37818
Well-Known Member
That very statement is a false teaching.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What the Nicene Creed is and isn’t etc..
- Thread starter Cathode
- Start date
- Status
I never denied that Vatholics have, and some may, immerse.
I am saying that sprinkling without several criteria being met was not "baptism" in the Roman Catholic Church until the 14th century AD.
Roman Catholic today is heresy to the Church Father's doctrine.
Think about it.
Roman Catholics reject the Early Church doctrine:
1. Of Baptism
2. Of Communion
3. Of the Atonement
4. Of the role of the church
5. Of Scripture in relation to doctrine
6. Of ritualistic worship
7. Of what happens upon death
8. Of the "sin problem"
9. Of the priesthood
10. Of saints
11. Of mediation
12. Of Mary as a person
13. Of the constitution of the church
14. Of the effects of sin
15. Of the role of the church
Just those few facts should clue you in to a huge problem.
But instead you think that the falcon can fly so far from the falconer and yet the center hold. It can't (to poorly borrow from Yeats).
The Roman Catholic Church is absolutely nothing like the Early Church.
You chalk this up to evolution....things change. But the Church - "the true church" - is anchored in truth while still being able to disagree in interpretation.
How could all of the Early Church Fathers be Roman Catholic and yet all of the Early Church Fathers be heretics in terms of Roman Catholic doctrine?
They can't. You are trying to force a square peg into a round hole.
Just the fact that the Roman Catholic Church holds a different Atonement, a different ecclesiastical system, a different view of sin, a different view of mediation, a different view of repentance, and a different doctrine of what happens when we die should have been a huge warning sign when you chose what to believe.
That you believe Paul's hankerchief healed when even Jesus' robe didn't is telling (verse 11 is important).
I sincerely hope that doesn't sound rude. It is honest. And you kept asking so I thought I at least owed you the truth.
Now. Regarding the Nicene Creed, you are absolutely right that it was to unify in that it was to keep out heresy.
That said, so was the other writings of the Early Church Fathers that would expel Roman Catholic doctrine from the orthodox Christian faith.
God used Rome to ultimately allow Christianity to spread. Satan used Rome to dilute Christianity. Yet the church will not be conquered, even by the Roman Catholic Church. And even there we can see a remnant of Christians. To them we urge, if they are able, to come out. True doctrine outweighs the beauty of the Roman Catholic Church (I do mean beauty....I incline towards ritual, and find the Catholic practices beautiful....just not Christian).
But for evidence you aren’t presenting anything. I quoted a stack Church Fathers that said water baptism regenerates, east, west, early, late, doesn’t matter.
“But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200).
“For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202).
“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body…He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: ‘I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,’ which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood.” Tertullian, Against Marcion, 40 (A.D. 212).
“For because Christ bore us all, in that He also bore our sins, we see that in the water is understood the people, but in the wine is showed the blood of Christ…Thus, therefore, in consecrating the cup of the Lord, water alone cannot be offered, even as wine alone cannot be offered. For if any one offer wine only, the blood of Christ is dissociated from us; but if the water be alone, the people are dissociated from Christ; but when both are mingled, and are joined with one another by a close union, there is completed a spiritual and heavenly sacrament. Thus the cup of the Lord is not indeed water alone, nor wine alone, unless each be mingled with the other; just as, on the other hand, the body of the Lord cannot be flour alone or water alone, unless both should be united and joined together and compacted in the mass of one bread; in which very sacrament our people are shown to be made one, so that in like manner as many grains, collected, and ground, and mixed together into one mass, make one bread; so in Christ, who is the heavenly bread, we may know that there is one body, with which our number is joined and united.” Cyprian, To Caeilius, Epistle 62(63):13 (A.D. 253).
“Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man’s heart, to make his face to shine with oil, ‘strengthen thou thine heart,’ by partaking thereof as spiritual, and “make the face of thy soul to shine.”” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350)
“It is good and beneficial to communicate every day, and to partake of the holy body and blood of Christ. For He distinctly says, ‘He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life.’ And who doubts that to share frequently in life, is the same thing as to have manifold life. I, indeed, communicate four times a week, on the Lord’s day, on Wednesday, on Friday, and on the Sabbath, and on the other days if there is a commemoration of any Saint.” Basil, To Patrician Caesaria, Epistle 93 (A.D. 372).
“You will see the Priests bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made, it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ…When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body.” Athanasius, Sermon to the Newly Baptized, PG 26, 1325 (ante A.D. 373).
“For if on the foundation of Christ you have built not only gold and silver and precious stones (1 Cor.,3); but also wood and hay and stubble, what do you expect when the soul shall be separated from the body? Would you enter into heaven with your wood and hay and stubble and thus defile the kingdom of God; or on account of these hindrances would you remain without and receive no reward for your gold and silver and precious stones; neither is this just. It remains then that you be committed to the fire which will burn the light materials; for our God to those who can comprehend heavenly things is called a cleansing fire. But this fire consumes not the creature, but what the creature has himself built, wood, and hay and stubble. It is manifest that the fire destroys the wood of our transgressions and then returns to us the reward of our great works.” Origen, Homilies on Jeremias, PG 13:445, 448 ( A.D. 244).
“For to adulterers even a time of repentance is granted by us, and peace is given. Yet virginity is not therefore deficient in the Church, nor does the glorious design of continence languish through the sins of others. The Church, crowned with so many virgins, flourishes; and chastity and modesty preserve the tenor of their glory. Nor is the vigour of continence broken down because repentance and pardon are facilitated to the adulterer. It is one thing to stand for pardon, another thing to attain to glory: it is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing; another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering. It is one thing, in fine, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the day of judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord.” Cyprian, To Antonianus, Epistle 51 (55):20 (A.D. 253).
“And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, ‘I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.’… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.” Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).
“For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ off God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as…Anencletus and Clement to Peter?” Ignatius, To the Trallians, 7 (A.D. 110).
“Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. His words are as follows: ‘And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained a there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.'” Hegesippus, Memoirs, fragment in Eusebius Ecclesiatical History, 4:22 (A.D. 180).
Yet here I am quoting the Church Fathers Catholic beliefs, and you aren’t quoting them at all to support your assertions of the Catholic Church.
That’s what’s telling.
You make all these assertions about the Catholic Church Jon, yet don’t give any quotes or historical sources of the Fathers to support them.
It’s all assertions.
I did give evidence regarding baptism and Communion. I am not interested in going down each point.
I learned early on that it is not in my ability to persuade one to abandon their indoctrination. Those friends of mine who have come out from Catholicism and Mormonism to join the Christian faith did so by their choice - my role only being offering then the truth and at some point (in one case, years later) they picked up that truth.
We each choose who to follow. And we will exist with the consequences of that choice.
I need to be clear here,
I enjoy reading @Cathode 's posts and explanations of his religion. It is interesting and I do not want to cause hard feelings.
At the same time I cannot take an indoctrinated version of history, whether Catholic, Presbyterian, or Baptist, with anything but a grain of salt. History is objective and if we want to be serious then we have to treat history - even Christian history - as less a mythology and more a record of facts.
Even here interpretations will vary (e.g., where most of us view people being healed by God through Paul's hankerchief as a testimony to the validity of Paul's words....in line with Jesus' healing and God healing through Peter... @Cathode sees a relic). That is a fair disagreement.
Catholics are permitted on this board. Many object to the owners allowing what most here consider a non-Christian organization, but that was not our choice.
Catholics are here so that they can present and explain what they believe - and they are welcome to do so.
The reason is that Catholics can still be Christions where other cults negate the gospel by their doctrine (Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, etc.).
I only say this because reading my posts I can see how they could be misinterpreted as overly harsh. Do I believe Roman Catholic doctrine is Christian? Absolutely not. But I do believe a Catholic can also be a Christian despite their doctrine.
I enjoy reading @Cathode 's posts and explanations of his religion. It is interesting and I do not want to cause hard feelings.
At the same time I cannot take an indoctrinated version of history, whether Catholic, Presbyterian, or Baptist, with anything but a grain of salt. History is objective and if we want to be serious then we have to treat history - even Christian history - as less a mythology and more a record of facts.
Even here interpretations will vary (e.g., where most of us view people being healed by God through Paul's hankerchief as a testimony to the validity of Paul's words....in line with Jesus' healing and God healing through Peter... @Cathode sees a relic). That is a fair disagreement.
Catholics are permitted on this board. Many object to the owners allowing what most here consider a non-Christian organization, but that was not our choice.
Catholics are here so that they can present and explain what they believe - and they are welcome to do so.
The reason is that Catholics can still be Christions where other cults negate the gospel by their doctrine (Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, etc.).
I only say this because reading my posts I can see how they could be misinterpreted as overly harsh. Do I believe Roman Catholic doctrine is Christian? Absolutely not. But I do believe a Catholic can also be a Christian despite their doctrine.
My main point is, don’t sign up to things unless you know the detail, it was a bit of brotherly concern really.
The Nicaea Creeds Fathers when they say “ one baptism “, the baptism they believe in was regenerative, and someone who doesn’t hold to that might innocently subscribe to it without knowing it.
Like I’ve said before, I’m not out convert people, only God can do that, besides you all love Jesus anyway.
But I do reserve the right to defend my faith if it’s attacked.
I don’t know who is pushing this Nicaea agenda or what it’s in aid of, but I know they aren’t giving people the full information as I see it.
I got very concerned when I saw the qualifiers, because I knew they were a departure from what Nicaea Fathers believed.
And as we know a Creed is not just a confession of faith, so it was very important not just for intellectual honesty, but to defend the truth to prevent people from being deceived.
Find out who among you is pushing the big agenda and point out the discrepancies I saw. Don’t just sign up blindly, know exactly what it is, and what it isn’t.
That’s right. It is about choice. If people have all the information, they can make an informed choice.
If they don’t then it’s not a choice but a foregone conclusion.
Only an informed choice is choice.
My point as well.
I have had discussions with Calvinists who believe that the Early Church Fathers were Calvinists, with those who believe Penal Substitution Theory who believe that is exactly what the Early Church Fathers taught.
People have a tendency to interpret the words of others through the lens of their own beliefs.
You ate no exception. Neither am I.
The task is to avoid such tendencies.
I have never denied that people believed in baptism regeneration. They have.
But not all who the Catholic Church puts forward as holding this heresy did, in fact, express such a belief insofar as through their words.
Baptism is an outward sign of repentance - probably the most stark one we have. It is only with repentance that we are forgiven.
Many Baptist think too lowley of baptism (as a mere symbol) but others elevate baptism to the mode through which we are forgiven.
Think of it this way - if we take the Early Fathers as saying that baptism is the sacrament by which we ate saved or forgiven then we have to also take to heart their mode of baptism (immersion with concessions made if no "living water" is avaliable (using a still pool), then if no water of appropriate temperature is avaliable (using cool or warm), then if immersion is impossible (pour water three times over person).
By your own words most Roman Catholics are not actually baptized (most were sprinkled, and not because immersion was imposdible) and remain unforgiven or unsaved.
I agree with this.
I loved studying Tertullian, not because I agree with all of his teachings but because I found him interesting.
He believed baptism necessary, objected to infant baptism, and believed that martyrdom was a type of baptism sufficient for the unbaptized.
He taught that baptism should be put off until later in life because one must understand sin prior to baptism and if baptized and one then sins that one may be ultimately lost.
This was a common belief at the time (some priests even waited until their deathbed to be baptized out of fear they would commit a high sin after baptism and go to Hell).
That said, we are talking about two different issues - history and the Christian faith.
No, most Catholics were either immersion or pouring.
We established that mode was discretionary, and not just for the sick, or for lack of water.
Cyprian pointed out that the Faith of the parties was the important principle, the sick were just an example.
If mode was changeable for some reasons, they can be changeable for other reasons.
You approach this from a recipe model where there is no discretion.
I approach this from an Authoritative Apostolic Church model, where they have binding and loosing authority of an Apostolic successor, they have the discretion to hold valid or invalid on their discretion. Such is their authority.
It’s on them to hold valid, so what they bind on earth and hold valid, Heaven holds equally bound and valid.
The fact that mode was changeable and discretionary, leads me to believe these were ecclesiastical and procedural rules, rather than set in stone.
So even if we grant that immersion was the norm in Scripture, it doesn’t make it the ONLY way. This is a foolhardy leap beyond scripture.
We are seeing both in Christian history, we see how they understood the scriptures, and the doctrines that came from it.
Catholics still believe that martyrdom is baptism, it is Baptism by blood. The principle comes from the word of the Lord Himself, mainly that those who witness to Him before men, He will will witness to them before the Father, and Jesus is a powerful witness to have on the stand for you.
This was a departure from wisdom on his part and quite presumptuous, most Apostolic successors the early bishops suggest that people get baptised because life is uncertain.
Baptism was seen as absolutely plenary, meaning all sin was forgiven and all punishment due to sin was forgiven.
Catholics believe this today. If you die the moment after baptism, you go straight to heaven.
Serious Sin, ie mortal sin after baptism, required confession to priest and penance, which in those days was quite arduous was made publicly as part of the penance.
“Such are the words and deeds by which, in our own district of the Rhone, they have deluded many women, who have their consciences seared as with a hot iron. Some of them, indeed, make a public confession of their sins; but others of them are ashamed to do this, and in a tacit kind of way, despairing of [attaining to] the life of God, have, some of them, apostatized altogether; while others hesitate between the two courses, and incur that which is implied in the proverb, ‘neither without nor within;’ possessing this as the fruit from the seed of the children of knowledge.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:13 (A.D. 180).
This is the reason many waited till close to death for baptism.
“Father who knowest the hearts of all grant upon this Thy servant whom Thou hast chosen for the episcopate to feed Thy holy flock and serve as Thine high priest, that he may minister blamelessly by night and day, that he may unceasingly behold and appropriate Thy countenance and offer to Thee the gifts of Thy holy Church. And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority to forgive sins…” Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition, 3 (A.D. 215).
“The Pontifex Maximus–that is, the bishop of bishops–issues an edict: ‘I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirements of) repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.'” Tertullian, Modesty, 1 (A.D. 220).
“In addition to these there is also a seventh, albeit hard and laborious: the remission of sins through penance…when he does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord.” Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, 2:4 (A.D. 248).
The seven sacraments outlayed the hard one is confession.
Cyprian gives more detail.
“For although in smaller sins sinners may do penance for a set time, and according to the rules of discipline come to public confession, and by imposition of the hand of the bishop and clergy receive the right of communion: now with their time still unfulfilled, while persecution is still raging, while the peace of the Church itself is not vet restored, they are admitted to communion, and their name is presented; and while the penitence is not yet performed, confession is not yet made, the hands Of the bishop and clergy are not yet laid upon them, the eucharist is given to them; although it is written, ‘Whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.'” Cyprian, To the Clergy, 9 (16):2 (A.D. 250).
So forgiveness of serious sin before communion, this was so people did not commit sacrilege by receiving Jesus in mortal sin.
“Moreover, how much are they both greater in faith and better in their fear, who, although bound by no crime of sacrifice to idols or of certificate, yet, since they have even thought of such things, with grief and simplicity confess this very thing to God’s priests, and make the conscientious avowal, put off from them the load of their minds, and seek out the salutary medicine even for slight and moderate wounds, knowing that it is written, ‘God is not mocked.’ God cannot be mocked, nor deceived, nor deluded by any deceptive cunning. Yea, he sins the more, who, thinking that God is like man, believes that he evades the penalty of his crime if he has not openly admitted his crime…I entreat you, beloved brethren, that each one should confess his own sin, while he who has sinned is still in this world, while his confession may be received, while the satisfaction and remission made by the priests are pleasing to the Lord?” Cyprian, To the Lapsed, 28-29 (A.D. 251).
Later the Church softened the penance of public confession to prevent not so much the shame factor, but that by that shame people would keep receiving communion in mortal sin. Because people would ask why a person did not go to communion at mass, they could not avoid scrutiny.
Later it was enough to confess privately to the priest, however penances were still severe.
Confession to the priest was not returning to baptismal innocence completely, the sins were forgiven but the punishment due to those sins was still outstanding, therefore a penance was imposed.
“The Church holds fast its obedience on either side, by both retaining and remitting sin; heresy is on the one side cruel, and on the other disobedient; wishes to bind what it will not loosen, and will not loosen what it has bound, whereby it condemns itself by its own sentence. For the Lord willed that the power of binding and of loosing should be alike, and sanctioned each by a similar condition…Each is allowed to the Church, neither to heresy, for this power has been entrusted to priests alone. Rightly, therefore, does the Church claim it, which has true priests; heresy, which has not the priests of God, cannot claim it. And by not claiming this power heresy pronounces its own sentence, that not possessing priests it cannot claim priestly power. And so in their shameless obstinacy a shamefaced acknowledgment meets our view. Consider, too, the point that he who has received the Holy Ghost has also received the power of forgiving and of retaining sin. For thus it is written: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit: whosesoever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.’ So, then, he who has not received power to forgive sins has not received the Holy Spirit. The office of the priest is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and His right it is specially to forgive and to retain sins. How, then, can they claim His gift who distrust His power and His right?” Ambrose, Concerning Repentance, I:7-8 (A.D. 388).
“All mortal sins are to be submitted to the keys of the Church and all can be forgiven; but recourse to these keys is the only, the necessary, and the certain way to forgiveness. Unless those who are guilty of grievous sin have recourse to the power of the keys, they cannot hope for eternal salvation. Open your lips, them, and confess your sins to the priest. Confession alone is the true gate to Heaven.” Augustine, Christian Combat (A.D. 397).
When Augustine says necessary here, it is on condition that one has the opportunity to confess serious sin to the priest. The ordinary way.
The other way to be forgiven is the extraordinary way, by perfect contrition before God, but it must be a perfect contrition however, which as we know needs a great grace, humans find it hard to do a perfect anything.
Thats if a priest is not available.
So confession to a priest only requires imperfect contrition for serious sin to be forgiven. ie fear of going to hell for instance.
But Augustine says “ and the certain way to forgiveness “. On this point, the imperfectly contrite penitent can rely on the Apostolic Judgement. That is that the priest absolves sin and this gives certainty to the sinner that his sins are truly forgiven, and no longer needs worry about it.
With binding and loosing authority, once the priest says the words of absolution, it’s on him. A penitent has a clear conscience toward God, having heard the Apostolic Judgement past.
This gives the penitent certainty to the time of Judgement.
Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them.
“Just as in the Old Testament the priest makes the leper clean or unclean, so in the New Testament the bishop and presbyter binds or looses not those who are innocent or guilty, but by reason of their office, when they have heard various kinds of sins, they know who is to be bound and who loosed.” Jerome, Commentary on Matthew, 3:16,19 (A.D. 398).
Well, we know off the bat that those who were not immersed and did not meet the standards of the ECF's for an alternate mode were not legitimately baptized.
About what percentage of Roman Catholics, do you believe, were "baptized" by pouring without meeting that criteria?
Would you be comfortable explaining to them how they are alienated from the Roman Catholic Churh prior to the 14th century, and how they are actually.....per those ECF's who deemed baptism necessary for salvation...fated to Hell?
You speak of history
Would you be comfortable explaining to a Roman Catholic how, and why:
1. Baptism was prescribed to be by immersion unless specific criteria were met?
2. The Apostalic Church, Early Church, and all of the Church Fathers held a different doctrine of Christ's Atoning work on the Cross than does the Roman Catholic Church?
3. The Early Church, Early Church Fathers, and even Scripture holds a different view of the priesthood than exists in the Roman Catholic Church?
I ask because you spoke of the importance of history, recognizing facts and making choices.
Even one as indoctrinated as you cannot deny those three facts. The Roman Catholic Church itself recognizes those facts.
Are they not important to consider?
Immersion was the norm, it doesn’t mean it’s the only way, legitimacy doesn’t come from the mode. It was the discretion of the Apostolic Successor, they were the ones who declared valid or invalid for the situation.
You obviously didn’t read my post explaining this.
How so? References?
How so? References?
I did read your explanations.
I also read the ECF's writings that baptism is only by immersion in living water unless a criteria is met.
I am asking if those Roman Catholic "churches" that pour in place of baptism meet the criteria set forth by the ECF's.
The answer, of course, is "no". They explain away the criteria of the early church.
The Roman Catholic doctrine of Atonement is the satisfaction of the cross. It was set forth in the 16th century with the Counsel of Trent.
It is contrary to the doctrines of Atonement held by the Church Fathers. It is contrary to Ransom Theory and Recapitilation. It is contrary to Moral Exemplar.
No ECF held what is now the Roman Catholic doctrine of Atonement.
You seem well read, so I expect you know this but are having trouble recognizing the different Roman Catholic faiths through history as well as the pre-Roman Catholic faith held by the Early Church.
But at some level you know it is true. You make your own choses. I make mine.
Let's simply agree to live or die by the choices we make.
Can you quote Church Fathers using those terms?
- Status