Thread to determine some basic tenets of Christianity

[~Anastasia~]

I'm going to have to insist you read this: Tertullian Does not Want You to Baptize Your Babies

along with the links on the canon issue.

Didn't Tertullian want to discourage baptism on two counts ... ?

First that some believed any serious sin after baptism wouldn't be forgiven (so deathbed baptism was preferable)

And secondly (actually first maybe, since I'm not sure he believed the "unforgivable sin" part early on) ... but also so that the person responsible for the child's upbringing would not be at fault if the child failed to continue?

I believe some of the churches address the second concern by only allowing baptism if the infant has a reasonable expectation of being raised according to the principles of faith?

And the first consideration has been rejected.

I think I remember reading this though?

 

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

You do know that the Church determined the canon and there were many writings, some of them earlier than the writings of the New Testament, that were not included?


How do you know that the New Testament is Scripture?

Actually all scripture is given by God.

So God the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the New Testament to write the books and letters that make up the New Testament,

Then the saved of Jesus Christ determined which were in and which were out because the Holy Spirit in them determined that. Heretical, those of dubious origin, and uninspired books were discarded because they were heretical, of dubious origin, and uninspired. For almost 2000 years God has preserved these and they have been translated into other languages.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

[FreedByte]

Actually all scripture is given by God.

Is the Gospel of Thomas Scripture?

Then the saved of Jesus Christ determined which were in and which were out because the Holy Spirit in them determined that. Heretical, those of dubious origin, and uninspired books were discarded because they were heretical, of dubious origin, and uninspired. For almost 2000 years God has preserved these and they have been translated into other languages.

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

 

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

Is the Gospel of Thomas Scripture?



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

The gospel of Thomas has heresy, is gnostic, and is not the word of God and therefore not scripture.

The doctrines, traditions, and commandments of men are not the word of God.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Didn't Tertullian want to discourage baptism on two counts ... ?

First that some believed any serious sin after baptism wouldn't be forgiven (so deathbed baptism was preferable)

And secondly (actually first maybe, since I'm not sure he believed the "unforgivable sin" part early on) ... but also so that the person responsible for the child's upbringing would not be at fault if the child failed to continue?

I believe some of the churches address the second concern by only allowing baptism if the infant has a reasonable expectation of being raised according to the principles of faith?

And the first consideration has been rejected.

I think I remember reading this though?

Right on.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Actually all scripture is given by God.

So God the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the New Testament to write the books and letters that make up the New Testament,

Then the saved of Jesus Christ determined which were in and which were out because the Holy Spirit in them determined that. Heretical, those of dubious origin, and uninspired books were discarded because they were heretical, of dubious origin, and uninspired. For almost 2000 years God has preserved these and they have been translated into other languages.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

What about the books that were removed after the Protestant Reformation?

Were they wrong about those being Scripture in the first place?

 

[MKJ]

The gospel of Thomas has heresy, is gnostic, and is not the word of God and therefore not scripture.

The doctrines, traditions, and commandments of men are not the word of God.

Who says that the Gospel of Thomas is not Scripture?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Who says that the Gospel of Thomas is not Scripture?

The Catholic Church says that the gospel of Thomas is not canonical sacred scripture.

 

[MKJ]

The Catholic Church says that the gospel of Thomas is not canonical sacred scripture.

My point was that it was a decision made by the Church. The book didn't drop from the sky with the words "canonical" stamped on the front.

 

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

Who says that the Gospel of Thomas is not Scripture?

Almost all of Christendom. It is not found in any bible ever made.

It is gnostic and has the heresy of reincarnation hidden in it.

 

[MoreCoffee]

My point was that it was a decision made by the Church. The book didn't drop from the sky with the words "canonical" stamped on the front.

That is correct. The book came from a church council in the later part of the fourth century AD with "canonical" attributed to a list of 73 books.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well the East has usually been more Resurrection-focused and the West has usually been more cross-focused, for one thing

I don't think this is true. I think East and West always viewed these together.

A better question is, what was it like in the beginning?

Yes, like, can you prove there was no infants baptized in the early church, or that immersion was the only way it was done?

Well, let's say you have two Christians, one who believes in credobaptism and the local church, and the other who believes in paedobaptism and episcopal hierarchy. To me, those two Christians should be able to use determine historically who is following Apostolic Christianity.

Your divisions leave something to be desired. I mean who's to say that credo- and paedo- baptisms aren't one and the same? Cannot a parent make an affirmation for his own child? And why do you separate local church and hierarchy? How granular do you want to get? The Catholic Church has hierarchy as well as locality-you have the central governing body, the Vatican, then you have more local, the diocesan, then you have the parish, then you have the home.

None of those, I'm looking for causes of lack of dialogue between groups and general disinterest in historical analysis of one's faith.

The point is, what did Jesus institute?

 

[Hentenza]

My point was that it was a decision made by the Church. The book didn't drop from the sky with the words "canonical" stamped on the front.

Actually no. All scripture is God breathed which means God knows what is scripture and is more than able to maintain it. The council merely discovered what God had already ordained.

 

[FreedByte]

The gospel of Thomas has heresy, is gnostic, and is not the word of God and therefore not scripture.

The doctrines, traditions, and commandments of men are not the word of God.

How do you know that the gospel of Thomas isn't the true Gospel while the other ones are heretical?

 

[FreedByte]

Your divisions leave something to be desired. I mean who's to say that credo- and paedo- baptisms aren't one and the same? Cannot a parent make an affirmation for his own child?

That's what makes them different; the parent is making the affirmation and not the child.

And why do you separate local church and hierarchy?

I don't. The question is whether any hierarchy existed.

The point is, what did Jesus institute?

Yep

 

[FreedByte]

Actually no. All scripture is God breathed which means God knows what is scripture and is more than able to maintain it. The council merely discovered what God had already ordained.

So if Christians already knew what the canon was, why hold a council at all?

 

[Root of Jesse]

I do not have to answer your question if I just disproved it with the facts.

So they were wrong and your question was answered with the word of God.

No infant baptism in the word of God as clearly refuted in Acts 8:36-38 and Acts 10:36-48

You proved nothing of the sort. They prove that an adult may be baptized Christian. Doesn't speak against infant baptism at all. The second passage doesn't even say who was listening to Peter. It just says that all were baptized.

 

[Hentenza]

So if Christians already knew what the canon was, why hold a council at all?

Ask God.

 

[FreedByte]

Ask God.

It was more of a rhetorical question than anything because they wouldn't have needed to hold a council if everyone already knew what the canon was.

Your previous response is essentially just dismissive of the legitimacy of the authority of the early Church.

 

[Hentenza]

It was more of a rhetorical question than anything because they wouldn't have needed to hold a council if everyone already knew what the canon was.

Your previous response is essentially just dismissive of the legitimacy of the authority of the early Church.

Not at all. God knows and maintains His true word, man does not. Secondly, it is not a coincidence that all Christian scripture was written while the apostles were alive and it is no coincidence that the canon closes with the book by the last apostle. Thirdly, most of the canon was already set by 170ad because all of the true gospels and letters had been circulating the primitive churches.