Thread to determine some basic tenets of Christianity

[FreedByte]

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.

If age is the only criteria then the Didache and the Gospel of Thomas could both be in there.

Thirdly, most of the canon was already set by 170ad because all of the true gospels and letters had been circulating the primitive churches.

And by that time infant baptism was in practice as well.

 

[Hentenza]

If age is the only criteria then the Didache and the Gospel of Thomas could both be in there.

I never said that age was the criteria but, again, all books of scripture were written while the apostles were alive and the canon loses with the book written by the last apostle. Read my post again.

And by that time infant baptism was in practice as well.

Which is not depicted in any of the books of scripture so is a later interpolation.

 

[FreedByte]

all books of scripture were written while the apostles were alive and the canon loses with the book written by the last apostle.

That doesn't prove anything

Which is not depicted in any of the books of scripture so is a later interpolation.

That's the point. Since they both were in practice by that time, if your argument was consistent you would consider both to be later interpolations.

 

[Hentenza]

That doesn't prove anything

Sure it does. The canon was mostly formed and accepted by the churches a couple of centuries before the 4th century councils.

That's the point. Since they both were in practice by that time, if your argument was consistent you would consider both to be later interpolations.

They were not both in practice at the time. Again, there is no examples of infant baptism in scripture.

ETA: BTW- you are making two completely separate arguments. Proving one does not prove the other.

 

[FreedByte]

They were not both in practice at the time.

"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

 

[Hentenza]

"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Irenaeus does not help your case. All kinds of non-apostolic teachings were adopted after the second half of the second century.

BTW- Are you arguing about the canon or about infant baptism? Each is a separate argument and totally unrelated.

 

[FreedByte]

Irenaeus does not help your case. All kinds of non-apostolic teachings were adopted after the second half of the second century.

BTW- Are you arguing about the canon or about infant baptism? Each is a separate argument and totally unrelated.

I'm just saying it doesn't make sense to accept the second century canon but reject their views on infant baptism.

Also, if you believe that infant baptism was a second century invention, why do you think it was invented? If the Apostles were clear that no infants were to be baptized, why would they have started doing so? Also, where in Scriptures does it describe the youngest age at which children can be baptized? How are we supposed to know the answer to that?

Also, do you believe that there was any hierarchy beyond the local church in the early Church?

 

[yogosans14]

The trinity is by for one of the most importanr doctrines of Christianity. Cults that deny it like the JWs are in danger eternally.

 

[Hentenza]

I'm just saying it doesn't make sense to accept the second century canon but reject their views on infant baptism.

The arguments are not related. The Muratorian canon did not include any books that would support infant baptism.

Also, if you believe that infant baptism was a second century invention, why do you think it was invented? If the Apostles were clear that no infants were to be baptized, why would they have started doing so?

Huh? None of the Apostles baptized infants because infants could not accept Christ and repent. Obviously some folks maybe thought that they could later on. Again, what does this have to do with the canon?

Also, where in Scriptures does it describe the youngest age at which children can be baptized? How are we supposed to know the answer to that?

The age is relative to when a person can accept the Lord. However, it is a fact than an infant cannot.

Also, do you believe that there was any hierarchy beyond the local church in the early Church?

Nope. All primitive churches, early to late first century, were independent churches governed by a plurality of elders.

 

[FreedByte]

Huh? None of the Apostles baptized infants because infants could not accept Christ and repent.

What do you make of household baptism?

Obviously some folks maybe thought that they could later on. Again, what does this have to do with the canon?

The only thing that it has to do with the canon is that it makes no sense for you to believe in the authority of the Church on one issue and not the other.

The age is relative to when a person can accept the Lord. However, it is a fact than an infant cannot.

1. Where does the phrase "accept Christ" or "accept the Lord" appear in Scripture.
2. Someone who has just learned to speak can profess Christ; how can you differentiate that from someone who is of age to make such a profession?

Nope. All primitive churches, early to late first century, were independent churches governed by a plurality of elders.

Evidence?

 

[FreedByte]

The trinity is by for one of the most importanr doctrines of Christianity.

Yep

 

[Hentenza]

What do you make of household baptism?

Just as is says, a household. A household is not necessary defined as having infants. The jailer's household, for example, is never mentioned as having infants so it cannot be used to support (or debunk) infant baptism.

The only thing that it has to do with the canon is that it makes no sense for you to believe in the authority of the Church on one issue and not the other.

I can believe it just fine. The church, by itself, does not have the authority that you apparently are allowing since it is composed of men. The scriptures were written to guide the church. The apostles carried the authority until the last one died and the scriptures were fully written.

1. Where does the phrase "accept Christ" or "accept the Lord" appear in Scripture.

The phrase "accept Christ" is identical to having faith in the Son.

2. Someone who has just learned to speak can profess Christ; how can you differentiate that from someone who is of age to make such a profession?

God knows.

Evidence?

Read the scriptures. For example, are any of the epistles (other than the pastoral epistles written explicitly to Timothy) addressed to the head of a hierarchy or were they addressed to the congregation or the elders?

 

[FreedByte]

Just as is says, a household. A household is not necessary defined as having infants. The jailer's household, for example, is never mentioned as having infants so it cannot be used to support (or debunk) infant baptism.

But it is reminiscent of circumcision, no?

I can believe it just fine. The church, by itself, does not have the authority that you apparently are allowing since it is composed of men. The scriptures were written to guide the church. The apostles carried the authority until the last one died and the scriptures were fully written.

A group of elders overseeing a church is equally composed of men.

The phrase "accept Christ" is identical to having faith in the Son.

Not really; I can believe that Christ was the Son of God and that He rose from the dead without "accepting" that salvation is provided only through Him and not my works.

God knows.

Okay but how do you determine which is an actual profession of faith in order to determine who is to be baptized?

Read the scriptures. For example, are any of the epistles (other than the pastoral epistles written explicitly to Timothy) addressed to the head of a hierarchy or were they addressed to the congregation or the elders?

That doesn't demonstrate that there was no hierarchy other than the local church.

 

[Hentenza]

But it is reminiscent of circumcision, no?

Sure, but not in infants. Jewish kids were circumcised because it was commanded by the law. No such command exists in Christianity.

A group of elders overseeing a church is equally composed of men.

Yep. Your point?

Not really; I can believe that Christ was the Son of God and that He rose from the dead without "accepting" that salvation is provided only through Him and not my works.

Nah, that is an essential biblical teaching. See John 3:16.

Okay but how do you determine which is an actual profession of faith in order to determine who is to be baptized?

"I" don't. The profession is individual.

That doesn't demonstrate that there was no hierarchy other than the local church.

Sure it does. No NT epistle was ever written to the head of a hierarchy. None. If the church was hierarchical then the epistles would have been written to the head instead of to individual churches.

 

[FreedByte]

Sure, but not in infants. Jewish kids were circumcised because it was commanded by the law. No such command exists in Christianity.

But if the new sign of faith was to be no longer given to infants, don't you think that would be explicitly specified?

Yep. Your point?

So you accept the authority of the local Church but not the entire Church?

Nah, that is an essential biblical teaching. See John 3:16.

John 3:16 does not say you have to understand the atonement to be saved.

"I" don't. The profession is individual.

So should people be baptized as soon as they can speak "I accept Christ"?

Sure it does. No NT epistle was ever written to the head of a hierarchy. None. If the church was hierarchical then the epistles would have been written to the head instead of to individual churches.

That's not necessarily true

 

[Hentenza]

But if the new sign of faith was to be no longer given to infants, don't you think that would be explicitly specified?

The new sign of faith is not given to infants. Youths accept Christ when they are ready.

So you accept the authority of the local Church but not the entire Church?

What? I accept the authority of scripture and do not accept the sole authority or even the church's co-authority with scripture.

John 3:16 does not say you have to understand the atonement to be saved.

16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.

The atonement is part of John 3:16 and is predicated on faith.

So should people be baptized as soon as they can speak "I accept Christ"?

Everyone should be baptized as soon as possible after they have accepted Christ.

That's not necessarily true

How so? Can you show me a single NT church that was hierarchical?

 

[shturt678s]

The new sign of faith is not given to infants. Youths accept Christ when they are ready.




What? I accept the authority of scripture and do not accept the sole authority or even the church's co-authority with scripture.



16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.

The atonement is part of John 3:16 and is predicated on faith.

Only a head's up, ie, even the demons have faith in the sense of Jn.3:16, however they never underwnt a water baptism.

Everyone should be baptized as soon as possible after they have accepted Christ.





How so? Can you show me a single NT church that was hierarchical?

Old Jack's opinion

 

[MoreCoffee]

Seems to me that the hierarchy is present in various ways in sacred scripture as well as in sacred tradition. Saint Paul gives a list of gifts that are offices (or people) when he writes:

first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. (1Cor 12:28)​

And his instructions to Timothy and Titus imply that he gave authority to those sainted men to ordain others into the presbytery of the church.

Titus 1:5-6 DRB
(5) For this cause I left thee in Crete: that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:
(6) If any be without crime, the husband of one wife. having faithful children, not accused of riot or unruly.​

The idea of hierarchy within the offices of leadership within the church arose in apostolic times. That it firmed up and evolved with time is no surprise since everything in Christianity appears to have begun in apostolic times and to have firmed up and evolved in subsequent ages.

The same is true of baptism, its application to households is in scripture and its connection to circumcision is in scripture too so it is to be expected that baptism was at first applied to converts and then to whole families and then to the progeny of Christian parents. This is how it was in ancient times with circumcision; First Abraham then his household then his children and their children etcetera.

It is also true of the Canon; first the old testament is 'converted' by the teaching of Christ then the apostles and prophets of the new testament add to the body of sacred scriptures and finally the church collects their writings and uses them in her liturgy and creating a list of books that are acceptable for liturgical use and the list becomes the canon of sacred scripture.

Development with the passage of time is both expected and necessary. That we have such discussions as this in GT is a witness to the necessity of development because if it were not necessary then no one would want to know what books are to be used in the liturgy of the church and nobody would have collected the writings of the apostles for inclusion in the scriptures. Christians would have continued as they were on the Day on Pentecost with the Spirit leading and teaching and no writings to refer to because the Spirit would be leading into all truth - as some say he leads them today, though each who makes such a claim differs from the others making similar claims.

The desire for apostolic authenticity produced the impetus to collect the apostolic writings (including the writings of those who were the friends and helpers of the apostles) and to use only those writings that the church as a whole regarded as genuinely apostolic in the liturgy. So the canon, like baptism and the hierarchy, arose in apostolic times and evolved until it became a list of books accounted by the church to be truly apostolic and suitable for teaching the church in the liturgy.

 

[sculleywr]

From what I have observed, there are two things that seem to separate Christians the most: polity and baptism.

Which polity is Apostolic? Congregationalist, Presbyterian, or Episcopal?

I would say an episcopal leadership, however, without a pope, or more to the point, with every bishop being equal with regards to administrative power. Bishops, however, do not have the authority to level doctrinal change on the Church

Is infant baptism Apostolic? If someone argues that it isn't, then when and how did it originate?

Yes it is. Whole families were baptized, and infant baptism was a common practice in those times. Were Christian Baptism any different, I feel that Scripture or the fathers would have mentioned it.

Resolving these two questions once and for all, though some of you might think it's impossible to try and resolve them, would bring us much closer to Christian unity, in my opinion.

If unity is to be had, let it start with us

 

[FreedByte]

The new sign of faith is not given to infants. Youths accept Christ when they are ready.

The question was: if the new sign of faith was not to be given to infants, don't you think that would be specified?

What? I accept the authority of scripture and do not accept the sole authority or even the church's co-authority with scripture.

My point was that you accept that a local church's elders have authority but not any more hierarchy than that and I'm not sure why.

16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.

The atonement is part of John 3:16 and is predicated on faith.

The atonement is described in John 3:16 but John 3:16 doesn't say you need to understand the atonement to be saved, which is what "accept Christ" means because it means that you accept that He is the sole provider of salvation and not works.

Everyone should be baptized as soon as possible after they have accepted Christ.

That wasn't the hypothetical situation. What if someone who just learned to speak says "I accept Christ". Would you baptize them?

How so? Can you show me a single NT church that was hierarchical?

My point was that the fact that the letters weren't addressed to leaders doesn't mean leaders didn't exist.