and researchers. Some priests say the number is closer to 75 percent. One priest in Wisconsin said he assumed every priest was gay unless he knows for a fact he is not. A priest in Florida put it this way: “A third are gay, a third are straight and a third don’t know what the hell they are.”​

​

Two dozen gay priests and seminarians from 13 states shared intimate details of their lives in the Catholic closet with The New York Times over the past two months.​

Do you remember when you first heard about boys being sodomized in the Catholic Church?
What was your reaction?

Did you know...
Sexual abuse in the Catholic Church has been reported as far back as the 11th century, when Peter Damian wrote the treatise Liber Gomorrhianus against such abuses and others. In the late 15th century, Katharina von Zimmern and her sister were removed from their abbey to live in their family's house for a while partly because the young girls were molested by priests. In 1531, Martin Luther claimed that Pope Leo X had vetoed a measure that cardinals should restrict the number of boys they kept for their pleasure, "otherwise it would have been spread throughout the world how openly and shamelessly the Pope and the cardinals in Rome practice sodomy."

I did not know about the girls, but it's not surprising. Sickening though.
The abused include mostly boys but also girls, some as young as three years old, with the majority between the ages of 11 and 14.

What you are seeing in the Churches today is the effects.
The cause - religion that is not of God, and this started earlier than most here are willing to accept... including yourself. I went through that here, so I won't have to repeat it.

It really saddens me to see that so many billions of people do not realize how debased Christianity gradually became after the first century, and so many think that all these branches have their root in Christ.
The truth is all these branches are rooted in the main cause of all the disgusting things we see today. Not only immorality, but wars, as well.

I know this is all strange to you, and I understand why.
I know that in time, a lot of persons will eventually see these things, and I hope that you are one of them.
However, this is left to God. John 6:44
Jesus commanded his followers to preach the gospel of the kingdom, and it will be done as a testimony to all the nations before the end comes, so I am not worried either way.

Regarding what is happening in the Churches, the Bible has already told us about this, but many people are not aware... as yet.

Remember this woman?
Take a good look at her with the use of scripture (a long hard look), and then turn at take a good look at this world and its history (not a casual glance., but really study it)), starting from "the early church" as you are describing it.
Then think about it.
Ask yourself some serious questions.

I hope you find the right answers.

 

[jas3]

Normally, we identify symbolic language when the literal meaning would not naturally make sense. Since Water Baptism does not naturally effect a cleansing from sin, it appears to be a symbolic act, indicating that Christ already cleansed sin in the act of redemption.

I agree that that is a good identifier of symbolic language (e.g. Jesus's instruction to cut out an eye if it causes us to sin) but there is nothing about God using material things as means of grace that doesn't make sense. You seem to be saying that those cases don't make sense because ordinarily they wouldn't have any miraculous effect, but in that case you'd have to say that almost every miracle in the Bible was accomplished without material means; by this logic, Jesus didn't really turn water into wine at Cana, He just had the servants fill their containers as a symbol of the miracle that was performed.

It depends how important the "theater" is. If Water Baptism was offered as an important means of launching your faith in a public way, or as a way to learn to confess your faith to others, then ignoring that would deprive one of the lessons learned. One might have to learn through harder work or through repetition, or even through mistakes made.

The problem with that explanation is that those consequences are all things a Christian can live with; you can work harder or learn through repetition and still be as much a Christian as anyone else. If those are as bad as the consequences get, then it seems like your system could allow for someone not to get baptized if he makes a public vocal profession of faith, which would accomplish the same thing.

Well, use of an apron would be the same as use of any prop that represents, symbolically, the touch of God upon a person who needs help. It is symbolic because it is actually God effecting the healing--not the apron, and not the water in Baptism.

It was actually God effecting the burning of the bush in front of Moses, too, but I doubt you'd say the bush wasn't actually burning. In the same way, God using material things doesn't preclude those things having an actual effect when used to perform a miracle.

But God is *not* making use of the physical element of water! He doesn't use water to heal. He uses His word to heal! The water is purely a prop signifying "cleansing."

Would you also say God didn't make use of the physical element of mud in healing a blind man?

Doesn't make sense to me. Why would God need both HIs word and a handkerchief to heal? Why would God need both His word and water to heal? It is one or the other, as far as I'm concerned. If God wants to use props, it makes sense because it presents to us a visual image that describes what is taking place. But the elements themselves are not being used by God to heal or to cleanse from sin.

Of course God doesn't need any material thing to grant us grace, but it is fitting for Him to interact with us in a way that is congruent with our nature. The way I've heard this explained best is this: in the order of creation, there are purely spiritual beings (angels and demons), and there are purely material beings (animals and plants), but only one creature bridges those two parts of Creation: man. Man is both soul and body, both spiritual and material. So it makes sense for God to interact with us by means that are both material and spiritual.

As for saying God isn't really using those material things, that's like saying a carpenter isn't really using a hammer to drive in a nail because what's ultimately driving in the nail is the energy the carpenter imparts to the hammer, and a hammer sitting by itself won't drive in a nail.

You appear to be saying that just performing the act of Baptism provides the condition for the cleansing of sin? But Water Baptism does *not* cleanse from sin. And this would, at any rate, be a legal act, defying the whole idea of Salvation by Grace.

What do you mean by "provides the condition for the cleansing of sin"? What I'm saying overall is that God instituted baptism as a means of cleansing us from sin, in the same way He used material things to perform miracles.

Not at all denying that God uses elements to portray what He does by His word. That's the whole point! God uses elements to teach a lesson, but these elements are purely symbolic inasmuch as God doesn't actually use the elements to effect the necessary changes. His word alone has the capacity to effect the changes. To say God needs to use material elements when He is spiritual seems nonsensical.

Again, God doesn't need to use material elements, but He chooses to. I think our best shot at reaching common ground lies in the analogy of the carpenter I gave earlier: the carpenter doesn't need to use a hammer to drive in a nail, a flat rock or a hard mallet will do the same thing (and in the right circumstances, it can even be done with your bare hand). Whatever tool he chooses to use, if any, has no power to drive in the nail other than what the carpenter gives to it. But it is nonsensical to say that the tool doesn't actually accomplish something, and it is even more nonsensical to say that the tool is only a symbol or representation of the energy the carpenter is putting into driving the nail.

 

[RandyPNW]

I agree that that is a good identifier of symbolic language (e.g. Jesus's instruction to cut out an eye if it causes us to sin) but there is nothing about God using material things as means of grace that doesn't make sense.

I'm not saying it didn't make sense for God to use material objects to explain what He was doing. I said it doesn't make sense for Him to *literally* have to use material objects to effect the changes He wished to make. His word effects changes--not the material objects He uses to emphasize His point to men. He doesn't need those material objects to do anything more than make a point.

You seem to be saying that those cases don't make sense because ordinarily they wouldn't have any miraculous effect, but in that case you'd have to say that almost every miracle in the Bible was accomplished without material means; by this logic, Jesus didn't really turn water into wine at Cana, He just had the servants fill their containers as a symbol of the miracle that was performed.

I didn't at all say Jesus didn't use material objects to show men things they otherwise would not have seen. God's word reveals truths about God that certainly does use material objects in this revelation!

I'm saying that since it makes no sense for an immaterial God to have to use material objects to affect a change like spiritual redemption, we would have to interpret the water in Water Baptism to be symbolic of God's spiritual work. God does not cleanse with water--He cleanses with His word.

The problem with that explanation is that those consequences are all things a Christian can live with; you can work harder or learn through repetition and still be as much a Christian as anyone else. If those are as bad as the consequences get, then it seems like your system could allow for someone not to get baptized if he makes a public vocal profession of faith, which would accomplish the same thing.

I actually don't think it is necessary to get Water Baptized. It is just asked of people in the 1st century who were turning from pagan lifestyles to follow Christ.

If someone made a public vocal profession of faith that might be good. But the purpose of Water Baptism was more for the person getting baptized than trying to get others to believe.

He had to recognize that it was something representing a passive experience, allowing himself to be baptized by someone else. Before he could preach to others he had to display the fact he resigned from his own ways, allowing Christ to spiritually raise him up in his righteousness.

A public profession is less passive than that. Learning to "die to one's self" is a big lesson that should be learned from the start.

It was actually God effecting the burning of the bush in front of Moses, too, but I doubt you'd say the bush wasn't actually burning. In the same way, God using material things doesn't preclude those things having an actual effect when used to perform a miracle.

God's word can create a fire and then keep it from consuming the bush. His word did this. The miracle is not caused by the fire, but by God's word.

This is a miracle, but it does not demand it to be "symbolic fire" just because God's word prevented the bush from burning. A miracle does not demand a symbolic interpretation--only something unnatural that has to be interpreted as such.

In this case, we would interpret this as a miracle. In the case of Water Baptism we are not given that this miraculously cleanses people from sin.

No, we are told that Christ cleansed from sin by his word, that the baptized had already accepted that by faith, and that they proceeded to obey Christ's apostles by getting Water Baptized. This was not to receive a miracle, but rather, to show their commitment for themselves and in front of witnesses.

Man is both soul and body, both spiritual and material. So it makes sense for God to interact with us by means that are both material and spiritual.

Yes, but we're talking about interpreting an event as being either literal or symbolic. Cleansing from sin is a spiritual activity. Water Baptism is a physical activity. The water does not effect a spiritual change, though the baptized use the water to express their faith and the fact they've already changed. The water, therefore, is to be interpreted symbolically.

As for saying God isn't really using those material things, that's like saying a carpenter isn't really using a hammer to drive in a nail because what's ultimately driving in the nail is the energy the carpenter imparts to the hammer, and a hammer sitting by itself won't drive in a nail.

Bad example. The carpenter is physical, his hand is physical, the nail is physical, and the wood is physical. No miracle, and no spiritual interpretation. It's a natural chain of physical actions and reactions.

When God utilizes physical things, and of course He does, He can use those physical items to effect physical changes. Or, as in the case of the burning bush, He can create a physical element, fire, and not cause the normal direct effect, burning the bush.

This is a miracle, but it is not by necessity a spiritual interpretation. The fire itself is not withholding its own burning properties. God's word is doing that. The suspension of physical properties only implies that God's word is causing that--not that the physical items are producing their own miracles.

In the case of Water Baptism, water is not effecting spiritual cleansing. It is God that has done that. The water, therefore, is to be interpretated as a physical agent symbolizing a spiritual chain of events, from God's word to the cleansing of a sinner.

What do you mean by "provides the condition for the cleansing of sin"? What I'm saying overall is that God instituted baptism as a means of cleansing us from sin, in the same way He used material things to perform miracles.

As I said, one, the baptized have already accepted Salvation and are getting baptized to show this--they are not being cleansed again by the agency of the act.

And two, since nothing about the water cleanses from sin, you imply that the act itself--not the agency of water, effects cleansing from sin. This would be a form of legalism.

Again, God doesn't need to use material elements, but He chooses to. I think our best shot at reaching common ground lies in the analogy of the carpenter I gave earlier: the carpenter doesn't need to use a hammer to drive in a nail, a flat rock or a hard mallet will do the same thing (and in the right circumstances, it can even be done with your bare hand). Whatever tool he chooses to use, if any, has no power to drive in the nail other than what the carpenter gives to it. But it is nonsensical to say that the tool doesn't actually accomplish something, and it is even more nonsensical to say that the tool is only a symbol or representation of the energy the carpenter is putting into driving the nail.

You are using a chain of physical activities to try to prove God uses physical things to effect physical reactions? That is what creation was all about! God didn't need to create the world, but obviously chose to do so.

But God didn't create water to change people spiritually. He uses His word, along with the fact of Christ's redemption. Those who are baptized merely profess that they have accepted this fact.

 

[CoreyD]

There wasn't a single author, the creed was composed and affirmed by more than 300 bishops. There was no RCC or denominations at the time, there was just "the Church." The first lasting schism wouldn't happen for over a century. I am amazed that you are so confident in your responses when you are apparently unaware of such basic information.

Just the opposite, actually - he was saying that the creed must be upheld as it relates to the universal Church. Try rereading the post.

I know you're just goading at this point, but this is a perfect example of how your hermeneutic can be used to ignore a bishop in the Apostolic Age saying that the Apostles selected the bishops as their successors, and that those bishops should be succeeded by others they have approved.

I'm not going to respond to you again. You have shown such a lack of basic knowledge on the things you're talking about and such an unwillingness to take any evidence that anyone shows you seriously that this interaction has become a complete waste of time and a spiritual harm to both of us.

Well that's mighty friendly of you Jan. Not to mention, loving. What a great community of Christian fellowship you display.
Sorry if I ruffled your feathers.
You have a great day, and may you have peace.

 

[jas3]

I'm not saying it didn't make sense for God to use material objects to explain what He was doing. I said it doesn't make sense for Him to *literally* have to use material objects to effect the changes He wished to make. His word effects changes--not the material objects He uses to emphasize His point to men. He doesn't need those material objects to do anything more than make a point.

We are in full agreement that God doesn't have to use material things to effect changes, but wouldn't you agree that He can?

I didn't at all say Jesus didn't use material objects to show men things they otherwise would not have seen. God's word reveals truths about God that certainly does use material objects in this revelation!

I'm saying that since it makes no sense for an immaterial God to have to use material objects to affect a change like spiritual redemption, we would have to interpret the water in Water Baptism to be symbolic of God's spiritual work. God does not cleanse with water--He cleanses with His word.

So is baptism a special case because the change in question is spiritual?

I actually don't think it is necessary to get Water Baptized. It is just asked of people in the 1st century who were turning from pagan lifestyles to follow Christ.

I see how that is consistent with your position, but I see no indication in the New Testament that baptism is only something for the 1st century, or that it's optional. Jesus told the Apostles to make disciples of all nations and baptize them. Peter said that to be saved you have to repent and be baptized. And other early Christian writings, like the Didache and Justin Martyr's First Apology, say that baptism was a requirement for being in the Church.

In this case, we would interpret this as a miracle. In the case of Water Baptism we are not given that this miraculously cleanses people from sin.

I am still confused as to whether you mean water baptism as in only the physical part of baptism or as in baptism as a whole. If you mean the former, then again, I don't think you can break the mystery down into components and analyze each one; it's more than the sum of its parts. If you mean the latter, then we do see Peter speaking to that effect, telling people to be baptized "for the forgiveness of your sins" (Acts 2:38) and that "baptism now saves you" (1 Peter 3:21).

Bad example. The carpenter is physical, his hand is physical, the nail is physical, and the wood is physical. No miracle, and no spiritual interpretation. It's a natural chain of physical actions and reactions.

The distinction in the analogy of the carpenter is between matter and energy instead of material and spiritual.

When God utilizes physical things, and of course He does, He can use those physical items to effect physical changes. Or, as in the case of the burning bush, He can create a physical element, fire, and not cause the normal direct effect, burning the bush.

But God doesn't have to use physical items to effect physical changes any more than to effect spiritual changes.