4 or 5 views on essential doctrines?

[Doubting Thomas]

Gods scriptures are infallible. The Holy Spirit is the perfect interpreter. But no human being has perfect hearing.

So when two human Christians, both claiming to "hear" the Holy Spirit , arrive at diametrically opposed conclusions about the interpretation of key doctrines (ie related to salvation), how does another human Christian decide which one is correct and which one has the less than perfect hearing?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Doubting Thomas: So when two human Christians, both claiming to "hear" the Holy Spirit , arrive at diametrically opposed conclusions about the interpretation of key doctrines (ie related to salvation), how does another human Christian decide which one is correct and which one has the less than perfect hearing?

HP: Simple according to some on the list. Could the truth always be held by the one with ‘absolute knowledge?’:tonofbricks:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Doubting Thomas, why is it that some on the list have ‘absolute knowledge’ of their salvation, while the rest of us hold our assurance by faith?

 

[D28guy]

Doubting Thomas,

"So when two human Christians, both claiming to "hear" the Holy Spirit , arrive at diametrically opposed conclusions about the interpretation of key doctrines (ie related to salvation), how does another human Christian decide which one is correct and which one has the less than perfect hearing?"

By listening to both views, considering them, and the most important thing....always always always have the attitude of asking God to grant wisdom and to personally teach you. Have the attitude, "Open my eyes,Lord, that I might behold wonderful things from your word"

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

This is the crux of the impasse: trying to force man-made doctrine/ unnecessary inferences through the paradigm of the whole counsel of God. Such only makes sense through the paradigm of the holy see.

Col. 1:18--the reference to church applies to every local New Testament Church. An invisible universal assembly is not even a possibility--except through the eyes of the universal papa and his conclave.

Not just the Catholics - you missed out the Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans etc, all of who believe in the concept of The Church . Why the Roman strawman?

There are dozens of scripture which refer to churches in various places. See Rev. Ch. 2,3. Where is the universal church in this book? Only when the saints are gathered do we find a certain universality--but not in this Age.

That's you're interpretation. The usual question follows: how many Bodies does Christ have?

Matt. 19:14--where is the word baptism used?

It isn't

It is an unnecessary inference, used to support man-made doctrine.

Again, your interpretation. I would retort that Matt 19:14, read in conjunction with other Scriptures such as Mark 16:16 and John 3:5 (baptism being necessary for salvation), results in the necessary inference being drawn that infants must be admitted to baptism; "let the little children come to Me" - how else can babies come to Him except by baptism?

John 3:5--born of water... Again, the word baptism is not used. This is another unnecessary inference. The point of this verse is to show that just a physical birth does not get one to heaven but rather a spiritual birth. Read the whole context--that which is flesh is flesh; that which is spirit is spirit--ye must be born again. Most human fetuses grow in a "bag of water"--make good sense in the whole context.

Again, your interpretation, which seems to me more far-fetched than this verse being about baptism, which is how Christians have always understood it.

The concept of baptismal regeneration is completely contrary to many scripture: See Eph. 2:8-10, in the Confraternity if you like.

No, its perfectly in line with Scripture - Mark 16:16, John 3:5, I Peter 3:21 etc

All you have given here is your interpretation of these Scriptures, which goes against that of Christians across the centuries. Why should I give any heed to your man-made intepretations?

 

[Matt Black]

Matt Black,

Alive in Christ said...



You....



Why is it that you are oblivious regarding that truth?

Mike

Why is it that you haven't answered my question?

 

[Bro. James]

The rest of the strawman(woman) from Rome: she is the mother, the co-redemptrix, also the first "Christian" entity to run the State.

To finish from yesterday: back at Mars Hill.

Acts 16:15, Where does it say she had any infants? Do all households have infants? This is unnecessary inference, not a good foundation for a doctrine.

Acts 16:33, Where does it say he had any infants--same argument as vs. 15. That seems to be really thin ice--kind of like the agrument from silence.

Co. 2:12, No infants are referenced here either. The letter is written to saints and faithful brethren in Christ at Colosse.

Then there is Mark 16:9-21, including vs. 16. I do not agree with some of the teachings on the following website; however, they do hit the mark on: "Baptism & Mark 16:16".
See this article at: www.carm.org
A lot of Bible language scholars agree that Mk. 16:9-21 may have been added by an overzealous scribe. These verses do not appear until very late copies. Mk. 16:16 is questionable, perhaps, spurious, perhaps, probably not a good foundation for a doctrine.

The scripture plainly teaches that we are not saved by our works. Baptism is a work--of two people--the candidate to seek being baptized and someone to administer same. Again, Eph. 2:8-10 plainly contradicts baptismal salvation. There are others.

How did the thief on the cross get to heaven without baptism? Maybe the Roman soldiers sprinkled vinegar water on his head. Probably it was not Peter or any apostle--they had all forsaken Jesus and fled.

Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. While blood may contain water, water does not equal blood. Jesus paid it all. All of our righteous acts are as filthy rags to God.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Acts 16:15, Where does it say she had any infants?

Were does it say she didn’t?

Do all households have infants?

I’d say during the time of Act’s most did, since birth control was not like it is in 2008. Furthermore, I’m confident to say that many, many, many households were converted, not mentioned in Scripture.

Acts 16:33, Where does it say he had any infants--same argument as vs. 15. That seems to be really thin ice--kind of like the agrument from silence.

Were does it say she didn’t have an infant or small child? You’re not arguing from silence are you Bro.?

Co. 2:12, No infants are referenced here either.

Just b/c no references are made, doesn’t mean there wasn’t any.

Then there is Mark 16:9-21, including vs. 16. I do not agree with some of the teachings on the following website; however, they do hit the mark on: "Baptism & Mark 16:16".
See this article at: www.carm.org
A lot of Bible language scholars agree that Mk. 16:9-21 may have been added by an overzealous scribe. These verses do not appear until very late copies. Mk. 16:16 is questionable, perhaps, spurious, perhaps, probably not a good foundation for a doctrine.

Oh…blame it on an overzealous scribe…that’s how we get around the obvious…neat

The scripture plainly teaches that we are not saved by our works. Baptism is a work--of two people--the candidate to seek being baptized and someone to administer same. Again, Eph. 2:8-10 plainly contradicts baptismal salvation. There are others.

Except for that pesky “overzealous scribe”….

How did the thief on the cross get to heaven without baptism? Maybe the Roman soldiers sprinkled vinegar water on his head.

As an Orthodox Christian, we don’t believe that Baptism is going to guarantee one Heaven (a non-baptized Catechumen can still go to heaven). We still have to preserve to the end and finish the race. We baptize infants and small children (my two three year-olds were baptized a month ago), not to be “saved” in the sense to rid one of Original Sin or save them from limbo.

Ours is more of bringing the child into the Church, we bring the child to Christ through baptism, just as circumcision was once done and they become members of the Body of Christ.

My kids eat at my dinner table…as young as they are, they set with us. We don’t separate them to another room to eat until they “understand” what it means to eat with the family and be apart of a family. It’s the same way in the Church…the Orthodox Church anyway.

In XC
-

 

[Bro. James]

I do believe we have a completely different set of jargon.

The way of the holy see will get one only to purgatory. Then what? Purged from sins the price of which Jesus has already paid?
The Apostle John wrote: "these things have I written unto you that you may KNOW that you HAVE eternal life..."

The burden of proof lies with those who would support a doctrine using unnecessary inferences from scripture, especially in light of the fact that there are many plain scripture which plainly teach the contrary. This can be demonstrated using the Duay-Confraternity, as revised or whatever, without the footnotes please. Then add the footnotes and observe the contradictions.

If one allows Sola Scripture to stand, most of the differences go away. The holy see will not abide such. The scripture has been polluted by the doctrines and commandments of fallible men/women. (Papal infallibility is a realatively recent doctrine)Without agreeing to an infallible standard, there is no basis for discussion. Men are not infallible, in fact, we are all depraved.

When two or more disagree, they all cannot be right--they could all be wrong. This is why Sola Scriptura is such a pivotal doctrine. A lot of saints have died refusing to recant their belief in this plain doctrine--these were the same ones who refused to baptize their infants.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Agnus_Dei]

I do believe we have a completely different set of jargon.

Probably so, you’re a second generation Protestant still protesting the Roman Catholic Church, who were in fact, technically, the first Protestant Church.

Nothing of which Matt or any other has posted is in conflict with Scripture. The original intent of sola scriptura from Luther, a young RC monk, was that which is not in conflict with Scripture and Papal Infallibility and indulgences were all in conflict. Thus Luther sought to reform the Church and bring her back on track.

And the reforming continues today in 2008 with the birth of new denominations seeking to reform.

For a Church to have to constantly reform itself and birth little reforming Churches, means that Christ who promised to protect His Church and lead His Church into all Truth until the end of the world has failed.

In XC
-

 

[Matt Black]

Acts 16:15, Where does it say she had any infants? Do all households have infants? This is unnecessary inference, not a good foundation for a doctrine.

Most 'households' (oikoi) would have included all generations of the family including infants. If wealthy, they would also have included slaves and their children

Acts 16:33, Where does it say he had any infants--same argument as vs. 15. That seems to be really thin ice--kind of like the agrument from silence.

See above. Not so much an argument form silence as a fuller understanding of the term oikos.

Co. 2:12, No infants are referenced here either. The letter is written to saints and faithful brethren in Christ at Colosse.

Infants were circumcised, weren't they?

Then there is Mark 16:9-21, including vs. 16. I do not agree with some of the teachings on the following website; however, they do hit the mark on: "Baptism & Mark 16:16".
See this article at: www.carm.org
A lot of Bible language scholars agree that Mk. 16:9-21 may have been added by an overzealous scribe. These verses do not appear until very late copies. Mk. 16:16 is questionable, perhaps, spurious, perhaps, probably not a good foundation for a doctrine.

Fine. Rip it out of your Bible then. Go on. I dare you.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Most 'households' (oikoi) would have included all generations of the family including infants. If wealthy, they would also have included slaves and their children.

:thumbs: Good point Matt!:thumbs:
and is inline with the culture of the time period of the Bible. Again we need to interpret the bible in a First Century context.

ICXC NINKA
-

 

[Bro. James]

My copy of Thayer's: Greek-English Lexicon of the NT gives the following regarding the Gk. word oikos. a. strictly, an inhabited house, b. any building whatever, c. any dwelling place of the human body.

i.e. an inhabited house. What one can say about the age of the dwellers is not even good speculation. There are many households which have no infants dwelling therein. To say infants must be there is at best an unnecessary inference and not convincing evidence for infant baptism.
The burden of proof lies with those who would contend for something not specifically stated.

IN HOC SIGNO NIKE

Shalom,

Bro. James

 

[Agnus_Dei]

My copy of Thayer's: Greek-English Lexicon of the NT gives the following regarding the Gk. word oikos. a. strictly, an inhabited house, b. any building whatever, c. any dwelling place of the human body.

i.e. an inhabited house. What one can say about the age of the dwellers is not even good speculation. There are many households which have no infants dwelling therein. To say infants must be there is at best an unnecessary inference and not convincing evidence for infant baptism.
The burden of proof lies with those who would contend for something not specifically stated.

IN HOC SIGNO NIKE

Shalom,

Bro. James

Why stop at infants? How about converted households with toddlers? Again, many, many, many households were converted to Christianity during the NT era and we see NO evidence from Scripture or the Early Church that infant or young children being baptized was frowned upon. Not until well after the Reformation.

You arguing from silence doesn't help. Keep your wallet in your pocket...

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[Bro. James]

My point is not about silence. The point is: the burden of proof of an inference lies with the one who infers. All the other side says is "prove it". You cannot; the best you have is an unnecessary inference garnished with the commandments of men.

We ought to obey God, rather than men.

Shalom,

Bro. James

 

[Matt Black]

Prove that infants weren't baptised.

Oh, and we do obey God: we don't forbid the little children from coming to Christ (Matt 19:14)

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Prove that infants weren't baptised.

Oh, and we do obey God: we don't forbid the little children from coming to Christ (Matt 19:14)

Hello all,

Keep in mind that the ancient world operates differently than the world today does. I can imagine that the head of the household was the head indeed. His family was subjected to him as well as were all the servants. So if the father came to faith it is resonable in their mind to have everyone baptised children, servants, etc... when discussing matters of the early church context of the period is important.

 

[mrtumnus]

Hello all,

Keep in mind that the ancient world operates differently than the world today does. I can imagine that the head of the household was the head indeed. His family was subjected to him as well as were all the servants. So if the father came to faith it is resonable in their mind to have everyone baptised children, servants, etc... when discussing matters of the early church context of the period is important.

Good point. I also believe that in studying church history, the first real decision that was made regarding baptism was not whether infants should be baptized, but whether it was necessary to wait 8 days as was the case for circumcision, was it not?

Regarding Scripture doesn't tell us to....Scripture doesn't tell us they must wait either. There is no record in Scripture of someone who was raised in a Christian home coming to baptism later in life. Seems to me there should have been a logical discussion about 'when a child was ready' or about 'age of accountability' that would have been recorded in Scripture had it actually occured.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Good point. I also believe that in studying church history, the first real decision that was made regarding baptism was not whether infants should be baptized, but whether it was necessary to wait 8 days as was the case for circumcision, was it not?

More or less...Cyprian did indeed write that it was not necessary for an infant to wait 8 days before being baptized. OTOH, Tertullian advocated a delay in baptism until the child was old enough to decide for himself; however, this may reflect his rigorist view on the difficulty of having sins forgiven after baptism (of course, we know Tertullian later cast his lot with the Montanists). Irenaeus, however, certainly thought that infants could be reborn in Christ, and he believed that baptism was the occasion (or instrument) of regeneration

Regarding Scripture doesn't tell us to....Scripture doesn't tell us they must wait either. There is no record in Scripture of someone who was raised in a Christian home coming to baptism later in life. Seems to me there should have been a logical discussion about 'when a child was ready' or about 'age of accountability' that would have been recorded in Scripture had it actually occured.

Good point.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Most 'households' (oikoi) would have included all generations of the family including infants. If wealthy, they would also have included slaves and their children

See above. Not so much an argument form silence as a fuller understanding of the term oikos.

Infants were circumcised, weren't they?

Fine. Rip it out of your Bible then. Go on. I dare you.

GE:

Mark 16:16 contains no hint at water-baptism. On the contrary, it literally excludes the thought of water-baptism, and technically identifies believing and baptism: 'ho pisteysas kai baptistheis sohthehsetai' - "He who believing-being-baptised is indeed saved."