Why was Tertullian a Credo-baptist?

[humblethinker]

Biblicist....?

 

[The Biblicist]

You offer some great questions! I have been aware of these questions and reasoning but it is good to consider them again. Since I am not presently of an opinion of certainty to your questions would you mind giving me the answers with which you are comfortable with?

The first thousand years of recorded "church history" has been exclusively controlled by the Roman Catholic Church. Rome determined the selection of materials to be preserved versus what is ignored (in many cases destroyed). Should there be no legitimate suspicion of "unbiased" reporting of Roman monks concerning themselves and whom they regarded as their enemies and defined to be "heretics."

The Apostolic faith and practice was "once delivered" but the Roman Catholic dogma and practice has been the result of a long progressive interaction with the Magisterium and former counsels in perfect keeping with a developmental progression seen in the Ante-Nicene to the Nicene to the Post-Nicene Fathers.

If you follow the same procedure you will have no other alternative, if you are consistent, than to become Catholic. If you are not a Catholic but reject Catholic dogma then at some point in that development of "Church History" you must draw a line and reject and refuse the developmental progression from that point forward and condemn it as apostasy.

Hence, either you have a carefully controlled and preserved logical and consistent record of progressive developmental apostasy that culminated in present Catholicism or you must regard the Roman Catholic Church to be exactly what it claims to be. The only other alternative is to stop at some point within the secular records (the Fathers) and claim apostasy has begun at that point and to proceed any further is to follow a record of apostate Christianity.

The Reformers were forced to make that very decision but inconsistently made it in the 16th century because they were forced by their own Catholic dogma to still recognize and accept the very developmental history that preceded the 16th century as authentic "Church history." They were faced with three possible alternatives.

1. Reject the state church concept established in the Nicene Fathers and draw the line then and there. Reject the infant baptism established in the Ante-Nicene Fathers and draw the line then and there. Reject other Catholic dogma established in Post-Nicene records and draw the line then and there as they still cling to all of the above things which would condemn themselves as apostate if they drew that line at any one of these junctures.

2. Accept that true Christianity was the object dispicable hatred and perversion by the established state church and existed among many who were called "heretics." Thus reexamine the obvious and real inconsistencies among the monkish records and their habitual practice of distorting their enemies. Many did take this approach.

3. Invent a new doctrine of the church that allowed apostolic Christianity to exist within the apostate state controlled church as Augustine did (universal visible) and then Luther followed (universal invisible). They chose this escape route.

Personally, I believe the New Testament clearly lays out the inspired predictive preview of both Post-Apostolic Christianity and Post-Apostolic apostate Christianity and provides Biblical principles to correctly identify and intepret the report of apostate Christianity.

 

[humblethinker]

The first thousand years of recorded "church history" has been exclusively controlled by the Roman Catholic Church. Rome determined the selection of materials to be preserved versus what is ignored (in many cases destroyed). Should there be no legitimate suspicion of "unbiased" reporting of Roman monks concerning themselves and whom they regarded as their enemies and defined to be "heretics."

The Apostolic faith and practice was "once delivered" but the Roman Catholic dogma and practice has been the result of a long progressive interaction with the Magisterium and former counsels in perfect keeping with a developmental progression seen in the Ante-Nicene to the Nicene to the Post-Nicene Fathers.

If you follow the same procedure you will have no other alternative, if you are consistent, than to become Catholic. If you are not a Catholic but reject Catholic dogma then at some point in that development of "Church History" you must draw a line and reject and refuse the developmental progression from that point forward and condemn it as apostasy.

Hence, either you have a carefully controlled and preserved logical and consistent record of progressive developmental apostasy that culminated in present Catholicism or you must regard the Roman Catholic Church to be exactly what it claims to be. The only other alternative is to stop at some point within the secular records (the Fathers) and claim apostasy has begun at that point and to proceed any further is to follow a record of apostate Christianity.

The Reformers were forced to make that very decision but inconsistently made it in the 16th century because they were forced by their own Catholic dogma to still recognize and accept the very developmental history that preceded the 16th century as authentic "Church history." They were faced with three possible alternatives.

1. Reject the state church concept established in the Nicene Fathers and draw the line then and there. Reject the infant baptism established in the Ante-Nicene Fathers and draw the line then and there. Reject other Catholic dogma established in Post-Nicene records and draw the line then and there as they still cling to all of the above things which would condemn themselves as apostate if they drew that line at any one of these junctures.

2. Accept that true Christianity was the object dispicable hatred and perversion by the established state church and existed among many who were called "heretics." Thus reexamine the obvious and real inconsistencies among the monkish records and their habitual practice of distorting their enemies. Many did take this approach.

3. Invent a new doctrine of the church that allowed apostolic Christianity to exist within the apostate state controlled church as Augustine did (universal visible) and then Luther followed (universal invisible). They chose this escape route.

Personally, I believe the New Testament clearly lays out the inspired predictive preview of both Post-Apostolic Christianity and Post-Apostolic apostate Christianity and provides Biblical principles to correctly identify and intepret the report of apostate Christianity.

Does The Trail of Blood reflect your beliefs? I'm still not sure what it is exactly that you personally believe in regarding the issue. I get the gist of what you are against though.

 

[The Biblicist]

Does The Trail of Blood reflect your beliefs? I'm still not sure what it is exactly that you personally believe in regarding the issue. I get the gist of what you are against though.

My position is not based upon "The Trail of Blood" by J.M. Carroll or even the more precise and expanded interpretation by John T. Christian in his first volume "A History of Baptists" or a number of other such historians who are not Baptist by denomination.

I agree with their overall conclusions because I base my interpretative views of secular history upon precise inspired predictions of post-apostolic Christianity in regard to both the apostate and apostolic characteristics.

The New Testament provides a template to interpret post-apostolic history of both New Testament Christianity in contrast to predicted apostate characteristics. The New Testament provides precise predictions and principles to guide the believer through that period between apostolic Christianity and the coming of Christ.

Christ explicitly identified present day apostate Judaism and its treatment of Christ as a template of how His church would be treated between his first and second coming. If they falsely attributed doctrines and things to their Master how much more to his followers. If they would persecute and kill him, how much more his true followers. The cheif mark of apostate Christiantiy is their slander, persecution and murder of other professed beleivers. That is the record which apostate Christianity will leave between the close of the New Testament and the coming of Christ.

Christ consistently characterized his true churches as the "few" in contrast to the "many" who profess "Lord, Lord...in thy name...have we not done" and they were the "liittle" flock in contrast to the field overtaken by tares, thus DOMINATING form of Christianity. He characterized apostate Christianity with specific false doctrines and a specific relationship with secular government. He identified apostate Christianity as those who kill and persecute those they condemn as "heretics" as thinking they were doing God a service.

There are true doctrinal characteristics of his churches that apostate Christianity will oppose. These predictive traits and principles make it very clear who is and who is not the true churches of Christ and who is and who is not the real "heretics" between the first and second coming.

Remember, secular history is uninspired and thus pure human opinion, bias and persective.

Remember, secular history is incomplete as it takes omniscience to make any absolute statement of historical fact.

Remember, secular history is more often inaccurate because of the preceding problems listed.

Therefore, remember that inspired scripture and its prophetic predictions always take precedence when secular uninspired historians contradict the Word of God.