When do you think the Church got corrupted?

[Monk Brendan]

Perhaps 325 ad when the Nazarenes (Jewish Christians) were excluded from the first Nicea conference for being too Jewish.

First of all, let's take a look at the above statement. There is no such thing as a Jewish Christian. When one becomes a Christian, one gives up their former affiliation as Jew, or heathen, or whatever.

 

[truefiction1]

Scripture does not forbid lots of things. That doesn't mean it promotes all it does not forbid.

The lives of the saints who were baptized as infants and died in Christ, powerfully promotes what the Orthodox Church has always practiced, from the beginning through now: The Holy Spirit Himself bearing witness to the Faith of Christ's holy martyrs.

 

[truefiction1]

Nothing is being ignored except some of what I say, and the problem is your reading into the text what you can only wish was there, and thus resorting to engaging in special pleading, as well as a logically fallacy. For the fact that God could do something or once did simply does not establish that He did do something that you want to claim.

God could have enabled Phillip to always travel supernaturally, but that is not the norm, and God characteristically reveals exceptions to the norm. And thus as said and ignored, "One does not come to know the Lord while he is comatose, by being given revelation from God and choosing, by the grace of God, to believe the author of it. This could happen even in the womb by a special work of grace, but that is not a norm."

And God not forbiding little children coming to believe in Him simply does not equate to baptizing them, which is not how Christ received children in the text, nor how they must come to Him as innocents.

Requiring them to be baptized is actually hindering children from coming to Christ, for your argument actually has Christ welcoming children in their innocence but then turning the same away if they were not baptized as infants.

And again, which exception to the norm the Holy Spirit nowhere actually described, despite the sppd cardinal importance so that children can come to Christ.

Of course, even adults can become born again by heart-purifying faith before baptism.

When I read the Word of God, it is with such understanding as can come only from knowing of God, in the Holy Spirit. How could I therefor accept uses of God's Word which I know are not of God, but are the product of unholy, passion-tainted and demonically influenced thought processes? I can't.

Infant baptism does not hinder children from coming to Christ. The lives of the saints who were baptized as infants, raised in the Faith, lived and died in Christ, powerfully promotes what the Orthodox Church has always practiced, from the beginning through now: The Holy Spirit Himself bearing witness to the Faith of Christ's holy martyrs; those who lived as martyrs, those who died, and those who did both, even those who are presently doing so.

Based on the Holy Spirit's evidence, your arguments are found to be vain, and worse. I've nothing further to say on this subject, at this time.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

When I read the Word of God, it is with such understanding as can come only from knowing of God, in the Holy Spirit. How could I therefor accept uses of God's Word which I know are not of God, but are the product of unholy, passion-tainted and demonically influenced thought processes? I can't.

Meaning rather than the subjective being subject to the objective, the reverse is true, and thus one can esoterically channel meanings out of Scripture which are not there, and to top it all off, relegate what challenges you to being "the product of unholy, passion-tainted and demonically influenced thought processes."

Thank you for the flack confirming I am over the target.

Infant baptism does not hinder children from coming to Christ. The lives of the saints who were baptized as infants, raised in the Faith, lived and died in Christ, powerfully promotes what the Orthodox Church has always practiced, from the beginning through now: The Holy Spirit Himself bearing witness to the Faith of Christ's holy martyrs; those who lived as martyrs, those who died, and those who did both, even those who are presently doing so.
You argument here would only evidence it is consistent with a holy lives, yet it remains that by requiring baptism in order for innocent children to come to God, then you are indeed hindering the innocents concerning whom Christ admonished, "Let the little children come to Me," and nowhere testifies to them being baptized.

If innocent children go to Heaven, which i believe they do, then they need not baptism, which vast multitudes of children have never seen.

Based on the Holy Spirit's evidence, your arguments are found to be vain, and worse. I've nothing further to say on this subject, at this time.

Meaning, based on what the Holy Spirit evidences the NT church believed in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the it believed, your arguments are found to be vain, and thus saying nothing further on this subject is a wise course for you.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

“And Nadab and Abihu died, when they offered strange fire before the Lord.” (Numbers 26:61)

Making instruments of the grace of God as objects of worship is nothing new (though playing word games to justify it can be ):

He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan. (2 Kings 18:4)

 

[BNR32FAN]

I used to think only Muslims and Mormons thought that but I realized some Christians have this idea. Even I used to think the reason for the Reformation was that the Church became corrupted. So I want to know the date and reason that damaged the Church.

I don’t think the church ever got corrupted. Instead many left the church and started their own. It’s been happening since the second century.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Thanks, however, I mentioned in a previous comment that there is a difference between having some bad teachers and being corrupted.

Perhaps you could explain the difference?

 

[BNR32FAN]

The answer I'm given is "at the time of Constantine".

Why then?

 

[Not David]

Perhaps you could explain the difference?

Churches have bad teachers but these ones don't affect the whole system. Total corruption would be saying that the whole Church stopped teaching what God instructed them.

 

[Dave-W]

First of all, let's take a look at the above statement. There is no such thing as a Jewish Christian. When one becomes a Christian, one gives up their former affiliation as Jew, or heathen, or whatever.

On that point we most strongly disagree.

 

[Dave L]

The lives of the saints who were baptized as infants and died in Christ, powerfully promotes what the Orthodox Church has always practiced, from the beginning through now: The Holy Spirit Himself bearing witness to the Faith of Christ's holy martyrs.

Were these really baptized if scripture is silent on infant baptism?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

truefiction1 said: ↑

The lives of the saints who were baptized as infants and died in Christ, powerfully promotes what the Orthodox Church has always practiced, from the beginning through now: The Holy Spirit Himself bearing witness to the Faith of Christ's holy martyrs.

Were these really baptized if scripture is silent on infant baptism?

And repentant faith is a condition for baptism in Scripture. "Repent and be baptized." (Acts 2:38)

And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (Acts 8:36-37)

Moreover, consider the logic. Since men from Hitler to Ted Kennedy to the liberals who make up the near majority of the RCC in the West were baptized as an infants, then using the same logic we could say this bears witness to paedobaptism not being linked to holiness. Which i am sure would be in overall contrast to those who were baptized as coverts.

But when you have EO mysticism, "Knowing God occurs when we become, by grace, what God is by nature," followed by logic that concludes, "God is humble. The Child is humble. The child [by having Divine nature] knows God in the child's very own being, and the child believes, without question."
Yes, we must be humble, without pretense as little children, and as trusting as they are, but no matter how disposed, faith come by hearing, and thus comprehending revelation, which little children (such as could recognize and walk to Christ) can be capable of to a salvific degree, but not infants, which paedobaptists treat as one class.

 

[Dave L]

truefiction1 said: ↑

The lives of the saints who were baptized as infants and died in Christ, powerfully promotes what the Orthodox Church has always practiced, from the beginning through now: The Holy Spirit Himself bearing witness to the Faith of Christ's holy martyrs.

And repentant faith is a condition for baptism in Scripture. "Repent and be baptized." (Acts 2:38)

And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (Acts 8:36-37)

Moreover, consider the logic. Since men from Hitler to Ted Kennedy to the liberals who make up the near majority of the RCC in the West were baptized as an infants, then using the same logic we could say this bears witness to paedobaptism not being linked to holiness. Which i am sure would be in overall contrast to those who were baptized as coverts.

But when you have EO mysticism, "Knowing God occurs when we become, by grace, what God is by nature," followed by logic that concludes, "God is humble. The Child is humble. The child [by having Divine nature] knows God in the child's very own being, and the child believes, without question."
Yes, we must be humble, without pretense as little children, and as trusting as they are, but no matter how disposed, faith come by hearing, and thus comprehending revelation, which little children (such as could recognize and walk to Christ) can be capable of to a salvific degree, but not infants, which paedobaptists treat as one class.

Infants die because they are sinners in Adam, members of a corrupt species. The wages of sin is death.

 

[truefiction1]

Were these really baptized if scripture is silent on infant baptism?

Yes, because "the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too". (Origen - Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (c. 182-251). Even if Scripture seems silent on this, history is not. The rejection of infant baptism in Christianity did not begin until the 16th century.

 

[Dave L]

Yes, because "the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too". (Origen - Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (c. 182-251). Even if Scripture seems silent on this, history is not. The rejection of infant baptism in Christianity did not begin until the 16th century.

This is hearsay scripture knows nothing of.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Churches have bad teachers but these ones don't affect the whole system. Total corruption would be saying that the whole Church stopped teaching what God instructed them.

Ok like for example the Gnostics. I think in a case like you referring to that kind of church would cease to be a Christian church if they are not teaching the basic fundamentals of Christianity.

 

[BNR32FAN]

First of all, let's take a look at the above statement. There is no such thing as a Jewish Christian. When one becomes a Christian, one gives up their former affiliation as Jew, or heathen, or whatever.

Not true they are often called messianic Jews. Messianic Jews are still called Christians just like Catholics, Baptists, Protestants etc.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Infants die because they are sinners in Adam, members of a corrupt species. The wages of sin is death.

They are indeed sinners by nature, and suffer the effects of the Fall, though not having done either good not evil themselves, and thus not culpable of sin (yet!), nor actually punished for that of others.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Yes, because "the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too". (Origen - Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (c. 182-251). Even if Scripture seems silent on this, history is not. The rejection of infant baptism in Christianity did not begin until the 16th century.

And just where are the words of so-called "church fathers" wholly inspired of God and thus the determintive authority on what the NT church believed?

I see you are back for more. Do you really want to argue that while carefully providing command and exhortations and many examples of baptism, including specifying that women were baptized as well as men as believers, (Acts 8:12) that the Holy Spirit would include at least one example of paedobaptism or one command to baptism infants, versus believers? Esp. in the light of the grave importance Catholicism places upon it, as your cousins example:

With respect to children who have died without Baptism, the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God's mercy and to pray for their salvation." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1283;emp. mine)

And for what it is worth, Tertullian for one exhorts the delay of baptism they have become able to know Christ. And which is also contrary to the absurd fantasy that infants are Divine by nature and know God. And if they did they would not need your baptism.

"And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary-if baptism itself is not so necessary -that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, 'Forbid them not to come unto me.' Let them 'come,' then, while they are growing up; let them 'come' while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ." - Tertullian (On Baptism, 18; emp. mine)

Also, Justin Martyr [103–165] seems to hold to believers baptism, teaching, "in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. (First Apology, 61; emp. mine)

 

[PeaceByJesus]

This is hearsay scripture knows nothing of.

But in Catholicism the uninspired (compared to Scripture) words of so-called "church fathers" with their various record of progressive accretions of traditions of men made determintive of what the NT church believed insofar as Catholic leaderships affirms them, which self-exalts itself above Scripture, as Jewish leadership did, but which was reproved by Scripture, by the Lord and true disciples of His.