We do, however, venerate those in whom God's likeness has been perfected. And thus it's really more proper to say we venerate Christ in his saints than to say we venerate the saints themselves.
Why should we venerate them?
And no, I've never suggested that God would protect his "institutional Church" from all error for all time. Rather, I believe that Christ will guide his Church into all truth, because Christ is truth. Clearly people have been wrong on key points from the beginning.
If this is the case, then every single protestant isn't necessarily "a denomination of one" because they presently might have a given issue right that the EO at large (though not every individual EO) has wrong.
Again, I've read more papers, debates and books on this than I care to revisit. Unless major historical summaries are all wrong, the earliest recorded, explicit mention of this practice is from Tertullian
Just to recap. That means the first time it was ever referenced, it was in an acceptable work and all previous works still only talked about beleiver's baptism and simply did not reference the idea of paedobaptism.
Tertullian of course eventually even left the Church and joined a heretical sect that took an extremely rigorist and harsh attitude toward post-baptismal sins. He is thus not properly even considered a church father by the Orthodox, because he left the Church.
I believe it is debatable that he "left the church," I was under the impression that he was within the pale of Catholicism, just as certain charismatics are today.
But the next recorded mention of it was by Origen, who claimed the practice had apostolic roots....Cyprian then mentions infant baptism also as an established and ancient practice.
Yet, for centuries CHristians with Christian parents still weren't baptized as infants, which proves definitively it was not universally believed to be an apostolic practice. The fact that the notion prevailed with the ascendance of the doctrine of original sin is very telling. The idea came up that the only thing that can prevent a baby from going to hell is baptising him or her. Now, I know this is not what EOs presently believe, but this was what was taught in the 5th century.
So, you seem to have pulled out the one isolated reference that supports your position. Your "actual historical evidence" amounts to the isolated opinion of one man who whose baptismal views led him into a heretical sect...
You are overstating your position. I am pulling out a reference made after 150 years of believers-only references, made during an era where paedobaptism wasn't the majority practice for yet another 200 years at least. That's 400 years, that's a lot of time, you're framing your argument incorrectly and dare I say, ignorantly. If something did not have ascendancy for four centuries, I am not about to make the statement you just did.
Nobody has said the had baptism "all wrong." Yes, the practice was in flux. Yes, it changed over time and from place to place. It took time to sort out what was right from what wasn't. It isn't like there weren't dubious views of the Trinity and Christology in the years before they really came to be expounded upon.
Yes, but the trinity was clear in the Bible, in Clement, in Ignatius...with baptism you have evidence of the exact opposite belief accepted by for a long period of time by a lot of people. And why doe "flux" stop after 5 centuries. Why can't the "flux" be now?
And I've already said that I believe that infant baptism was practiced from much earlier times than what you're claiming, and it was common enough not to warrant any particular opposition.
But all you have is silence and assumptions. We actually have an explicit reference and the known practice of CHrisitians (Christian parents of credo-bpatized church fathers) on the other side that contradicts it. SO your claim is unsubstantiated and simply wrong.
I believe the basis for it was present from the start, and its expression deepened and widened.
Or historically, the basis is oftentimes centuries later and then it deepened and widened. Unless the basis can be proved (and Scripture is as early and flawless as you can go) and then you find yourself pulling stuff out of the 4th, 5th, 6th centuries or beyond.
The argument over the date of Easter is really irrelevant. It was resolved by allowing each group to observe its own date. The essential matter is that all agreed that it was proper to celebrate Pascha/Easter as the central holiday of the liturgical year. So they differed on the date. Is this significant?
Not really, but you included it as part of an unequivocal statement, if you withdraw the statement then it is not problematic.
I don't know anything about Cambodia. The stories you tell are interesting. Especially the part about American Cambodians paying to put up stunning temples for the sake of Karma and the next life. Maybe if they paid to fix up those apartment buildings, they'd really do some good.
I appreciate you reading that. I miss being there and my in-laws. Believe it or not, I think my
post on head coverings actually was the biggest, because the Headcovering Movement picked it up.
On both biblical and historical grounds, I find the case for credobaptism (to the exclusion of paedobaptism) to be razor thin.
While I wouldn't say paedobaptism is a sin and wouldn't break communion over it, I do believe that it was not the practice of the early church for probably over 150 years everywhere.
Unless you can show me significant, sustained opposition to ... infant baptism (know of any clear opposition beyond the isolated comment of Tertuallian?)
The fact that tons of church fathers who had Christian parents were not baptized over a period of centuries seems to me like sustained opposition. Sadly, I cannot pull any other evidence out of the historical record, but unlike the Real Presence which was crystal clear from the beginning, you simply don't have that with baptism.
And again I'd ask why it's more credible or plausible to believe that general silence on a matter, followed by eventual acceptance, is indicative of corruption and error, rather than to believe it's indicative of widespread acceptance and therefore ancient precedent.
I don't need to over complicate the matter. If something isn't spoken about in any sort of detail for centuries, it simply was not important enough to warrant mention and I don't feel the need to prove that it was generally denied, because more likely no one even thought about it because it didnt even exist.
Now you might counter that monergism is one of these topics. To be honest, I would totally agree with you. GOd does not obsess over the nature of our will when it pertains to conversion, so I don't honestly see the need to dwell on it,
However, my point stands. The lack of several pointed refutations of a doctrione does not prove that the doctrine in question was otherwise widely accepted. In reality, it indicates pit just didn't exist and if it didn't exist, there was nothing for people to reject.
