History of the "Born Again Christian" movement.

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hmm no. John 21:25 answers what you asked: You have not demonstrated the word of mouth differs from what was written. Unless of course you have examples of critical apostolic teachings which were not written down. perfectly because it is telling you that not everything written so logically

It tells you not everything is written, and not every could fit in a book. So there are teachings that were through word of mouth that never entered scripture.

Let's revisit:

John 21: NASB
24This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.
25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.


The above just after this from chapter 20:

John 20: NASB
30Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

So John is saying it's 'one stop shopping' with his gospel account. That what he wrote one could come to the belief in Jesus as the Christ the Son of God and that we have life in His name.

Now I take the above to mean this is critical doctrines, accounts and beliefs. Yet in the next chapter and what you quote has:

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

First begs the question...Are these other things which Jesus did any different from what John or any of the other Gospel writers or epistle authors taught? That's the question.

Your response has been the verse is a proof text for a separate apostolic oral tradition. If so then which traditions are packed into "other things Jesus did?"

The tonsure? Purgatory? Prayers to departed saints? Marian veneration?

Thus again, you try to pack in your later doctrinal developments from a position of silence.

Another example (or answer) is the canon. You believe that there is a closed canon and the Bible you hold is it. You believe if we add/delete any books in the Bible, we would be committing a sin. You believe that the last revelation from God ceased from the last apostle. Am i correct in all of this?
The only church which has an officially closed canon is your church thanks to Trent.

Exactly, regardless of how or when Mark and Luke wrote the gospels the fact is they did not come from scripture.
When YHWH said "thus saith the Lord" to Isaiah it is true YHWH said it first, Isaiah heard it and then wrote it down. So I'm not seeing the logic of your position here. Yes things happen and are said first and then written down. I already attested to that by quoting Irenaeus in AH 3.1.1

This info was verbally passed down.
And written in the very time spans of the apostles and eyewitnesses.

Do you think the christian prisoners documented by Pliny the Younger gained their beliefs because of what they read, or what it all verbally taken first?

It is written: "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10:17)

Thus the preacher presents the word of God and the listener hears these words and responds. Yet 'hearing by the word of God' is what the preacher is using.

And where to we find the word of God?

Too many verses to post, so please click on the below links:

Word of God
Word of the Lord

Thus saith the Lord
It is written

The Trinity itself is a christian belief that isn't worded in scripture, in fact to this day, the fact that there are verses that are like puzzles for this info has caused some to think that the scriptures deny this teaching, but we see in the history of the 1st Christians that they believed this even with out the scriptures being present at the time.
Yet the Trinity was argued by the orthodox bishops using Holy Scriptures. I'm sure you are familiar with the works of Athanasius. He argued the Trinity and Deity of Christ from Holy Scriptures. And his canon was with the exception of one book (Esther) is what most Protestants have in their canon.

What you don't understand is that while scripture is authority it has to be under the guidance of the Church (as Irenaeus put it). Our faith can't go by scripture alone otherwise some guy can make claims and even religions out of what he interprets just as history shows.
Where did Irenaeus say Scripture has to be under the guidance of the Church?

Our faith can't go by scripture alone otherwise some guy can make claims and even religions out of what he interprets just as history shows.
History shows heretics used tradition and new revelation claims as well (e.g. Mormons and Muslims). Irenaeus went into detail arguing the traditions of the heretics were not apostolic even though they claimed it to be true. Therefore, he pointed out where the apostolic tradition, the rule of faith was scriptural and refuted the false doctrine of the demiurge. Again, I point out the tradition he speaks of was the rule of faith and 100% "Biblical."

Yet, your point of 'scripture alone' might be from a faulty definition. Scripture alone, Sola Scriptura, in a nutshell is we test all truth claims against Holy Scriptures because we know they are wholly inspired by the Holy Spirit and are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:15-17). And that the Apostle exhorted Timothy the following:

2 Timothy 4: NASB
1I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: 2preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. 3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. 5But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.



The way scripture is interpreted has to be aligned to what the apostles passed down to the church fathers.
And you have failed to demonstrate what was handed down differs from what we have written. I showed in AH 1.10.1 how Irenaeus gives a creed, the rule of faith which is 100% compatible with what is written.

So that's an interpretation which Irenaeus later tests with Scriptures.

The Bible is an example of that, because with all the books that were floating around it was Matt-Rev that was passed down by the apostles and because of that the recognization of what is truly God's word for the NT has been taught by the church for generations.
As I mentioned, the early church had a pretty good idea what was first century and from the apostles and what were spurious which were mainly 2nd century works.

Then who is aligned to the true apostolic tradition, it isn't you protestants because your main rule of faith is Sola Scriptura and there are about 3k+ protestant denominations, each and every one being a reformation of a previous denomination (that includes yours). The RC and the EO are more close to the apostolic tradition that Irenaeus represents. I don't understand how you just blindly put John21:25 as an argument from silence when it is completely clear in saying that not everything is in scripture. What and where is the rest that isn't found in scripture, if you think the RC and EO -two of the oldest christians today isn't following it?
First you have not established what tradition "Irenaeus represents." I on the other hand gave evidence he confirmed the rule of faith is compatible, actually comes from the written Scriptures.

Secondly, if one wants to make an ancient claim, there is nothing more ancient in Christianity than the actual teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles. We find that in both the OT and NT.

The heart of Sola Scriptura is test everything; hold fast what is good.; (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

Meaning Scriptures are the only infallible authority to test truth claims. Which what I see on these chat boards are confusing arguments and assertions on Sola Scriptura from both Roman Catholics and even some Protestants, Evangelicals and others. As Reformed theologian Michael Kruger opines on here:

Of course, like many core Christian convictions, the doctrine of sola Scriptura has often been misunderstood and misapplied. Unfortunately, some have used sola Scriptura as a justification for a “me, God, and the Bible” type of individualism, where the church bears no real authority and the history of the church is not considered when interpreting and applying Scripture. Thus, many churches today are almost ahistorical—cut off entirely from the rich traditions, creeds, and confessions of the church. They misunderstand sola Scriptura to mean that the Bible is the only authority rather than understanding it to mean that the Bible is the only infallible authority. Ironically, such an individualistic approach actually undercuts the very doctrine of sola Scriptura it is intended to protect. By emphasizing the autonomy of the individual believer, one is left with only private, subjective conclusions about what Scripture means. It is not so much the authority of Scripture that is prized as the authority of the individual.

The Reformers would not have recognized such a distortion as their doctrine of sola Scriptura. On the contrary, they were quite keen to rely on the church fathers, church councils, and the creeds and confessions of the church. Such historical rootedness was viewed not only as a means for maintaining orthodoxy but also as a means for maintaining humility. Contrary to popular perceptions, the Reformers did not view themselves as coming up with something new. Rather, they understood themselves to be recovering something very old—something that the church had originally believed but later twisted and distorted. The Reformers were not innovators but were excavators. (Understanding Sola Scriptura)




But was it all scripture originally? Wasn't this info all passed down with out writings?
As I pointed out---both. Meaning the words of Christ were spoken, the teachings of the Apostles were verbal, but also being written down at the same time.

What you have not been able to provide is evidence that what was written differed from what was given verbally. And if you believe there are other things which were taught and were part of the apostolic tradition but not written down, the burden of proof is on you to provide a list of what those traditions are. Irenaeus gives no help to your cause as the tradition he mentions is a creed, the rule of faith which is entirely from Holy Scriptures.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PeaceByJesus
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Luther wasn't making a theological statement about regeneration, but using colorful prose. Here is where Fr. Martin does make a theological statement about regeneration:

"Here you see again how highly and precious we should esteem Baptism, because in it we obtain such an unspeakable treasure, which also indicates sufficiently that it cannot be ordinary mere water. For mere water could not do such a thing, but the Word does it, and (as said above) the fact that the name of God is comprehended therein. But where the name of God is, there must be also life and salvation, that it may indeed be called a divine, blessed, fruitful, and gracious water; for by the Word such power is imparted to Baptism that it is a laver of regeneration, as St. Paul also calls it, Titus 3:5." - The Large Catechism, Section IV, 26-27

-CryptoLutheran
Yet he also makes quite a few other theological statements not mentioning faith in association with baptism. For example On Faith & Coming to Christ
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Hmm no. John 21:25 answers what you asked: You have not demonstrated the word of mouth differs from what was written. Unless of course you have examples of critical apostolic teachings which were not written down. perfectly because it is telling you that not everything written so logically

It tells you not everything is written, and not every could fit in a book. So there are teachings that were through word of mouth that never entered scripture.
But the fact that there is more than is written, and indeed, more to be known than you will ever know in this life, simply does NOT translate into such being needed in this life, or God having preserved it someplace in some form on earth, much less your church being the sure seer dispensing parts of this virtual bottomless well.
The Trinity itself is a christian belief that isn't worded in scripture, in fact to this day, the fact that there are verses that are like puzzles for this info has caused some to think that the scriptures deny this teaching, but we see in the history of the 1st Christians that they believed this even with out the scriptures being present at the time.
The reason we hold to Trinitarianism, as well as to other core beliefs that Catholics also share, is not because they were part of oral tradition, but because they are manifestly Scriptural. On the same basis we reject teachings that are not found in Scripture.
Yes, and this is the stance of a Catholic. The Apostles gave the word of God through oral and written format. Both has to be kept.
Indeed the word of God was orally preached as well as written down, but that the Truth of what was orally preached was not written, which was God's most-reliable means of preservation, ( Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19; Psalm 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; Acts 17:11) and that your church is the infallible provider of this oral tradition, is where your premise becomes spurious presumption. As asked you before, "And so Catholic popes and prelates speak as wholly inspired of God, and also provide new public express revelation thereby, as men such as the apostles could? If not, what is the basis for assurance of the veracity of your church in declaring such?" That is an unavoidable issue.
What you don't understand is that while scripture is authority it has to be under the guidance of the Church (as Irenaeus put it). Our faith can't go by scripture alone otherwise some guy can make claims and even religions out of what he interprets just as history shows.
So this necessarily means that some itinerant, preachers of Scriptural reproof have no authority since the magisterial stewards of Scripture do not sanction him?
The way scripture is interpreted has to be aligned to what the apostles passed down to the church fathers. The Bible is an example of that, because with all the books that were floating around it was Matt-Rev that was passed down by the apostles and because of that the recognization of what is truly God's word for the NT has been taught by the church for generations.
Thank God for discernment, but the issue that remains is that of the veracity of leadership. This the question, are the magisterial leaders of the body which saw a body of inspired-of-God writings become established as being so, and thus authoritative, themselves infallible? So that when they tell us the Assumption is also a required belief then we are to assent to them?
Then who is aligned to the true apostolic tradition, it isn't you protestants because your main rule of faith is Sola Scriptura and there are about 3k+ protestant denominations, each and every one being a reformation of a previous denomination (that includes yours).
That is simply an invalid comparison, since you cannot compare one organized body, based on mere official statement, with a vast group which includes multitudes of churches which do not even believe historical Protestant distinctives. Might as well include Santeria as Catholic.

But we could compare a single Prot denomination, but if you want to deal with evangelism since that narrows things down, and the OP made that an issue, we do not defend a church but a basic faith, and since the Scriptural criteria for determining what one believe is that of what they do and effect, (James 2:18; Mt. 7:20) then you could compare what those who hold to the most basic characteristic belief of evangelism testify to, versus those your church considers members.

Be back later.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

Cis.jd

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2015
3,613
1,484
New York, NY
✟140,465.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Indeed the word of God was orally preached as well as written down, but that the Truth of what was orally preached was not written, which was God's most-reliable means of preservation, ( Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19; Psalm 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; Acts 17:11) and that your church is the infallible provider of this oral tradition, is where your premise becomes spurious presumption. As asked you before, "And so Catholic popes and prelates speak as wholly inspired of God, and also provide new public express revelation thereby, as men such as the apostles could? If not, what is the basis for assurance of the veracity of your church in declaring such?" That is an unavoidable issue.

Let me ask you, if you have a problem with the claims that Catholicism is the church is the most accurate with the traditions passed down by the apostles then why do you believe in the canon Bible you hold in your hands? It was this church that declared this as only 27. It already referenced that irenaeus believed it was around 27-29 but our NT only has 27. Where is the 28th and 29? It was the catholic church that declared those two extra books to be non inspired and you follow that.

If you raise the question against the veracity of the RC and the EO, then which denomination is the actual provider? How can it be you protestants when you have over 3k different denominations all claiming each on of you is wrong, in addition to being responsible for anti-christ like cults such as the JW's and Mormons? The only two who have the right to debate as to who has held the teachings accurately is the RC and the EO, you protestants aren't close to it because your own doctrine is Sola Scriptura.

But we could compare a single Prot denomination, but if you want to deal with evangelism since that narrows things down, and the OP made that an issue, we do not defend a church but a basic faith, and since the Scriptural criteria for determining what one believe is that of what they do and effect, (James 2:18lMt. 7:20) then you could compare what those who hold to the most basic characteristic belief of evangelism testify to, versus those your church considers members.
Be back later.
You are defending a church whether you realize it or not. Your whole faith is taught by the doctrines you are introduced to. You are of a protestant denomination and most of your views have been influenced by your own church, which ever it maybe. In essence, the faith you are defending is the false-taught rule of faith that is rooted in self contradicting theology known as Sola Scriptura. How can i prove that you are defending a specific church, well lets see you talk about certain theological beliefs towards other protestants who aren't from the same denomination, you'll see your "elements of faith" will contradict each other. If you were defending just a basic faith and not a church then you wouldn't have any problems with each other on other theological subjects. But you do. Because your church has different theological views.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,786
Pacific Northwest
✟728,225.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
No, he was just explaining as best he could 'how' and 'when' it happened to him.

Luther wasn't born again in the tower, he was born again at his baptism as an infant. He would be the first to tell you this. Trying to say that his epiphany about Justification was when he was born again is simply a wrong reading of what he said and what he himself believed.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,786
Pacific Northwest
✟728,225.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
You mean by a "private, esoteric spiritual experience" hearing the simple gospel message of forgiveness by faith in the Lord Jesus who was crucified for our sins and rose again, and becoming manifestly born again by believing it at that hour (presuming God's drawing and convicting), and confessing that in baptism? Versus being regenerated by baptism even without personal repentant faith? Or needing weeks of formal catachesis before conversion?

Describe the contrasts.

God works through external means, such as the preaching of the Gospel. Thus God's work is exoteric, it comes from outside of ourselves to work upon us. Our salvation does not arise from a private, personal experience from within.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Cis.jd

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2015
3,613
1,484
New York, NY
✟140,465.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Let's revisit:

John 21: NASB
24This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.
25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.


The above just after this from chapter 20:

John 20: NASB
30Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

So John is saying it's 'one stop shopping' with his gospel account. That what he wrote one could come to the belief in Jesus as the Christ the Son of God and that we have life in His name.

Now I take the above to mean this is critical doctrines, accounts and beliefs. Yet in the next chapter and what you quote has:

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

First begs the question...Are these other things which Jesus did any different from what John or any of the other Gospel writers or epistle authors taught? That's the question.

Well yes, if you read the last part of the sentence of John 20:25 he described how much it is by saying that "even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written". That is how much Jesus did and said, so obviously there would be a difference to what you have written in your 27 NT books and what was just orally taught. Again, "even the world can't fit it" so this is already a no brainer. You are wrestling around this subject and trying to create holes around it regardless of the verses showing only one logical conclusion. There are things that Jesus taught that are not in the gospels, not everything in faith was written cuz it can't fit the books.

Your response has been the verse is a proof text for a separate apostolic oral tradition. If so then which traditions are packed into "other things Jesus did?" The tonsure? Purgatory? Prayers to departed saints? Marian veneration? Thus again, you try to pack in your later doctrinal developments from a position of silence.

None of these where later developments, and we see these beliefs practiced by all the older christian denominations, including protestants. The only ones who banned these beliefs/practices are protestant denominations that came out after 1600's.


The only church which has an officially closed canon is your church thanks to Trent.
So your church doesn't have a closed canon. So is it possible for someone, including yourself, to make a new book to the new testament?

When YHWH said "thus saith the Lord" to Isaiah it is true YHWH said it first, Isaiah heard it and then wrote it down. So I'm not seeing the logic of your position here. Yes things happen and are said first and then written down. I already attested to that by quoting Irenaeus in AH 3.1.1

Because something has to be passed down first. Lets go back to the gospels, However not everything that happened in Jesus' life was written down, such as his kid-teen years. We don't know anything about him around that age.. none of this was passed down by his apostles either through oral or written format. That is why the stories of Jesus as a boy reviving dead birds is not accepted by the church. Everything that helped in deciding what were the true books to be canonized was all because they were all taught by the apostles first.

And written in the very time spans of the apostles and eyewitnesses.
Word of God
Word of the Lord

Thus saith the Lord
It is written
You really think the christians who were locked up only came to know about Christ because of what they read?

Yet the Trinity was argued by the orthodox bishops using Holy Scriptures. I'm sure you are familiar with the works of Athanasius. He argued the Trinity and Deity of Christ from Holy Scriptures. And his canon was with the exception of one book (Esther) is what most Protestants have in their canon.
Yes, the Holy Scriptures are a reference but it isn't how the first Christians believed in the Trinity. The Muslims argue that the Trinity is an invention of the Catholic church and that the NT we have today has been "altered". In short, they argue that the first chirstians did not believe in the Trinity or worshiped Jesus.
We know this is false because we have records of the Christians worshiping Jesus in their prison cells, and this was before the canonization of the NT.

Where did Irenaeus say Scripture has to be under the guidance of the Church?
". . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (ibid., 3:4:1).

Go re read your own quote of Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189], as well as ibid., 3:4:1, ibid., 3:3:1–2.

Yet, your point of 'scripture alone' might be from a faulty definition. Scripture alone, Sola Scriptura, in a nutshell is we test all truth claims against snip

Out of the 5k protestant denominations, which one has the right Sola Scriptura? I need to ask this first before tackling your entire quote.

And you have failed to demonstrate what was handed down differs from what we have written. I showed in AH 1.10.1 how Irenaeus gives a creed, the rule of faith which is 100% compatible with what is written.
snip

You are the only one who is failing and just chosing to ignore facts being presented. The only thing you've shown about AH 1.10.1 is that you don't understand what it was talking about. Also, you are lost in your arguments. Apostolic tradition is 100% compatible with scripture, however there is more in apostolic tradition that isn't found in scripture. You already have verses on that. I understand you are picking several verses that talk only about God's written word, just like a muslim does when trying to debate a christian on Jesus' divinity by showing verses about him being a man, the fact is there is still more than 1 verse posted here telling you there is other things that are passed down and not written.

The canon NT itself is an example, it's not found in scripture but it ruled by the Church. Just because Irenaeus wrote his beliefs and they all match the contents in scripture doesn't mean all of what is passed down is only visible and confirmed in scripture. One area of proof is his acknowledgement of what the canon is.

First you have not established what tradition "Irenaeus represents." I on the other hand gave evidence he confirmed the rule of faith is compatible, actually comes from the written Scriptures.
Irenaeus is representing apostolic tradition.. and no, you did not give evidence that he means what you want him to mean. You seem misunderstand what a catholic or eo believes.

We believe 100% in the authority of the scripture, what we are saying is that it isn't the only source or rule of faith. It isn't the main authority. There is no where in any of what you quoted from Irenaeus in where he says Scripture alone is sufficient, in fact it is the opposite when you read the first sentences of his quote properly. The Church is still spoken about with authority as he said: She proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. That quote you keep bringing up is doing more against your case than supporting it. Go quote ibid., 3:4:1 and lets see what creative thinking you can pull out from it.

Secondly, if one wants to make an ancient claim, there is nothing more ancient in Christianity than the actual teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles. We find that in both the OT and NT.
Snip
Ok, let me repeat one of the questions as I answer and close this post.
Did the Christians during the time of Nero gain their faith because of what they read, especially the little children of that time?[/quote]
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Let me ask you, if you have a problem with the claims that Catholicism is the church is the most accurate with the traditions passed down by the apostles then why do you believe in the canon Bible you hold in your hands? It was this church that declared this as only 27.
You would have the answer already if you dared answer my question which was asked twice of you, and ignored. "Tell me how an authoritative body of Scripture had quite manifestly been established by the time of Christ, from which both He and the NT church therefore appealed to in substantiating Truth claims. In RC theology, one cannot even discover the contents of the Bible apart from faith in her."

So be consistent, and answer the other questions asked of you twice, and avoided as regards yoour "we gave you the Bible, we are the ones to tell you what is of God" polemic:

And so Catholic popes and prelates speak as wholly inspired of God, and also provide new public express revelation thereby, as men such as the apostles could? If not, what is the basis for assurance of the veracity of your church in declaring such?

Is it (as some seem to argue) that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.

And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?


I am still waiting.
If you raise the question against the veracity of the RC and the EO, then which denomination is the actual provider?
Ask each one, for they both claim to uniquely be the one true church (OTC). And according to your logic, division means one is not the OTC, then you can debate with the EOs over who is the elite OTC.
How can it be you protestants when you have over 3k different denominations all claiming each on of you is wrong, in addition to being responsible for anti-christ like cults such as the JW's and Mormons?
As your premise is false, so is your conclusion. Any protestant church which, like Rome, claims to uniquely be the OTC is a cult. As said before on this thread, "the church which the Lord promised would overcome the gates of Hell is the body of Christ, (Colossians 1:18) the one true church to which He is married, (Ephesians 5:25) the "household of faith," (Galatians 6:10) which uniquely only always consists 100% of true believers, and which spiritual body of Christ is what the Spirit baptizes ever believer into, (1Co. 12:13) while organic fellowships in which they express their faith inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares, with Catholicism and liberal Protestantism being mostly the latter."

There simply is no way any organic church can claim to uniquely be the OTC unless the body of Christ only consists of them, and that they only and always consist 100% of believers. And the RCC certainly cannot be that OTC seeing as Catholic distinctives are not manifest in the the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.

Your only defense is to dismiss that manifest Truth upon the bankrupt and damnable basis of Rome's autocratic infallibility, in which Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. How can she be wrong when she autocratically defines what is right?

As for your support, the logic of the reasoning that "we gave you the Bible; we are the authority on what is of God" actually logically disqualifies the church.
The only two who have the right to debate as to who has held the teachings accurately is the RC and the EO, you protestants aren't close to it because your own doctrine is Sola Scriptura.
If they do say so themselves. However, the fact is that even the instruments of Divine revelation as well as its discerners and stewards must be subject to it, as Mary needed to be to Christ, versus effectively being the supreme authority, with what the church says being supreme.
You are defending a church whether you realize it or not.
No i am not except for the NT church as being the model,, and apart from that your statement cannot be true unless you concede that the OTC is the universal body of Christ. And Rome actually disallows that our "ecclesial communities" are worthy of the proper name "church."
Your whole faith is taught by the doctrines you are introduced to. You are of a protestant denomination and most of your views have been influenced by your own church, which ever it maybe
Meaning I have indeed been introduced to most, including as a weekly Mass-going (and later CCD teacher and lector)RC, but in both cases my reason for holding to them or not is based on whether theses things are so. And thus I am seeking to defend a church, that of the manifest faith of the NT church as evidenced in that only wholly inspired substantive record of what it believed. Thus your recourse is to the uninspired words of men.
In essence, the faith you are defending is the false-taught rule of faith that is rooted in self contradicting theology known as Sola Scriptura.
You mean those noble Truth-loving Bereans really were not. Tell me, on what basis does one convert to Rome, if not be examination of the warrant for her claims? Yet when that means does not have your desire result it must be dismissed. And do not your traditional Catholics determine the validity of recent (V2+) church teaching, which is said to "clarify" such things as Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus," based upon their judgment of what historical church says?

Now if you want to criticize them for so doing then at least you will be consistent, but then you are faced with the warrant for the requirement of implicit asset to official RC teaching. Yet even the veracity of the teaching of the apostles was subject to examination by Scripture, nor did they teach the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults). And Romes popes fail (as I do also) of the overall character, attributes, qualifications and credentials of manifest Biblical apostles, in all things approving themselves as the ministers of God, (2 Corinthians 6:4; Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:4-10; 12:12)

But again, since your basis for the veracity of Romes "apostolic tradition" is her own tradition that she possesses ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, and your support seems to be your reasoning behind "we gave you the Bible; we are the sure authority on what is of God," then answer my question (above in brown font) as to the basis for assurance of the veracity of your church in declaring such.
How can i prove that you are defending a specific church, well lets see you talk about certain theological beliefs towards other protestants who aren't from the same denomination, you'll see your "elements of faith" will contradict each other.
Indeed, as said, I am defending the NT church as being the model, and if my adversaries (which are almost always Catholics, or liberal Prots) want to claim they are doing the same, based upon the only sure record of what they believed, then the Biblical way is to overcome evil with good, not presume autocratic infallibility.
If you were defending just a basic faith and not a church then you wouldn't have any problems with each other on other theological subjects. But you do. Because your church has different theological views.
Actually, those who most strongly esteem Scripture as the accurate and wholly inspired, and basically literal word of God do testify to being the most unified in basic conservative (Biblical) beliefs, in stark contrast to those whom Rome manifestly considers members in life and in death.

Thus evangelicals have been the most targeted enemy by both liberals and RC apologists. However, while I understand it can be hard for some Catholics to understand we do not need to just follow what a denomination says, the fact is that my differences with others are NOT to be due to commitment to the theological views of any church, but to where the Truth of Scripture leads. Which is something a faithful RC cannot do.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Meaning Scriptures are the only infallible authority to test truth claims. Which what I see on these chat boards are confusing arguments and assertions on Sola Scriptura from both Roman Catholics and even some Protestants, Evangelicals and others. As Reformed theologian Michael Kruger opines on here:

Of course, like many core Christian convictions, the doctrine of sola Scriptura has often been misunderstood and misapplied. Unfortunately, some have used sola Scriptura as a justification for a “me, God, and the Bible” type of individualism, where the church bears no real authority and the history of the church is not considered when interpreting and applying Scripture. Thus, many churches today are almost ahistorical—cut off entirely from the rich traditions, creeds, and confessions of the church. They misunderstand sola Scriptura to mean that the Bible is the only authority rather than understanding it to mean that the Bible is the only infallible authority. Ironically, such an individualistic approach actually undercuts the very doctrine of sola Scriptura it is intended to protect. By emphasizing the autonomy of the individual believer, one is left with only private, subjective conclusions about what Scripture means. It is not so much the authority of Scripture that is prized as the authority of the individual.

The Reformers would not have recognized such a distortion as their doctrine of sola Scriptura. On the contrary, they were quite keen to rely on the church fathers, church councils, and the creeds and confessions of the church. Such historical rootedness was viewed not only as a means for maintaining orthodoxy but also as a means for maintaining humility. Contrary to popular perceptions, the Reformers did not view themselves as coming up with something new. Rather, they understood themselves to be recovering something very old—something that the church had originally believed but later twisted and distorted. The Reformers were not innovators but were excavators. (Understanding Sola Scriptura)

Just wanted to save that.​
 
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The above is what I asked.

Meaning an appeal to this verse means the traditions later remembered by the church can be neatly stuffed in this verse. ..Not the multitude of Roman Catholic doctrinal developments throughout the centuries which RC apologists believe were there from the beginning of Christianity.
What I was pointing out is that the oft used "Irenaeus supported apostolic tradition" is correct but not what RCs and even EOs think it is. Irenaeus calls the rule of faith (later creed) which I quoted as the tradition handed down from the Apostles. Therefore, the use of his term cannot be a 'all use duffle bag' to stuff in traditions we like. Just as you used John 21:25 as the "General Purpose" verse to argue from silence.
I can show you that in Catholic apologetics, all that is needed to suffice as justification from Scripture for their traditions (by way of extrapolation) can be the fact that God could do something (like enable saints in Heaven to hear your mental prayers), or did do something (caught Elijah up to heaven). Likewise, that there is more that can be known is enough for a Catholic to extrapolate the necessity of their amorphous body of the oral word of God from.

Yet God manifestly made writing is God's chosen most-reliable means of preservation, (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19; Psalm 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; Acts 17:11)

And notice that contrast btwn what could be know, and what is made known for salvation:

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:30-31)

Thanks be to God.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I'll just quote, in the box below, a little bit of one article, which was a 'modern' addressing Martin as if it was an open letter being written today.

I'm not saying this is 'the truth' anymore than your sources. Nor am I saying it relays 'falsehood' any more than your sources. I honestly don't know. I'm just still saying I think I've done no wrong here, even though my sources aren't in abundance like yours. I do thank you for 'your work' in presenting them for me. But my 'brief' perusal of your personal website relays what is most important to me here. You believe in the born again experience. That means that in my book we are 'brothers in Christ'. But we don't have to be 'twin brothers' to still be brothers. And this whole discussion will not add one thing to me standing before the bema judgment seat of Christ for the works I have done 'this side of glory'. So no further response here, is fine with me. :)
When in a firefight it is too easy for me to perceive something that is said as coming from a usual source, and respond accordingly. Por favor. Glad to know you are a born again brother in Christ, even if not exactly a "twin" (I like that analogy) :). May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with thy (and my) spirit.

Cast me not off in the time of old age; forsake me not when my strength faileth. For mine enemies speak against me; and they that lay wait for my soul take counsel together, (Psalms 71:9-10)
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well yes, if you read the last part of the sentence of John 20:25 he described how much it is by saying that "even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written". That is how much Jesus did and said, so obviously there would be a difference to what you have written in your 27 NT books and what was just orally taught. Again, "even the world can't fit it" so this is already a no brainer. You are wrestling around this subject and trying to create holes around it regardless of the verses showing only one logical conclusion. There are things that Jesus taught that are not in the gospels, not everything in faith was written cuz it can't fit the books.
The text does not indicate or even hint at "other teachings" but what Jesus did. John did not record 3 years of ministry but gave us enough so that we believe.


None of these where later developments, and we see these beliefs practiced by all the older christian denominations, including protestants. The only ones who banned these beliefs/practices are protestant denominations that came out after 1600's.
No they are all later developments in doctrines. Some hundreds of years and some a thousand plus.

So your church doesn't have a closed canon. So is it possible for someone, including yourself, to make a new book to the new testament?
I'm not an apostle nor prophet so no.

Because something has to be passed down first. Lets go back to the gospels, However not everything that happened in Jesus' life was written down, such as his kid-teen years. We don't know anything about him around that age.. none of this was passed down by his apostles either through oral or written format. That is why the stories of Jesus as a boy reviving dead birds is not accepted by the church. Everything that helped in deciding what were the true books to be canonized was all because they were all taught by the apostles first.
The example you gave of dead birds is a classic example of a second century forgery. As I mentioned the church fathers rejected works which were not 1st century and apostolic in origin.

You really think the christians who were locked up only came to know about Christ because of what they read?
Did you not see this portion of my post?

It is written: "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10:17)

Thus the preacher presents the word of God and the listener hears these words and responds. Yet 'hearing by the word of God' is what the preacher is using.

And where to we find the word of God?

Too many verses to post, so please click on the below links:

Word of God
Word of the Lord

Thus saith the Lord
It is written

Yes, the Holy Scriptures are a reference but it isn't how the first Christians believed in the Trinity. The Muslims argue that the Trinity is an invention of the Catholic church and that the NT we have today has been "altered". In short, they argue that the first chirstians did not believe in the Trinity or worshiped Jesus.
The Muslims are wrong. Christians were taught to pray to the Father in the Holy Spirit and in the Name of Jesus Christ in the NT.

We know this is false because we have records of the Christians worshiping Jesus in their prison cells, and this was before the canonization of the NT.
Yes but the writings themselves recognized as apostolic were already in circulation. You keep making a pretense there was some gap in history between the oral preaching and the writing of the epistles and Gospels.

". . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (ibid., 3:4:1).

Yes what if, but that did not happen.

Go re read your own quote of Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189], as well as ibid., 3:4:1, ibid., 3:3:1–2.
Still just seeing a creed/rule of faith and how Irenaeus showed the bishops kept faithful throughout the decades adhering to this rule of faith and thus within context refuting the claims of the demiurge by the heretics.

Out of the 5k protestant denominations, which one has the right Sola Scriptura? I need to ask this first before tackling your entire quote.
Thank you I guess we are down from 10K. ;)

Go with what I gave you as it is the definition from the Reformation.

You are the only one who is failing and just chosing to ignore facts being presented. The only thing you've shown about AH 1.10.1 is that you don't understand what it was talking about. Also, you are lost in your arguments. Apostolic tradition is 100% compatible with scripture, however there is more in apostolic tradition that isn't found in scripture.
When Irenaeus speaks of tradition in AH 1.10.1 he is speaking of the creed which contains the Gospel message. The rule faith. Not seeing any of the later Roman Catholic doctrinal developments in his writings. Now Irenaeus may be a great advocate in his time for apostolic succession and tradition but he is not carrying the 'freight' Roman Catholics want him to hold. He is only upholding in AH the creed/rule of faith.

I understand you are picking several verses that talk only about God's written word, just like a muslim does when trying to debate a christian on Jesus' divinity by showing verses about him being a man, the fact is there is still more than 1 verse posted here telling you there is other things that are passed down and not written.
Jesus was no Muslim:

“It is written, ‘MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.’”

On the second point of things being passed down and not written? I ask again, what are these things?


The canon NT itself is an example, it's not found in scripture but it ruled by the Church.

Therefore the church is the ruler of God's inspired Words and the as such these words are servants to the church. Yes that is a Roman Catholic belief. Yet, how did you guys get to lay claim to the OT too?

Just because Irenaeus wrote his beliefs and they all match the contents in scripture doesn't mean all of what is passed down is only visible and confirmed in scripture. One area of proof is his acknowledgement of what the canon is.

Dude how many times are you going to call the NT oral tradition when I pointed out the apostles actually wrote it down?

Irenaeus is representing apostolic tradition.. and no, you did not give evidence that he means what you want him to mean. You seem misunderstand what a catholic or eo believes.
All I did was point out where Irenaeus uses tradition, he refers to the creed/rule of faith. Take it for what you want but don't expect Irenaeus in AH to carry the freight of centuries of later doctrinal developments and tell me he supported them.

Ok, let me repeat one of the questions as I answer and close this post.
Did the Christians during the time of Nero gain their faith because of what they read, especially the little children of that time?

It is written: "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10:17)

Thus the preacher presents the word of God and the listener hears these words and responds. Yet 'hearing by the word of God' is what the preacher is using.

And where to we find the word of God?

Too many verses to post, so please click on the below links:

Word of God

Word of the Lord
Thus saith the Lord
It is written
 
Upvote 0

NeedyFollower

Well-Known Member
Feb 29, 2016
1,024
437
63
N Carolina
✟71,145.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Celibate
Well yes, if you read the last part of the sentence of John 20:25 he described how much it is by saying that "even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written". That is how much Jesus did and said, so obviously there would be a difference to what you have written in your 27 NT books and what was just orally taught. Again, "even the world can't fit it" so this is already a no brainer. You are wrestling around this subject and trying to create holes around it regardless of the verses showing only one logical conclusion. There are things that Jesus taught that are not in the gospels, not everything in faith was written cuz it can't fit the books.



None of these where later developments, and we see these beliefs practiced by all the older christian denominations, including protestants. The only ones who banned these beliefs/practices are protestant denominations that came out after 1600's.



So your church doesn't have a closed canon. So is it possible for someone, including yourself, to make a new book to the new testament?



Because something has to be passed down first. Lets go back to the gospels, However not everything that happened in Jesus' life was written down, such as his kid-teen years. We don't know anything about him around that age.. none of this was passed down by his apostles either through oral or written format. That is why the stories of Jesus as a boy reviving dead birds is not accepted by the church. Everything that helped in deciding what were the true books to be canonized was all because they were all taught by the apostles first.


You really think the christians who were locked up only came to know about Christ because of what they read?


Yes, the Holy Scriptures are a reference but it isn't how the first Christians believed in the Trinity. The Muslims argue that the Trinity is an invention of the Catholic church and that the NT we have today has been "altered". In short, they argue that the first chirstians did not believe in the Trinity or worshiped Jesus.
We know this is false because we have records of the Christians worshiping Jesus in their prison cells, and this was before the canonization of the NT.


". . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (ibid., 3:4:1).

Go re read your own quote of Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189], as well as ibid., 3:4:1, ibid., 3:3:1–2.



Out of the 5k protestant denominations, which one has the right Sola Scriptura? I need to ask this first before tackling your entire quote.



You are the only one who is failing and just chosing to ignore facts being presented. The only thing you've shown about AH 1.10.1 is that you don't understand what it was talking about. Also, you are lost in your arguments. Apostolic tradition is 100% compatible with scripture, however there is more in apostolic tradition that isn't found in scripture. You already have verses on that. I understand you are picking several verses that talk only about God's written word, just like a muslim does when trying to debate a christian on Jesus' divinity by showing verses about him being a man, the fact is there is still more than 1 verse posted here telling you there is other things that are passed down and not written.

The canon NT itself is an example, it's not found in scripture but it ruled by the Church. Just because Irenaeus wrote his beliefs and they all match the contents in scripture doesn't mean all of what is passed down is only visible and confirmed in scripture. One area of proof is his acknowledgement of what the canon is.


Irenaeus is representing apostolic tradition.. and no, you did not give evidence that he means what you want him to mean. You seem misunderstand what a catholic or eo believes.

We believe 100% in the authority of the scripture, what we are saying is that it isn't the only source or rule of faith. It isn't the main authority. There is no where in any of what you quoted from Irenaeus in where he says Scripture alone is sufficient, in fact it is the opposite when you read the first sentences of his quote properly. The Church is still spoken about with authority as he said: She proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. That quote you keep bringing up is doing more against your case than supporting it. Go quote ibid., 3:4:1 and lets see what creative thinking you can pull out from it.


Ok, let me repeat one of the questions as I answer and close this post.
Did the Christians during the time of Nero gain their faith because of what they read, especially the little children of that time?
[/QUOTE]
Is it not interesting that the apostle to us gentiles, Paul who was sent by our Lord Jesus Christ himself ... , had to reprove and rebuke Peter when Peter got carried away with the Jews and separated from his gentiles brethern with whom he had fellowship prior to their showing up ? Our dear Peter was so humble that he accepted Paul's admonishment knowing that Paul spoke the TRUTH in love ..That is why we are told to let the prophets speak two and three and let the others judge ...because even Peter , full of the Holy Ghost and who walked with Jesus personally , could still be in error ...It is too bad we do not see this wonderful lesson that God has provided for His sheep ...but it is why that God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble ..the proud can not possibly be wrong nor entertain that they might be ...No brother ...Many , Many of the early church leaders have been in error ..both catholic and protestant and Anabaptist and ..and ..and ....the apostleship to the gentiles was given to Paul ..Not Peter . And the church existed before the catholic church .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hillsage
Upvote 0

Hillsage

One 4 Him & Him 4 all
Supporter
Jun 12, 2009
5,244
1,767
The land of OZ
✟322,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
When in a firefight it is too easy for me to perceive something that is said as coming from a usual source, and respond accordingly. Por favor. Glad to know you are a born again brother in Christ, even if not exactly a "twin" (I like that analogy) :). May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with thy (and my) spirit.
And when hit with a CS gas cloud coming out of the EM club, running toward, and through the cloud seems contrary. But holding your breath and running straight through, against the wind, may be the fastest way to breath as well as see more clearly. ;)
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Cis.jd

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2015
3,613
1,484
New York, NY
✟140,465.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
The text does not indicate or even hint at "other teachings" but what Jesus did. John did not record 3 years of ministry but gave us enough so that we believe.
How does that not fall into teachings? If you read the context John 20 is giving a lecture about the faith, you are stretching the verse to what suits you because you can handle the fact that it is telling you that not everything is written scripture, period.

No they are all later developments in doctrines. Some hundreds of years and some a thousand plus.
No they are not. Look at all the first christian denominations, including the first Protestants. They all believe the things you likely criticize as later developments. In fact, if you research on the beliefs of different protestant sects, they each have a few catholic like beliefs and practices that they chose to retain. Even yours. You worship on Sunday do you? If you see no problem or catholic relation to that, then go chat with an SDA member here. After, go to a Muslims/JW/INC/Mormon forum and tell them about your beliefs in Jesus' divinity and the infallibility of the NT. Watch how they will tell you on how you are following "Catholic lies".

It's ironic seeing that your doctrines where all produced after the 1600's -each of them being a reformed doctrine of whatever protestant denomination -yet here you are pointing fingers at the RC and EO for "later developments in doctrines".

I'm not an apostle nor prophet so no.
But what if someone claims to be a prophet, like Joseph Smith or that Felix Manalo guy (hopefully you checked out the beliefs of those churches). Who are you to tell them that their New New Testament?

The example you gave of dead birds is a classic example of a second century forgery. As I mentioned the church fathers rejected works which were not 1st century and apostolic in origin.
But they still did not follow anything written in scripture in regards to this. You seem to dodge this point in every post and you don't see how you have self contradicting your own stance. You come in here telling me that these church fathers stuck to what was in scripture only, yet when being presented to you the canonization of the NT you then write something like this. In the end, no matter what, who, or how they recognized what books where real, they still did not follow any scripture to tell them this. It was all taught with out it.


Did you not see this portion of my post?
It is written: "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10:17)
snip
But the word of God is not limited to writing. Jesus said to his apostles "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you" (John 20:21); teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:19-20); He instructed his apostles to teach, not write and historically we see that in the events of Nero because the christians there did not gain their beliefs because of any available scripture they've read. It was all taught first.

The Muslims are wrong. Christians were taught to pray to the Father in the Holy Spirit and in the Name of Jesus Christ in the NT.
Yup, and if you watch Amhed Dedat and some other muslim apologist, they say that verse is interpolated by the Catholic church. I brought up Muslims in response to your segment with Romans 10:17. Meaning, your way of defending your case is the same style as a Muslim when they argue about Jesus being only a prophet. They pick one verse (Jn 14:28) and suddenly make it look as the only rule mentioned, when it's not.

Yes but the writings themselves recognized as apostolic were already in circulation. You keep making a pretense there was some gap in history between the oral preaching and the writing of the epistles and Gospels.
No, it's just fact that early Christians did not have an actual printed NT. The apostles taught the early christians during the 1st century about Jesus - the Holy Trinity. The Christians who were documented by Pliny the Younger did not gain their faith in christ after the scriptures, it was all before it. This is another reason why I bring up the similarity between you and a muslim.

The Muslim argues that the belief in Jesus' divinity comes after 300 ad - the century of when the NT was canon. Here i'm telling you that christians believed in Jesus even before the NT bible was published or spread out. Yet here you are telling me I am wrong because the scriptures have ruled everything and is the only rule.

Yes what if, but that did not happen.
Obviously, but you again can't get the point there. The point he made is to show the importance in the authority of the church and the importance of tradition. "What if we didn't have the written scriptures that the apostles left" from where does our source/knowledge of faith come from.

Still just seeing a creed/rule of faith and how Irenaeus showed the bishops kept faithful throughout the decades adhering to this rule of faith and thus within context refuting the claims of the demiurge by the heretics.
Yes, but again how did they know which books where heresy and which ones where actually from the apostles? How where they so sure that ex:the infancy gospel of James was not from any of the apostles; how did they know for sure that Jude was truly inspired word? Sure, you said "research", "what was made during a specific time" etc etc... what was methods of their research? It was all because the apostles taught these books and passed it down. The Church hasn't and still wont accept any books after the 27, nor will it ever delete the any of the current 27 because this is what was passed down by the apostles. In short, it is all from tradition.


Thank you I guess we are down from 10K. ;)
Actually, most sites i've checked said around 47,000? I guess i'm too kind.

Go with what I gave you as it is the definition from the Reformation.
But nothing of what you gave me told me which Protestant had the correct Sola Scriptura? I guess you don't want to say anything that may strike a debate between you and the Anabaptist here or some random SDA guy who was browsing the thread.

When Irenaeus speaks of tradition in AH 1.10.1 he is speaking of the creed which contains the Gospel message. The rule faith. Not seeing any of the later Roman Catholic doctrinal developments in his writings. Now Irenaeus may be a great advocate in his time for apostolic succession and tradition but he is not carrying the 'freight' Roman Catholics want him to hold. He is only upholding in AH the creed/rule of faith.
Nope, he is speaking of the church. The only ones who have been proven to have doctrinal developments are protestants... again, look at how many you all are. Each one of them being a reformation from a previous protestant doctrine. It's kinda ironic how Protestants point fingers at RC and EO for being doctrinal developments when yours have multiplied to 47,000 different ones.

Dude how many times are you going to call the NT oral tradition when I pointed out the apostles actually wrote it down?
You are arguing like a kid now, highly misrepresenting what i've said because he knows he has been refuted. There is nowhere in my post saying the NT is oral tradition. I said oral tradition came first.
What you have in the gospels was all taught to the 4 gospel writers, even Luke says it in chapter 1. There was no scripture available to tell Luke about Jesus' life other than the people who knew Jesus, especially Mary who was there when he was born. This is simple to understand and I hope you are not going to cop out with putting my arguments out of it's context like you just did here.

All I did was point out where Irenaeus uses tradition, he refers to the creed/rule of faith. Take it for what you want but don't expect Irenaeus in AH to carry the freight of centuries of later doctrinal developments and tell me he supported them.
Yes, but what you don't understand is that Irenaeus is additionally explaining the importance of the Church. It is the same stance that RC and the EO makes.
Here is more about Irenaeus CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Trallians (St. Ignatius)
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How does that not fall into teachings? If you read the context John 20 is giving a lecture about the faith, you are stretching the verse to what suits you because you can handle the fact that it is telling you that not everything is written scripture, period.
If this is truly a proof text that there are other critical teachings other than what we have in the OT and NT then you should be able to list what these 1st century traditions were that Paul, Peter, James, John and Jude fail to mention.

No they are not. Look at all the first christian denominations, including the first Protestants. They all believe the things you likely criticize as later developments. In fact, if you research on the beliefs of different protestant sects, they each have a few catholic like beliefs and practices that they chose to retain. Even yours. You worship on Sunday do you? If you see no problem or catholic relation to that, then go chat with an SDA member here. After, go to a Muslims/JW/INC/Mormon forum and tell them about your beliefs in Jesus' divinity and the infallibility of the NT. Watch how they will tell you on how you are following "Catholic lies".
Perhaps you know the first day of the week is when the NT Church met.

Acts of the Apostles 20:7

Muslims, JWs and Mormons are not Chrisrians so not seeing your point.

It's ironic seeing that your doctrines where all produced after the 1600's -each of them being a reformed doctrine of whatever protestant denomination -yet here you are pointing fingers at the RC and EO for "later developments in doctrines".
Testing all against the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures is exactly what souls did in the OT and NT.

Jesus even instructed His disciples the following:

Luke 24

25Then Jesus said to them, “O foolish ones, how slow are your hearts to believe all that the prophets have spoken. 26Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and then to enter His glory?”27And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He explained to them what was written in all the Scriptures about Himself.

[...]

44Jesus said to them, “These are the words I spoke to you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.” 45Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.

46And He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and in His name repentance and forgiveness of sins will be proclaimed to all nations, beginning in Jerusalem. 48You are witnesses of these things.

49And behold, I am sending the promise of My Father upon you. But remain in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”


See a trend here. Scriptures and eyewitness accounts.


But what if someone claims to be a prophet, like Joseph Smith or that Felix Manalo guy (hopefully you checked out the beliefs of those churches). Who are you to tell them that their New New Testament?
All the apostles are deceased and present with the Lord.

You listed cultists who appeal to themselves as authoritative. These cults also teach you have to be a part of their cult to be saved. I'd be careful with this line of argument.

All of the above can be easily refuted with the teachings of Christ, the Apostles and OT prophets.

But they still did not follow anything written in scripture in regards to this. You seem to dodge this point in every post and you don't see how you have self contradicting your own stance. You come in here telling me that these church fathers stuck to what was in scripture only, yet when being presented to you the canonization of the NT you then write something like this. In the end, no matter what, who, or how they recognized what books where real, they still did not follow any scripture to tell them this. It was all taught with out it.
I already posted above how Christ opened the minds of the Apostles to Scriptures. So they had Scriptures the OT and proved their truth claims using such along with deeds and clothed in the Power of God.

What you may have missed is the apostles were the living walking and speaking NT. They spoke and wrote it down. It did not come at a later date.

But the word of God is not limited to writing. Jesus said to his apostles "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you" (John 20:21); teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:19-20); He instructed his apostles to teach, not write and historically we see that in the events of Nero because the christians there did not gain their beliefs because of any available scripture they've read. It was all taught first.
How do you know the above? Is it because someone wrote it down?

Yup, and if you watch Amhed Dedat and some other muslim apologist, they say that verse is interpolated by the Catholic church. I brought up Muslims in response to your segment with Romans 10:17. Meaning, your way of defending your case is the same style as a Muslim when they argue about Jesus being only a prophet. They pick one verse (Jn 14:28) and suddenly make it look as the only rule mentioned, when it's not.
The next time you debate Muslims ask them how many separate witnesses were there to the writing of the Qur'an. If that does not stop their pie hole, teach them Colossians chapters 1 and 2. It proves the Deity of Christ which is the entry argument to show them the Biblical texts for the Trinity.

I can't help a Muslim's ignorance towards Holy Scriptures.
And I don't know what oral tradition not recorded in Holy Scriptures helps you debate them.

The Apostle Paul introduced us to a systematic method of theology. Only proper exegesis draws the truth out of a passage. Most non Christians (some Christians too!) employ eisegesis which is what usually produces error.

Like taking a 13th century practice and going back to Holy Scriptures hunting for something that fits. That's eisegesis.

No, it's just fact that early Christians did not have an actual printed NT. The apostles taught the early christians during the 1st century about Jesus - the Holy Trinity.
The apostles wrote the NT. So the people actually had them present. We know this because they wrote to churches.

Yes, but again how did they know which books where heresy and which ones where actually from the apostles?
I think Irenaeus explained that to us no? The rule of faith or creed was the basis of belief for the church as it grew up with the actual writings. There were other tests as in where the documents came from and if an apostle planted that church.

Plus look at the early church writings themselves. They are full of NT references well before the NT canon:


The Canon and How Much Did Early Christians Refer to the New Testament



But again, how did people discern the teachings of John the Baptist and an itinerant preacher (Jesus) who came from an obscure village and was not sanctioned by the then Jewish magisterium? In fact the then magisterium was in opposition to Him and plotted his arrest and handed Him over to be crucified.

Or are you holding on to the position the NT writings were not authoritative before they became canon?


But nothing of what you gave me told me which Protestant had the correct Sola Scriptura? I guess you don't want to say anything that may strike a debate between you and the Anabaptist here or some random SDA guy who was browsing the thread.
What I provided was from the Westminster Confession of Faith. You can go with it.

Nope, he is speaking of the church.
He is but the prior paragraph outlines what the church believed.

It's kinda ironic how Protestants point fingers at RC and EO for being doctrinal developments when yours have multiplied to 47,000 different ones.
Maybe listen to one of your own on how silly that is:


We Need to Stop Saying That There Are 33,000 Protestant Denominations

I said oral tradition came first.
What you have in the gospels was all taught to the 4 gospel writers, even Luke says it in chapter 1. There was no scripture available to tell Luke about Jesus' life other than the people who knew Jesus, especially Mary who was there when he was born. This is simple to understand and I hope you are not going to cop out with putting my arguments out of it's context like you just did here.
For Luke he interviewed eyewitnesses. Means those who were still alive interacted with Jesus. Plus the apostles were still around. When do you think the Gospels and NT were written?

When were the NT books written?

The early history is Mark penned his gospel for Peter, Matthew wrote his own, and John wrote his later than the others.

Once again within a generation we had the proclamation of the Gospel in both verbal and written form.

Yes, but what you don't understand is that Irenaeus is additionally explaining the importance of the Church.
I agree with him. The church is to be the pillar and foundation of the faith. Pillars and foundations hold things up and the church is to uphold the Truth delivered by Christ and His apostles. Not add to it nor subtract from it.

Your argument for a secret (not written) tradition as equal in authority to written Holy Scriptures is unconvincing. For on the one hand we know what is written. On the other you can't even show me one of these unmentioned in Scriptures traditions which are critical to the faith, other than selecting one verse which operates from silence.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PeaceByJesus
Upvote 0

Fidelibus

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2017
1,185
300
67
U.S.A.
✟66,007.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
I appreciate all the posters participation of this thread with all the varying understandings and opinions of the historical and origin of the "born again" movement. However, what I have noticed is that the unbelievers of being born again by Baptismal Regeneration have not (far as I've read, proven through historic writings of the ECF) where any Early Church Fathers taught the modern day Fundamentalist or Evangelical teaching and belief of being "born again", being...... all one has to do is accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior through the recitation of the sinner’s prayer, is to be born again. Which I have yet found in Scripture (the sinners prayer)

I've also noticed by most of the Fundamental and Evangelical posters personal interpretation/understanding of John chapt. 3, is that accepting or "receiving Christ" as one's "personal Lord and Savior" by faith alone is what our Lord meant, and the Sacrament of Baptism is seen as merely a "symbolic" gesture with no inherent spiritual efficacy. Correct?

After reading these posts, I thought it would behoove me to go back to the writings of the earliest Christians and see what they believed/ taught and preached on the Sacrament of Baptism, baptismal regeneration, and infant baptism. I went back to the first 500 yrs.of Christianty that I will now share:



THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS (c. A.D. 70):

Now let us see if the Lord has been at any pains to give us a foreshadowing of the waters of Baptism and of the cross. Regarding the former, we have the evidence of Scripture that Israel would refuse to accept the washing which confers the remission of sins and would set up a substitution of their own instead [Jer 22:13; Isa 16:1-2; 33:16-18; Psalm 1:3-6]. Observe there how he describes both the water and the cross in the same figure. His meaning is, "Blessed are those who go down into the water with their hopes set on the cross." Here he is saying that after we have stepped down into the water, burdened with sin and defilement, we come up out of it bearing fruit, with reverence in our hearts and the hope of Jesus in our souls. (11:1-10)

ST. JUSTIN MARTYR ( A.D. 148-155):

"Whoever is convinced and believes that what they are taught and told by us is the truth, and professes to be able to live accordingly, is instructed to pray and to beseech God in fasting for the remission of their former sins, while we pray and fast with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: In the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they receive the washing with water. For Christ said, "Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." ...The reason for doing this, we have learned from the Apostles." -----The First Apology 61. (note the last sentence)


ST. IRENAEUS (c. A.D. 190):

"And [Naaman] dipped himself...seven times in the Jordan" [2 Kings 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: "Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Fragment 34)


TERTULLIAN (c. A.D. 200-206):

A treatise on our sacrament of water, by which the sins of our earlier blindness are washed away and we are released for eternal life will not be superfluous.....taking away death by the washing away of sins. The guilt being removed, the penalty, of course, is also removed.....Baptism is itself a corporal act by which we are plunged in water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from sins. (On Baptism 1:1; 5:6; 7:2)

...no one can attain salvation without Baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says: "Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life." (On Baptism 12:1)

RECOGNITIONS OF CLEMENT (c. A.D. 221)

"But you will perhaps say, "What does the baptism of water contribute toward the worship of God?" In the first place, because that which has pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because when you are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so ...you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For thus has the true Prophet [Jesus] testified to us with an oath: "Verily, I say to you, that unless a man is born again of water....he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Recognitions 6:9)


ORIGEN ( A.D. 244):

"Formerly there was Baptism, in an obscure way....now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God as He Himself says: "My flesh is truly food, and My blood is truly drink" [John 6:55]. (Homilies on Numbers 7:2)

The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit." (Commentaries on Romans 5:9)


I will end the quotes here in the mid- third cent. due to length and will fast forward to St. Fulgence of Ruspe writingsfrom the early sixth century:

"From that time at which our Savior said: "If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven," no one can say, without the sacrament of Baptism, except those who, in the Catholic Church, without Baptism pour out their blood for Christ, receive the kingdom of heaven and eternal life. Anyone who receives the sacrament of Baptism, whether in the Catholic Church or in a heretical or schismatic one, receives the whole sacrament...

[But one outside the Church] must, therefore, return to the Church, not so that he might receive again the sacrament of Baptism, which no one dare repeat in any baptized person, but so that he may receive eternal life in Catholic society, for the obtaining of which no one is suited who...remains estranged from the Catholic Church." (The Rule of Faith 43)


If you took the time to read to read the quotes of these ECF, you would notice two things. 1. All these early Christians believed, taught, and preached to be "born again" is to be Baptized. ie.(Baptismal Regeneration) And 2. nowhere in these ECF writings did they teach or preach the modern day Fundamentalist or Evangelical teaching and belief of being "born again", all one has to do is accept Jesus Christ as thier personal Lord and Savior through the recitation of the sinner’s prayer, and/or by faith alone.

So to those of you that disagree or reject these writings of the ECF, could you explain why you believe these early Christians, some that were personal witnesses of the Apostles, or only a generation or two away got it all wrong, and why the modern day Fundamentalist and/or Evangelical teaching and belief of being "born again" is not?

But before you do, keep in mind, early Christian history shows these Fathers of the Church spread the gospel of Jesus Christ, defended the Church in apologetic writing and fought the many heresies of the first six centuries of Christianity. These men, also called Apostolic Fathers, gave special witness to the faith, some dying the death of a martyr. Like Jesus who referred to Abraham as a spiritual father (Luke 16: 24) and St. Paul, who referred to himself in the same terms (1 Corinthians 4: 15), the Fathers were zealous for the word of God. Their writings are a testimony to the faith of the early Church. Remember,,This was some fifteen hundred years before the Protestant Reformation.


Have a Blessed day
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Cis.jd
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I appreciate all the posters participation of this thread with all the varying understandings and opinions of the historical and origin of the "born again" movement. However, what I have noticed is that the unbelievers of being born again by Baptismal Regeneration have not (far as I've read, proven through historic writings of the ECF) where any Early Church Fathers taught the modern day Fundamentalist or Evangelical teaching and belief of being "born again", being...... all one has to do is accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior through the recitation of the sinner’s prayer, is to be born again. Which I have yet found in Scripture (the sinners prayer)

Keep reading your straw man has been addressed.

I've also noticed by most of the Fundamental and Evangelical posters personal interpretation/understanding of John chapt. 3, is that accepting or "receiving Christ" as one's "personal Lord and Savior" by faith alone is what our Lord meant, and the Sacrament of Baptism is seen as merely a "symbolic" gesture with no inherent spiritual efficacy. Correct?
We are justified by faith---The Apostle Paul .

Justification By Faith
Galatians 2:16
Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

Romans 3:28
For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

Romans 5:1
Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 4:5
And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,

Romans 4:3
For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”

Philippians 3:9
And be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—

Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Ephesians 2:8
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,

John 5:24
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

James 2:23
And the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God.

John 3:16
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Romans 11:6
But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

Romans 3:20
For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

Galatians 2:21
I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

Galatians 5:6
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

Galatians 3:24
So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.

John 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

Genesis 15:6
And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

Acts 16:31
And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Romans 4:1-25
What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, ...

Romans 4:16
That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,

Romans 3:22
The righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:

John 1:12
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,

Romans 9:30
What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith;

Romans 4:11
He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well

Romans 10:10
For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

John 6:28-29
Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

Romans 3:10
As it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;

John 1:29
The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Ephesians 1:13
In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,

Galatians 3:14
So that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

Galatians 3:10
For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”

Romans 3:24-25
And are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins

More if you would like.

Even St John Chrysostom identified we are justified by faith alone:

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up and said unto them, Men and brethren, you know how that of old days God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of theGospel, and believe. Acts 15:5-7 Observe Peter from the first standing aloof (κεχωρισμένον) from the affair, and even to this time judaizing. And yet (says he) ye know. ch. 10:45; 11:2 Perhaps those were present who of old found fault with him in the matter of Cornelius, and went in with him (on that occasion): for this reason he brings them forward as witnesses. From old days, he says, did choose among you. What means, Among you? Either, in Palestine, or, you being present. By my mouth. Observe how he shows that it was God speaking by him, and no human utterance. And God, thatknows the hearts, gave testimony unto them: he refers them to the spiritual testimony: by giving them the Holy Ghost even as unto us. Acts 15:8 Everywhere he puts the Gentiles upon a thorough equality. And put no difference between us and them, having purified their hearts by faith. Acts 15:9 From faith alone, he says, they obtained the same gifts. This is also meant as a lesson to those (objectors); this is able to teach even them that faith only is needed, not works nor circumcision. For indeed they do not say all this only by way of apology for the Gentiles, but to teach (the Jewishbelievers) also to abandon the Law.

(NPNF1-11. Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans - Christian Classics Ethereal Library) (Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans)

After reading these posts, I thought it would behoove me to go back to the writings of the earliest Christians and see what they believed/ taught and preached on the Sacrament of Baptism, baptismal regeneration, and infant baptism. I went back to the first 500 yrs.of Christianty that I will now share:
Keep going earlier to the NT.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS (c. A.D. 70):

Now let us see if the Lord has been at any pains to give us a foreshadowing of the waters of Baptism and of the cross. Regarding the former, we have the evidence of Scripture that Israel would refuse to accept the washing which confers the remission of sins and would set up a substitution of their own instead [Jer 22:13; Isa 16:1-2; 33:16-18; Psalm 1:3-6]. Observe there how he describes both the water and the cross in the same figure. His meaning is, "Blessed are those who go down into the water with their hopes set on the cross." Here he is saying that after we have stepped down into the water, burdened with sin and defilement, we come up out of it bearing fruit, with reverence in our hearts and the hope of Jesus in our souls. (11:1-10)

Why did you leave out entire sentences from the above?

Chapter 11. Baptism and the cross prefigured in the Old Testament
Let us further inquire whether the Lord took any care to foreshadow the water [of baptism] and the cross. Concerning the water, indeed, it is written, in reference to the Israelites, that they should not receive that baptism which leads to the remission of sins, but should procure another for themselves. The prophet therefore declares, Be astonished, O heaven, and let the earth tremble at this, because this people has committed two great evils: they have forsaken Me, a living fountain, and have hewn out for themselves broken cisterns. Is my holy hill Zion a desolate rock? For you shall be as the fledglings of a bird, which fly away when the nest is removed. Isaiah 16:1-2 And again says the prophet, I will go before you and make level the mountains, and will break the brazen gates, and bruise in pieces the iron bars; and I will give you the secret, hidden, invisible treasures, that they may know that I am the Lord God. Isaiah 45:2-3 And He shall dwell in a lofty cave of the strong rock. Furthermore, what says He in reference to the Son? His water is sure; you shall see the King in His glory, and your soul shall meditate on the fear of the Lord.Isaiah 33:16-18 And again He says in another prophet, The man who does these things shall be like a tree planted by the courses of waters, which shall yield its fruit in due season; and his leaf shall not fade, and all that he does shall prosper. Not so are the ungodly, not so, but even as chaff, which the wind sweeps away from the face of the earth. Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in judgment, nor sinners in the counsel of the just; for the Lord knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the ungodly shall perish. Mark how He has described at once both the water and the cross. For these words imply, Blessed are they who, placing their trust in the cross, have gone down into the water; for, says He, they shall receive their reward in due time: then He declares, I will recompense them. But now He says, Their leaves shall not fade. This means, that every word which proceeds out of your mouth in faith and love shall tend to bring conversion and hope to many. Again, another prophet says, And the land of Jacob shall be extolled above every land.Zephaniah 3:19 This means the vessel of His Spirit, which He shall glorify. Further, what says He? And there was a river flowing on the right, and from it arose beautiful trees; and whosoever shall eat of them shall live forever. Ezekiel 47:12 This means, that we indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up, bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear [of God] and trust in Jesus in our spirit. And whosoever shall eat of these shall live for ever, This means: Whosoever, He declares, shall hear you speaking, and believe, shall live forever.
 
Upvote 0