This thread is supposed to be about Baptism in Scripture AND the early church. The intent is to explore what the early church believed about baptism based on scripture AND the extra-biblical writings.
It has since turned into another game of scripture volleyball, leading to nothing but arguments. There are at least two other threads in the forum that have done the very same thing and Sugarman has recently started a third. Could people please use those threads for sola-scriptura based arguments. I would like this one to return back to it's original purpose - an exploration of what the Apostles handed down based on early church writings.
an exploration of what the Apostles handed down based on early church writings.
Sola scriptura IS early church history, from the NT. It IS what the Apostles handed down to ALL of us.
If you want to debate SOLELY on the writings (that exist) of (some of) early church fathers, EXCLUDING the NT writings, then state that in the thread title.
I find it interesting that you don't want, or even INVITE,
a comparison of their views to what scripture ALONE says.
This thread is supposed to be about Baptism in Scripture AND the early church. The intent is to explore what the early church believed about baptism based on scripture AND the extra-biblical writings.
It has since turned into another game of scripture volleyball, leading to nothing but arguments. There are at least two other threads in the forum that have done the very same thing and Sugarman has recently started a third. Could people please use those threads for sola-scriptura based arguments. I would like this one to return back to it's original purpose - an exploration of what the Apostles handed down based on early church writings.
In the NT people just had to believe repent and confess Christ and they were baptism asap.
in the church fathers more things that were added for one baptism.
It taken 2-3 years for the church fathers while in the NT most people were
A. baptism on that spot because water was common where they were.
b. They were baptism later but the same day.
How do you explain this change from this timeline of baptism from the NT to The church fathers.
why did The church fathers teach if your single it is the bishop choice rather or not to baptism you if they think you would commit a sexual sin?
Can you answer any of this with The NT if the church fathers really got this from the apostles?
I post an document which haves to deal with How church fathers change the very way baptism was done by the apsotles in post 111.
an exploration of what the Apostles handed down based on early church writings.
Sola scriptura IS early church history, from the NT. It IS what the Apostles handed down to ALL of us.
If you want to debate SOLELY on the writings (that exist) of (some of) early church fathers, EXCLUDING the NT writings, then state that in the thread title.
I find it interesting that you don't want, or even INVITE,
a comparison of their views to what scripture ALONE says.
Ripley's - Sola Scriptura means scripture alone. Scripture is not our only evidence to what the early Church believed and practiced. In fact an entire generation of Christians existed before N.T. scripture was complete and many more before it was agreed upon by every one.
Nearly every thread in this forum ends up being an argument about how each of us individually interprets scripture. The very same thing has happened with our discussion about baptism.
I'm not proposing to discuss the ECF writings INSTEAD of scripture. I'm proposing we use the ECF writings to help us understand how the early Christians interpreted scripture.
With that said, I'll ask the question yet again ..... Where in the pre-refromation history of the Church is there any evidence of a "symbolic" vis-a-vis "regenerative" understanding of baptism?
wk~
In fact an entire generation of Christians existed before N.T. scripture was complete
During which time the Apostles were teaching the communities THEMSELVES, face to face. Not like there was some kind of "gap" in there. They WERE walking, talking scripture...during that
same time they were writing what we now call "the New Testament".
The were UNIQUE from all other leaders who later became bishops, deacons, etc...THEY WERE EYE WITNESSES. *No others* can claim the absolute authority they had. Which is EXACTLY WHY the writings of the church fathers ARE NOT scripture.
I'm proposing we use the ECF writings to help us understand how the early Christians interpreted scripture.
Here's the deal as I see it: we don't have EXHAUSTIVE writings of ALL church fathers from ALL the churches, so we DO NOT KNOW what was taught in the different communities. And even within the writings that have been preserved, there are disagreements. What we DO HAVE is the writings of the Apostles and what they taught the EARLI
EST CHURCH.
The NT is REPLETE with "believe/trust/have faith and be saved" with
no other CAVEATS, which legalists/"salvation participants"
ignore. God did NOT replace old legalism with new legalism. So,
no matter who comes along and tries to pervert the Good News with New Bad News, they are in contradiction with God's word. PERIOD. No if's, and's, or but's...
I will bow out of this conversation now. You and I will never agree on this subject. However, I still love you, my brother.
One major danger in believing in other writings of "early chruches" is that many did what wasn't write (just as many churches today do). The perfect example of this is in Corinthians where Paul has to get on to them and correct them. So, how do you know what is right or wrong? You could be taking in things that aren't right. So do you study it all, throw out what you believe to be right, keep the other stuff? Then that isn't solving anything because you don't know if you are right or not. So you have to go strictly scripture in my opinion.
Is your doctrine of Pharisees or Sadducees???
Please,
I think you should ask John, Peter and Paul that question, for they are the ones I quoted... It is thier doctrine that they preached...
But then, I suppose your wisdom and understanding superseeds theirs..
Must be nice.
This thread is supposed to be about Baptism in Scripture AND the early church. The intent is to explore what the early church believed about baptism based on scripture AND the extra-biblical writings.
It has since turned into another game of scripture volleyball, leading to nothing but arguments. There are at least two other threads in the forum that have done the very same thing and Sugarman has recently started a third. Could people please use those threads for sola-scriptura based arguments. I would like this one to return back to it's original purpose - an exploration of what the Apostles handed down based on early church writings.
I just told you what the apostles in the FIRST CHURCH handed down:
perhaps you missed it?
http://forums.jewsforjesus.org/showthrea...9#pid47699
