Featured Is there any historical evidence for the Baptist position on Baptism?

No it is not. All 27 were written and received by the churches prior to the death of John as apostolic scriptures and prophetic scriptures limit it to those writings under the direction of the apostles (Isa. 8:16-18; Heb. 2:3-4,12; Jn. 14-17).

Yes he does as he denies "the whole volume" can be ADDED to by "we" the Christians but asserts that attempt is made by only heretics and Rome is guilty of that as it added the Old Testament apocrapha/deuterocanoncial writings which the caretakers of the Old Testament scriptures rejected.

 

Does the RCC see those books as being in the canon? if not, how do they view them if were NOT inspired as Apostolic books were from God?

 

I can't use the ECF as support for my position but you can? That takes the cake! That's called being hypocritical. Its clear Tertullian had a different set of books that what you regard as canon.

What was your quote from Tertullian again. I need to look it up because I think you may be mistaken but I want to be sure first. Site your referrence please.

 

When studying with JW's I used their own books gainst them and used their own perverted translations against them.


Originally Posted by The Biblicist
The canon of scriptures was completed prior to Marcion and "from the beginning" in the first century according to Tertullian.

"....the aspostolic churches....in which their own apostolic writings are read.....the law and the prophets she UNITES IN ONE VOLUME WITH THE WRITINGS OF EANGELISTS AND APOSTLES, from which she drinks in her faith........Now, what is there in our Scriptures which is contrary to us? What of our own have we introduced, that we should have to take it away again, or else add to it, or alter it, in order to restore to its natural soundness anything which is contrary to us, and contained in the Scriptures? What we are ourselves, that also the Scriptures are (and have been) from the beginning? Of them we have our being, before there was any other way, before they were interpolated by you. Now, inasmuch as all interpoliation must be believed to be a later process, for the express reason that it proceeds from rivalry which is never in any case previous to nor home-born with which it emulates, it is incredible to every man of sense that we should seem to have introduced any corrupt text into the Scriptures, existing, as we have been, FROM THE VERY FIRST, and BEING THE FIRST, as it is that they have not in fact introduced it, who are both later in date and opposed (to the Scriptures). One man perverts the Scriptures with his hand, another their meaning by his exposition. For although Valentinus seems to use THE ENTIRE VOLUME, he has none the less laid violent hands on the truth only with a more cunning mind and skill than Marcion.- The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. III, "On Prscription againsst Heretics", Chapter XXXVIII, pp. 260,261-262


Tertullian defines "the scriptures" consisting of both the Old and New Testament that was already united by the early churches into "ONE VOLUME" during the apostolic age.

 

Thats nice but its hypocritical to allow yourself to use a source and prevent someone else from using that same source. It doesn't make for honest discussion. BTW Tertullian according to you was a baptist since he was Montanist. Which I will show cannot be the case.


Thanks for providing the reference. Now I am able to read the context of Tertullian. By actually reading the context of the whole text, I am able to determine that you treat what Tertullian is saying much like you approach scripture. Take a piece of what he says and make an implication he is not making. You Quoted Chapter 38 from "on the Perscription Against Heretics" particularily this line indicating what you believe is a completed "book" (one volume) of the current canon of scriptures. However, you are misapplying Tertullian. Generally when it came to scriptures both Jews and Gentiles continued to use scrolls up until the fourth century. Though there is evidence of Christian Pamphlets (codexes) in the second century. Next It is clear from Tertullian's writtings that he held other books to be canon that are not currently canon such as in his discourse about Jude he appeals to its testimonial Authority of the book of Enoch in De cultu feminarum

By saying the Jews reject the inspiration of this book because of its Christological referrence but he upholds it as scripture because Jude quotes from it. Tertullian uses the Shepherd of Hermas authoritatively when discussing how to pray in his "de oratione"

And Tertullian never quotes II Peter, James, II John, and III John. So certainly his "canon" is different form yours but now back to you misapplication of that passage. Now in the context of the whole chapter we find that Tertullian starts out by saying

Is speaking to people who are making up all sorts of Heresies and he saying it would be better to apply their speculation to the business of their salvation. It is clear here that Tertullian believes salvation to be a continuing process. The then follows up by saying

And since you are near Rome you have access to that Church which has the authority of the Apostles themselves (not a very baptist point of view). And he continues

Which (the church at Rome specifically), has the true doctrine of the apostles who spilt their own blood there to give it. He then gives a referrence to Peter's execution similiar in fashion to the Lord, and where Paul died and where John is tortured before being put in exile. He continues to say

referring to a universal perspective connecting Rome to his churches in africa that they have fellowship together because they hold the same faith which he names next.

which faith this Church in Rome and in Africa who fellowship together unites the Old Testament with the writings of the Apostles into one volume by which he means one teaching because he says "From which she drinks her faith". Not that there is one book which has the current canon or that there was one canon at that time but accepted teachings which consitently followed the Apostolic Doctrine. He clearly has an understanding of the Eucharist, with the disciplines of following this unifying doctrine that combines the OT with Apostolic teachings. Thus the unifying doctrine is the one volume just like the faith doesn't actually drink from the volume its a type of speak. IE the faith feeds from this singular doctrine or as Tertullian puts it the faith drinks from this one volume. But the context is clear these heretics have access to actual apostolic teachings in Rome which fellowships with the Churches in North Africa because they have a singular faith a united doctrine which is a God who created the universe, in Jesus Christ who was born of the Virgin Mary, who is the Son of God the Creator, The ressurrection of the body, it combines the OT scriputres and unifies it with the teachings and the doctrines of the apostles into a singular teaching from which nurishes the faith which is sealed at baptism and the Holy Spirit feeds the faithful with the Eucharist that is cheered on by the Martyrs which Tertullian names Christian Disciplines. That is the context of the Passage and btw it certainly looks more Catholic than Baptist. So much for Montanist being baptist. But even if he did mean one actual canon (which from the text that is not what he's getting at) it is verifyable that it is a different canon from the current accepted canon.

 

And that, ladies and gentlemen, puts this discussion pretty much to rest. :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

According to my reading of several of the Fathers, there was no monolithic view on the role of Baptism.

 

It is a SLAM DUNK, TS!! You are absolutely right! It certainly looks a lot more Catholic than it does Baptist, which is how ALL the early writings in the first few centuries of the Church look like so far to me. There is NO historical evidence for the what these Baptists try to put forth as to what the Early Church looked like. It is all wishful thinking. It must be extremely frustrating -and very suspicious-for them to not have a shred of historical evidence to the contrary.

 

That you cannot do. There are so many historical references to Tertullian's conversion to Montanism that this fact cannot be denied. It would be likened to denying that Nero was the emperor of Rome. You cannot go back into history and undo what happened because you don't like the facts. In essence there were "two Tertullians." The former whom you like to refer to, and the latter who underwent a "conversion" and became a Montanist. It only becomes convenient to you to quote from the writings of Tertullian that suit your theology and avoid those writings of Tertullian that don't.

These are translated works which often lose meaning in translation. Generally speaking it is a process when one includes Justification, sanctification, and glorification. But referring to justification alone, it is not a process.

If you get out of your RCC mode of thinking it was Baptistic. During the fist century the apostles had authority. They waited for the apostles to come in Acts 5, 8, 10, and of course 15. The first century is often called the Apostolic Age or the Age of the Apostles. It was a time of transition, a time when churches were being started. During that time special signs and wonders were granted unto the Apostles that verified the apostles as God's messengers and his message as God's message. That has nothing to do with Rome, per se. "Rome had the authority of the Apostles," because an apostle had been there (Paul), who had lived there ever since he was taken there since his appeal to Caesar. The church at Corinth had the authority of an Apostle since Paul lived there for a year and a half, starting the church. The same could be said about Ephesus. Read Acts 20.

True enough. Two apostles were martyred there.
Others were martyred in Jerusalem.
Thomas and Barnabas were martyred in India.
Does that make India the center of Christianity more than Rome??

To give you an adequate example. I am IFB, independent of all other Baptists. But I do have fellowship with other Baptist. We do not have any denomination, but do have fellowship. The same was true then. There is no indication in the above writing that it was any different. They fellowshipped together because they had a common faith--not a denomination.

The canon was in existence. The Apostles were not so ignorant and lazy that they would not have taught their disciples which books were inspired and which were not. They knew which books were inspired of God. They taught that information to the early churches. That information was there. It was not special secretive knowledge held in the hands of the RCC. That is hokey-pokey RCC propaganda.

No such thing. Try the elements of the Lord's Table.

As far as being more Catholic, it doesn't seem so. But that is the twist you put on it because you look on things through rose-colored glasses. You see denomination when none is being spoken of. The word used is "fellowship." You see "church authority," where there is none. You see church hierarchy, when there is none. None of those RCC characteristics are there.

 

It is clear you mistook my meaning. I wasn't denying Tertullian became a montanist. I was denying that Montanist were anything like baptist as to the fact that they held very Catholic ideals.

It is clear I haven't denied that He became a montanist. I do deny Montanist were anything like baptist. So, your statement doesn't follow.

Ah back to translations. Somethings do get lost in translation however, Tertullian is a Latin Father and spoke and wrote in Latin. So there is nothing in the translation that would significantly be changed. As the Catholic Church still communicates in Latin.

Nice attempt to apply your own rose colored glasses to Turtullian. However, He considered salvation to be a process to include Justification.

Clearly it wasn't.

Yes sir they did.

Yes it was.

again true.

Yes that is true as well.

Ah, you are wrong look again at what Tertullian actually says

Note the discourse. 1) You are close to Italy 2) You have Rome 3) which comes the Very Authority of the Apostles themselves. (note this was after the apostolic age). 4) that church is happy that has all the doctrines (still speaking of Rome). 5) Where Peter died. Yes so we have his testimony that Peter was in Rome and was executed there despite your accusation that there is no evidence that Peter ever went to Rome! Interesting that he specifies Peter as the authority before mentioning Paul which btw if your theogy that Peter was the Apostle to the Jews only and Paul was the Apostle to the gentiles alone that Paul doesn't get first mention!

So now you admit Peter was actually in Rome!

Peter wasn't in India.

Ah but you don't have one authority as Tertullian points out about Rome. Nor do you have a unified faith because it may differ from on IFB to another. One IFB church I went to only accepts KJB and all the women had to wear dresses and cover up and not use any make up. Another IFB church I went to said if the barn needs painting paint it and women could wear pants to church and NIV was often quoted from.

Not necissarily!

Nope they all had the same faith and proclaimed the same truths!

Canon wasn't established that is clear especially since what he thought was scripture and what you think is scripture are different!

Where is the apostolic Table of Contents then? No where? Why? Because they taught orally. Only near the end of their lives did they put much of their teaching in writing. They had already clearly defined the Tradition they wanted the churches to follow.

Which is different from you because even the author of Hebrews quotes from 2 Macc. and Jude quotes from Enoch and the Assumption of Moses. And it is clear they used the LXX translation in Greek to quote scriptures from. However, when they spoke about scripture they focused on the OT.

The Catholic Church doesn't hold any secretive knowledge. There is no such thing as secretive knowledge in the Catholic Church that is your Reformation propoganda. You are confusing the RCC with the gnostic churches.

It is clear Tertullian is teaching the eucharist. He didn't say the "elements of the Lords table" but clearly indicates that we are fed by the Eucharist.

which he says in the same line about having the same faith. Thus Christian discipline not only in baptism but in the Eucharist.

It does so he connects baptism to the Holy Spirit. and specifies the Eucharist and speaks about a universal belief, and about Apostolic Authority in specifically Rome (long after the apostles had died) which has all the Apostolic Doctrines to which he refers them to learn from. Therefore, Tertullian wasn't anything like a baptist. And further the montanist were nothing like baptist as well.

 

Further more Monanist could not be baptist because one. Montanus taught not only the immediate 2nd advent of Jesus Christ but because of his inament return he instructed his followers not to get married which actually is forbiden by the NT.

Montanus added his own works to scripture

And there were many other issues. Montanist were not baptist.

 

Nope

All made up with a crazy 16th century german nun who denounced the catholic church and had a mob go around killing Lutherans and Catholics, until she was stopped

 

The most important historical evidence is the New Testament, the source book of the Christian faith. Infant baptism, monarchical bishops, and other Catholic doctrines and practices cannot be found there. The only way to justify these later additions is to make tradition equal to scripture. No one but Catholics do this. That's why Anglicanism is as far towards Catholicism as I was ever able to go.

But let Catholics be Catholics; I don't mind -- unless they start claiming the RCC is the only true church.

 

What about the other oldest Christian Churches around? The Orthodox? The Copts? The Assyrian Christian Churches? They hold to Tradition and other Catholic Doctrines as well. It seems Protestants (new kids on the block) have removed themselves further from the Early Church.

 

Protestantism, in all its forms, and the Anabaptism much more so, were attempts to get back closer to the scriptures in doctrine, polity, and practice.

The Anglicans and Methodists hold to tradition -- and reason and experience -- but they don't make tradition equal with scripture. Scripture is the only record of the writings of those closest to Jesus; therefore, it should be the primary source of doctrine. If tradition is made equal with scripture, you get Catholic errors; if experience is made equal with scripture, you get Pentecostal and other errors; if reason is made equal with scripture, you get Socinianism.

The more closely scripture is followed, the less errors you are likely to get and the closer to New Testament, first century, apostolic Christianity you will be.

 

Yes the problem was they tried to reconstruct based on scripture alone what they thought the early church was with very little understanding or ideas on 2nd Century Judaism, Middle East or Semetic culture, or even ancient Greek and Roman culture.

This is true. On the other hand Christianity already had a liturgy, and traditional practices and beliefs well established long before the writing of the New Testament therefore NT scriptures were written taking for granted beliefs and practices already established. As well as cultural attitudes and customs. These items implicitly referred to in scripture were taken for granted and the Apostles and other writers of the NT didn't consern themselves with items taken for granted in their world. Therefore when they wrote their writings they percieved that they would be understood because they had many things in common and understood those things taken for granted which no longer is the case in our current environment. For example Baptism for the dead 1 Cor 15:29. Paul refers to Christians practicing it and doesn't condemn the practice. Had Paul been a baptist he would have scolded the christians participating in the practice as being decieved. But he doesn't do that. Certainly he would have taught against it if he felt it lead people astray as he did just about every subject he rails against in his writings. The fact he doesn't do that is very telling. Also note I'm not supporting the Mormon view of its application. But this is the implicit activity that is taken for granted in scripture. Therefore Tradition reveals how scripture has always been viewed by Christians. It doesn't try to reconstruct a long dead world but has brought that world with it into the present.

It is a primary sourse and scriptures are to be understood in the context of how they always have been understood.

Scripture is Tradition and how it has always been understood is tradition as well.

I have to disagree. There are no Catholic Errors there are Catholics who are in error. But not the Church itself.
if

Experience isn't part of Catholic Tradition that is faith based soley on experiential types.

Experience isn't the Pentecostal problem. Pentecostal have the mistaken belief that Euphoria is evidence of the Holy Spirit being active in their life. Or that Emotional Excitement is the natural state of the Christian. if

Yes they were way off! But as you know you can rationalize anything.

Unfortunately this isn't true. The Millerites from the 1800's believed in sola scriptura and ended up creating to heretical protestant denominations the Seventh day Adventest and the Jehovah's Witnesses both are defined by their Legalism and reliance on scripture alone. Though Jehovah's witnesses have taken the step Luther's friends would not permit and actually changed scripture passages for instance "in the begining was the word and the word was a god" Not only them but "oneness pentecostals" who believe in scripture alone don't have a trinitarian view. And I can go on. And People like Joel Olsteen understand scripture from our current cultural norms and beliefs and looks at the text from that perspective rather than hold to what has always been believed. Which is why there are baptist disturbing funeral of military veterans saying God killed them because the country has permited homosexuality. This is why Harold Camping believes Jesus will have his second advent this year. All errors coming from understanding of scritpure alone with out recourse to how these passages have always been understood.

 

Yes, there are "Protestant" extremists and cultists. But at least in Protestantism these groups are allowed to break off from the orthodox faith; the RCC contains extremism and cultism within itself. So, you contend that belief in scripture alone has led to the errors that you list. But elevating tradition to the same place as scripture has led to the numerous RCC errors. Thus, the RCC is as guilty as the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, SDA, Oneness Pentecostals, and others of both taking away from and adding to scripture. So, which is worse -- cultism from misusing sola scriptura, or cultism from equating tradition with scripture? The RCC, by adhering to the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, is barely able to keep within orthodoxy.

 

In the end I think we'll have to agree to disagree. However, to answer some of your statements.

This is true. The Magisterial Reformers to their credit were reactionary towards abuses occuring in the Church. However, you can see by both Martin Luther's and Calvin's writings that their doctrines are heavily based on thinking derived from both their training as Lawyers. It is from this legal background by which they approach scripture which is why signficant Doctrines like Justification end up being forensic and so many of Millenially held beliefs of the Sacraments were reduced to either being fewer sacraments or all of them just symbolic. However, because of these items we see that they did not apply ancient understandings of text but took scriptural text in their current understanding which happens up to this day among protestants which is why many protestants don't agree with the original reformers on many issues because just like the reformers put scriptures in their current context protestant christians apply scripture to today's context which was a bit different from the 1500s.

Michael, I often enjoy reading your posts, however, on this particular statement I find disappointing. The reason simply put is that it isn't really a reply to something I've stated but a statement that jumps topic to another issue (ie infant baptism) and it isn't quite honest. Not that you didn't honestly present Bagatti's findings but that by applying it you've misapplied what I've stated how tradition works in conjunction with its application to scripture. Not that you believe thats how it should work however by quoting Bagatti's you imply even catholics don't believe in the scriptural connection with Tradition. Clearly the word Trinity isn't in scriptures but it can be derived at as a doctrine by the NT implicit statements. Thus implicitly we can say that scriptures refers to whole families being baptised which can be understood to include children. Not that it must be recognized that way but it can be an honest view with regard to those passages. And since Tradition has always upheld this belief in infant baptism which can be seen to be practiced in all the Ancient churches of which Protestants are none. Such as the Orthodox, Copts, Assyrians, as well as the Roman Catholic Church it can be said by any of these churches that the Apostles took it for granted that families were to be understood as including children, infants, and slaves as well. And since each of these ancient churches practice infant baptism the older authorities show that this practice is far older than soley "believers baptism".

Contrarily, the RCC has maintained what has always been believed since the Apostles. This is another jump to other topics however it can be responded to by saying that there is scriptural support (not explicit but implicit mind you) for each of these items. Peter is always listed first in every list of the 12 Apostles in scriptures which alone shows his prominant position among the disciples. The Lord named him Kephas in Aramaic which we know Jesus didn't name him Petros because Paul calls Peter Kephas in his letter. Therefore Jesus calls Peter Rock the same Rock upon which he would build his church. He gave Peter specifically the Keys. etc.... Catholics believe the Ark of the Covenant is a forshadowing of Mary and it was treated in high regard in Israel. Mary obeyed the Lord and was the first believer in Jesus Christ. Jesus performed his first miracle on her request and more to the point what ever is believed about Mary doctrinally is based on what Catholic Believe about Jesus and do to away with the Doctrines of Mary put in question Jesus divinity, humanity, and relationship as third person of the Trinity. Certainly in scripture there is precident for assumption as both Enoch and Elijah were assumed into Heaven. As for the ministry titles there are only 3 classifications for our clergy Bishop (episkopos) Priest (Presbyter), and Deacon (Deacon). Arc-bishop, Pope, and all the rest are only administrative titles for specific administrative functions. Protestant similarity is there is youth pastor, music pastor, etc... In scriptures you won't find the title "youth pastor" or "music pastor".

But you are still show my point is valid scripture alone is no guarantee of freedom from error or being brought closer to actual beliefs of the early church. RCC and the Orthodox spent thousands of Years fighting off heresies and unorthodox beliefs. The church has faught off gnostics, docetist, arians, etc... It values Orthodox teaching. And what you will find is that the most recent split from the Catholic church - Protestantism - that this group is moving away from Orthodoxy as can be seen as the resurgence of heresies already faught against once again rearing their heads such as arianism, and gnosticism. but by different titles like Jehovah's witnesses, Mormonism, etc...

 

Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree. The only thing I can agree with in all of your post is one thing you said about Luther and Calvin and their legalistic interpretation of doctrines such as justification. And yet the seed of this can be found in Augustine. The fault of Luther and Calvin is that they didn't go far enough in their shedding of RCC errors.

You keep talking about ancient churches, but you fail to include the most ancient churches -- those of the New Testament and first century. Protestantism was an attempt to emulate those churches.

Obviously I don't believe anything you said about the RCC; I find that scripture repudiates all the distinctive RCC doctrines. If I was convinced about "Catholic" doctrine, I would go with the EOC since I find it to be the "Catholic" Church that has changed the least over time, and yet it has its share of superstitious and man-made traditions. Or I'd go Old Catholic. It certainly cannot be said that the RCC has not changed over time, adding to and taking away from the faith. The RCC contains as many and more errors as some of the offshoots from Protestantism; the difference, as I said, is that these are contained within the monolith that is the RCC. I have already listed some of these errors, so no need to do that again.

I will take my stand with those who give primacy to scripture because putting man-made tradition on a par with scripture is a chief error which leads to many other errors.