The $100,000 Roman Catholic Question.

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

--"They viewed baptism as adding nothing to justification."

GE:

Is obedience something 'added to justification'?

 

[DHK]

--"They viewed baptism as adding nothing to justification."

GE:

Is obedience something 'added to justification'?

One is justified by faith and faith alone. (Rom.5:1)
Even in our churches today we don't admit a person into membership until after they have been baptized. To some extent baptism becomes a requirement for church membership. It is the first step of obedience after salvation, but it has nothing to do with salvation. By the previous quote, this seemed to be the belief of the Paulicians. They repudiated infant baptism, baptized after a person was justified (saved), and then accepted them into membership. Is that any different than we do today? Not in our church.

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

That doesn't describe the Paulicians. I don't know where you are getting your quotes from...

My source is The Key of Truth: A Manual of the Paulician Church of Armenia. The Armenian Text Edited and Translated with Illustrative Documents and Introduction by Fred. C. Conybeare.

According to Schaff-Herzog, "In seeking to reach a just conclusion respecting the doctrines and practices of the Paulicians considerable weight should be accorded to The Key of Truth... http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc08/Page_418.html ."

William Jones wrote in the early 1800's. G.H. Orchard wrote in the mid 1800's. The Key of Truth was translated by Frederick Conybeare into English in 1898. Thus, Jones and Orchard - and Mosheim and Gibbon - did not have access to The Key of Truth.

The great benefit of The Key of Truth is that, unlike the "hostile witness" testimony of Photius and Petrus Siculus, The Key was written by the Paulicians. Thus, it is the ultimate primary source. It tells us about the Paulicians in their own words.

CA

 

[Matt Black]

Trying to dodge around the smelly Dead Horse of landmarkism (BB members well know my views on that!) and return to the question posed by the OP: in a sense, the question is unanswerable because if the tradition was oral, it would not be preserved in writing and therefore could not be demonstrated today. Also, the OP does not define "Apostolic Age".

That said, let me throw in a potential answer to kick around: the Real Presence in communion. Not oral, since recorded in writing by Ignatius of Antioch in c.107 AD and not quite contemporary with the Apostles since it was written around 5 years after the death of John, but held to be the practice of the Church from Apostolic times and, IMO, quite important as to matters of faith.

More on all fours with the demand of the OP, I could cite belief in infant baptism and baptismal regeneration:

From Irenaeus:-

"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

Origen refers to the tradition dating from the Apostolic Age:-

"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]). (italics mine)

Hippolytus also refers to this in the appopriately-named ( for the purposes of answering the OP) The Apostolic Tradition:-

"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]). [

St Augustine also explicitly answers the OP on this subject:-

"What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).
"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

"By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]). (also touches on the RP)

(italics mine)

From the Second Council of Mileum;-

"[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration" (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]). (italics mine)

 

[Eliyahu]

That doesn't describe the Paulicians. I don't know where you are getting your quotes from. Here it is from a different source:

Note, as I mentioned before, they protested agaist the RCC. That is one of the things that they were most noted for. The name Paulicians was also given them for preaching the gospel of Paul, which is a gospel of "justification of faith--the exact opposite of baptismal regeneration. The above quote makes it very plain--"They viewed baptism as adding nothing to justification."
http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/orchard2-07.htm

This is from Orchard's: "A Concise History of the Baptists"

[/size][/font]

Your source is quite correct.
One thing people should remember is that there have been clearly 2 mountain ranges among the so-called Christians. One is the group of True believers outside Roman Catholic Church, the other is the Roman Catholic and her step daughters.
Throughout the history all the time, God has preserved his people who did not kneel down to whorish Roman Catholic, refusing Mary Worship, Idolatry, Mass, Infant Baptism, Baptismal Regeneration. Many "Reformed" Catholic people misunderstand that Baptists or Brethren have come out of Roman Catholic, which is absolutely untrue.

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

Ps104_33,

Originally Posted by CarpentersApprentice

Ps104_33, In your OP what do you mean by "demonstratively traceable to the apostolic age"? CA
********************************
Ps104_33, 2nd Request. CA
********************************
Ps104_33, 3rd Request. CA

Ps104_33,

4th Request.

CA

 

[Matt Black]

I'd like an answer to that too.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

[surfacing]
Just like to say "Hello" to Matt Black. Good to see you posting again. I think your comments on the Apostolic Tradition and the fallacies of "baptist successionism" speak for themselves. God bless.:thumbs:
[/resubmerging]

 

[Matt Black]

Cheers, mate! Same to you.

It's also worth mentioning that both Tacitus (56-117) and Pliny the Younger (63-113) refer to the Church, with mention being made by the former of accusations of cannibalism against Christians, which tends to support the existence of belief in the Real Presence in Apostolic times.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

One is justified by faith and faith alone. (Rom.5:1)
Even in our churches today we don't admit a person into membership until after they have been baptized. To some extent baptism becomes a requirement for church membership. It is the first step of obedience after salvation, but it has nothing to do with salvation. By the previous quote, this seemed to be the belief of the Paulicians. They repudiated infant baptism, baptized after a person was justified (saved), and then accepted them into membership. Is that any different than we do today? Not in our church.

GE:

I find this incomprehensible, "It (water-baptism) is the first step of obedience after salvation, but it has nothing to do with salvation."
So must it be a 'good' work of ours we remind God of so that He won't forget to compensate us for it?

I just the longer I come to think of it, can't see any place for water-baptism in Christian life, individually or corporately. Take your statement, but a bit changed, and see what difference it makes: 'It - to be "baptised in the Name" - is the first step of and in salvation, and so has everything to do with obedience (that naturally and inevitably shall follow regeneration by the Holy Spirit).'

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Matt Black, quoting Augustine:

"The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration"

GE:

I know it's not what Augustine meant, but here's how I would explain it, that the mystery of baptism is most assuredly the mystery of regeneration, and wholly spiritual, being the work of God, and not of man. THIS BAPTISM SAVES - NOTHING ELSE DOES. Water plays no part in it, if not Jesus Christ the Water of Life.

I use 4-point print size for myself - the eyes are'nt so good any more.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Matt Black quoting Irenaeus,
""And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]"

GE:

Do the words "through water" come from Irenaeus or from his translator? because it's not what John says. John says, "out of water", as, "out of the Spirit". As much as the Holy Spirit is the Source of regeneration, is the "Water" here mentioned and meant. Were is earthly water, then 'baptismal regeneration' isn't error, but truth. Since 'baptismal regeneration' is error, 'water' has to mean the only other thing it possibly can mean which it spiritually, fundamentally and exclusively does mean - the Water of Life, Jesus Christ.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Matt Black quoting:
"Origen refers to the tradition dating from the Apostolic Age:-
Quote:
"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]). (italics mine)

GE:
It is perfectly clear where the blasphemous heresy of 'baptismal regeneration' comes from; it is the full blooded offspring of post-Apostolic 'water-baptism'.

 

[Matt Black]

Hmmm...this is interesting...here we have someone arguing that baptism itself is an heretical tradition with no warrant in Scripture. I'm not sure how that conclusion is arrived at, and I'm happy for a Baptist to refute it, but an interesting phenomenon nevertheless....

Oh, and a friend of mine on another board has just reminded me of the obvious answer to the OP - the Trinity. (D'oh, why didn't I think of that!?)

 

[DHK]

Hmmm...this is interesting...here we have someone arguing that baptism itself is an heretical tradition with no warrant in Scripture. I'm not sure how that conclusion is arrived at, and I'm happy for a Baptist to refute it, but an interesting phenomenon nevertheless....

Oh, and a friend of mine on another board has just reminded me of the obvious answer to the OP - the Trinity. (D'oh, why didn't I think of that!?)

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

As one commentator so succinctly put it:
"Nature speaks of nature's God."

The greatest heresy (or outright lie) to speak of is that the RCC gave us the doctrine of the trinity. What has that got to do with the OP. Do you imply that the Apostles or (even Christ) had no knowledge of the trinity, and that the RCC invented this doctrine? How absurd!! The apostles knew who Christ was and who the Holy Spirit was. They knew, as God-fearing Jews that there was only one God. They professed that Christ was deity, and that the Holy Spirit was deity. I don't think that they were as dumb as you imply them to be.

 

[Eliyahu]

Baptismal Regeneration :

If anyone is regenerated by immersion into the water, then here is the question:

1) 5 seconds before the immersion, was the Person a sinner(=unbeliever) ?
5 seconds after the Baptism is the Person become a believer?
Then it means that the Baptism was provided to the unbeliever!
( This may be quite true with Roman Catholics!)

2) If the Person is a Believer before the Baptism, then the Person was saved already before the Baptism, because "whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life!"
In this case the Baptism doesn't regenerate the Person.

John 5:
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

What is the requirement for the eternal life? Does Jesus say Baptism is pre-requisite for salvation?

 

[Eliyahu]

RCC promotes or ignore Trinity for their convenience.

Trinity is important for RCC to exalt Mary as Mother of God.

Then they quickly forget that Christ is the Creator of Mary and Mary is a mere creature, perishable, destined to go to the hell if there had been no redemption by Jesus Christ.

They betray Trinity again, when they call Mary as Mother of God, because they cannot but deny that Mary is the Mother of God the Father while still claiming Mary is Mother of God. Such logic can stand only when God the Father is not God. They have a big trouble with Trinity when they call Mary the Mother of God.

In the Bible, God is mentioned at least 3,640 times. Less than 10 times God indicated God the Son. Then it means, God means God the Father unless there is any specific indication for God the Son.
From the doctrine of Trinity, they exalt Mary as Mother of God so that the title may give the impression that Mary is the Mother of God the Father.

However, her title, Mother of God ( Theotokos) is absolutely absurd, because:

1) Is Mary Mother of God the Father ? NOPE!
2) Is Mary Mother of God the Holy Spirit ? Nope!
3) Was Mary Mother of God the Son when He created the world? NOPE!
4) Was Mary Mother of God the Son before she was born? Nope!
5) Did Mary exist before God the Son existed ? Nope!
6) Who was operating the whole universe while Mary was pregnant? Was it Mary? Nope!
7) Does anyone in the Bible call Mary the Mother of God? Nooooobody!

The key is that RCC deny Trinity by calling Mary the Mother of God, as deny God the Father is God in the same sentence!

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

As one commentator so succinctly put it:
"Nature speaks of nature's God."

The greatest heresy (or outright lie) to speak of is that the RCC gave us the doctrine of the trinity. What has that got to do with the OP. Do you imply that the Apostles or (even Christ) had no knowledge of the trinity, and that the RCC invented this doctrine? How absurd!! The apostles knew who Christ was and who the Holy Spirit was. They knew, as God-fearing Jews that there was only one God. They professed that Christ was deity, and that the Holy Spirit was deity. I don't think that they were as dumb as you imply them to be.

Most secular historians claim that the Trinity came from Pagan Egypt. My former IFB preacher was doing a study on Islam and his source he was using I started to investigate…so happens that his source was also writing contradictions about Christianity! When I called him on it, he told me to keep it under wraps…lol. He told me that all the years of his pastorate, no one ever fact-checked his studies…I guess some people like to be told what to think…

Anyway, it wasn’t a question concerning the Deity of Christ, the issues were how the 3 persons co-existed, that’s were a lot of the heretical sects arose from (which Baptists claim as there own) and that issue was one of the main focal points of the first seven Ecumenical counsels.


-

 

[DHK]

Most secular historians claim that the Trinity came from Pagan Egypt. My former IFB preacher was doing a study on Islam and his source he was using I started to investigate…so happens that his source was also writing contradictions about Christianity! When I called him on it, he told me to keep it under wraps…lol. He told me that all the years of his pastorate, no one ever fact-checked his studies…I guess some people like to be told what to think…

Anyway, it wasn’t a question concerning the Deity of Christ, the issues were how the 3 persons co-existed, that’s were a lot of the heretical sects arose from (which Baptists claim as there own) and that issue was one of the main focal points of the first seven Ecumenical counsels.
-

So what is your point? Satanists believe in a trinity also. Are you saying that the belief in the trinity came from Satan? Or are you saying that the RCC's version of the belief of the trinity came from Satan and/or paganism. What is the point of your post? The trinity (God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit) is taught in the Bible, prior to the invention of the RCC. That is historical fact. The RCC has no claiim to it. The only thing that your post did was link the RCC to paganism.

 

[Matt Black]

The greatest heresy (or outright lie) to speak of is that the RCC gave us the doctrine of the trinity. What has that got to do with the OP. Do you imply that the Apostles or (even Christ) had no knowledge of the trinity, and that the RCC invented this doctrine? How absurd!! The apostles knew who Christ was and who the Holy Spirit was. They knew, as God-fearing Jews that there was only one God. They professed that Christ was deity, and that the Holy Spirit was deity. I don't think that they were as dumb as you imply them to be.

You're missing the point of the OP and proving my point by your post. To remind you, the OP asked whether there was any church tradition, not explicitly recorded in Scripture, which is a matter of salvation, and which can be traced to the Apostolic Age. The Trinity is a prime example of that: it's not set out in Scripture - although like most Tradition, it can most certainly be inferred from Scripture - but you agree with me that the Apostles knew it.