The theological bankruptcy of Sola Scriptura

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
[QB] I've already said that I'm not impressed with the 'credentials' of either Hosius or Mosheim. Again,

You were also not "impressed" by the inconvenient facts of history or the "impressed" by the "obvious points of John 6" or "impressed" by the fact that EVEN the RCC admitted to the change in Baptism to a "VERY DIFFERENT THING" from what we have in the first century... or "impressed" by the fact that I gave several sources above and you mention only two ...

It appears that there is almost no fact of history that is in favor of scripture and admitted to by historians, Catholics and protestants that you wil agree with IF it is also in harmony with Baptist doctrine.


I find that fascinating.

 

[Matt Black]

Still waiting for those contemporary primary source documents, Bob...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[BobRyan]

Ok -- more "inconvenient" facts for you to ignore. (I note that "facts" don't seem to "immpress" you at all so far).

With that being said...

Didache on BELIEVER’s Baptism by Immersion:

Didache 7:1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water.
]
Didache 7:2 But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.
Didache 7:3 But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Didache 7:4 But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able; and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Catholic Historians admit that INFANT baptism had to EVOLVE OVER TIME --- "into the VERY DIFFERENT practice" that it is today (according to Catholic Digest).

Parenthetical notes “mine”.

Thomas Bokenkotter's "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" pg 49

"at first the Christian presbyter or elder avoided any resemblance to the pagan or Jewish priests and in fact even deliberately refused to be called a priest.
He saw his primary function (instead) to be the ministry of the word...but the image of the Christian presbyter gradually took on a sacral character.

This sacralization of the clergy was brought about by various developments...the Old Testament priesthood was seen as a model for the NT priesthood (gradually). The more elaborate liturgy of the post-Constantine era, with it's features borrowed from paganism, enhanced the image of the minister as a sacred personage. The ministry of the word diminished in importance when infant baptism became (evolved to become?) the rule, for infants could not be preached to...

Before Constantine the whole church was considered the realm of the sacred as opposed to the profane world outside; after Constantine and the breakdown of the separation between church and the world, the polarity between sacred and profane was transformed into one between sacred clergy and profane laity"

 

[BobRyan]

Catholic Digest admits (quoting ECF sources) that Catholic Historian "AGREE WITH REASON and historic FACT" when pointing out the fact of believer's baptism in the first few centuries!

From Catholic Digest (Parenthesis mine in the quotes below) from the June 1999 article.
Please see www.catholicdigest.org for the full article that hints to the changes that have evolved over time.

"Tacking on a little here and dropping a bit there has never altered the essence of the sacrament itself, but by the middle ages, the rite had evolved into something very different from that used by the early Christians".


Pg 44
"go into the world and proclaim the gospel...whoever believes and is baptized will be saved. The new testament does not tell us how the apostles baptized, but, church historians say, most likely a candidate stood in a river or public bath and water was poured over his or her head. The person was asked : do you believe in the father? Do you believe in the son? Do you believe in the spirit? With each "yes" the candidate was immersed.

Justin Martyr (100-165) offered a bare-bones description:"

"the candidate prays and fasts "-
"the church community prays and fasts with him"
"the candidate enters the water"
"the minister asks him the three Trinitarian questions"
"the candidate now is introduced into the assembly"



pg 45
"half a century later the writer Tertullian gave a few more details. He talked about an anointing, a signing of the cross and an outstretched hand over the candidate. For those first centuries after Christ, the steps required to become baptized were not taken lightly. Often, they led to martyrdom"

"a candidate needed a sponsor, a member of the Christian community who could vouch for him or her. It was the sponsor who went to the bishop and testified that this was a good person. Then for years the sponsor worked, prayed, and fasted with the protégé until the baptism"

<>

"at that time, the catechumenate (coming from the greek word for instruction) had two parts. The first, a period of spiritual preparation, lasted about three years. The second began at the start of lent and included the routine of prayers, fasting, scrutinies and exorcisms. (daily exorcisms didn't mean the candidate was possessed by the devil. Rather, he or she was in the grip of sin. The exorcisms were designed to help the individual break free)."

"Next the candidate was brought before the bishop and the presbyters (elders), while the sponsor was questioned. If the sponsor could state the candidate had no serious vices - then the bishop wrote the candidates name in the baptismal registry. More than a mere formality, this meant the candidate could be arrested or even killed if the "book of life" fell into the wrong hands"

"it was only gradually that the candidate was permitted to hear the creed or the our father. (and he or she was expected to memorize them and recite them for the bishop and the congreation)."

<>

"after the new Christians emerged from the water and were dried off, they were clothed in linen robes, which they would wear until the following sunday. Each new member of the community would then be handed a lighted candle and given the kiss of peace"

<>
"often it was seen as the final trump card, to be played on one's deathbed, thus assuring a heavenly reward"


"it's important to keep in mind that the doctrine of baptism developed (evolved) over time. It was not easy, for instance, determining what to do with those who seriously sinned after baptism" pg 47

"coupled with that was the role of infant baptism. (rcc) scholars assume that when the 'whole households' were baptized, it included children, even very young ones"

"but again it was the development of the doctrine, such as st. Augustine's description of original sin in the fifth century that eventually made infant baptism predominant. At that point
(read change),
baptism was no longer seen as the beginning of moral life, but (it became viewed) a guarantee of accpetance into heaven after death.

"in the early (dark ages) middle ages when entire tribes in northern Europe were being converted, the whole clan was
baptized if the chief chose to be...by the end of the eighth century, what before had taken weeks (of preparation and process by
non infants) had been greatly abridged. Children received three exorcisms on the sundays before easter, and on holy
saturday;..youngsters were immersed three times."

"the rite was further abridged when the tradition of child or infant receiving communion at baptism fell into disfavor.

"and because baptism was now viewed as essential for acceptance into heaven, the church offered a shorter "emergency"
rite for infants in danger of death. By the beginning of the 11th century, some bishops and councils pointed out that infants
were always in danger of sudden death and began to encourage parents not to wait until holy Saturday ceremony"

<>

 

[BobRyan]

Hence the existence of "ancient" anabaptist theology since EVEN RC historians admit that THIS WAS the norm handed down from the first century church.

Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent:

"Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.)

The "twelve hundred years" were the years preceding the Reformation in which Rome persecuted Baptists with the most cruel persecution thinkable.

Sir Isaac Newton:

"The Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome."

Mosheim (Lutheran):

"Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of modern Dutch Baptists."

Edinburg Cyclopedia (Presbyterian):

"It must have already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed this seems to have been their leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present time."

It could not "be" any more obvious.

But of course - thre are those for whom "disconfirming historic fact" merely serves as an obstacle to be overcome.

Sadly we see this with some here who want to deny the Bible evidence AND historic evidence for believer's baptism. EVEN to the point of denying these ECF sources AND the historians quoted here.

How tragic.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

And, pray tell, which of Mosheim, Hosius (if he existed), Newton and the author of the Edinburgh Cyclopedia lived prior to the 1160s? That's the meaning of 'contemporary' in this context, Bob.

Still waiting...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[BobRyan]

I am thinking that the "Didache" is pre-1160's. Did you get that detail?

I am also thinking that both Bokenkotter's reference AND the CD article reference (quoting Justin Martyr ) are to events BEFORE the 12th century.

Another detail.

I am also thinking Tertullian lived before the 12th Century.

So "yes" I managed to find "pre-12th century" history speaking of believers baptism with full water baptism as the mode.

Amazingly - if you are open to the details -- they are all there.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
[QB] And, pray tell, which of Mosheim, Hosius (if he existed), Newton and the author of the Edinburgh Cyclopedia lived prior to the 1160s?

You and I also live after the 12th century. Does that mean that when WE find documents/history PRIOR to the 12th century -- anything WE say about it is ALSO void?

Ok - then lets just read the Bible. Surely you think the Bible writers lived pre-12th century.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

Bob, you are missing the point here. By contemporary primary source document I mean a document that we know was created at the time to which it relates that is evidence of the contemporary events and facts which it describes. For example, I know that the Byzantine Emperor Justinian codified the laws of his Empire in the early 530s. How do I know this? Because I have read a copy of his Codex and his Digest, the original MSS of which date from the 530s. These are therefore primary source documents that evidence the assertion that that event happened in history.

Now, with the Waldenses, we have a somewhat different evidential scenario. Let me try to follow your argument, and correct me if I go wrong at any point:-

1. The Waldenses were proto-Baptists, proto-Adventists and/ or proto-evangelicals.

2. They existed prior to the 1160s, and indeed go back to the Apostles.

3. You know this because 'historians' like Carroll and Mosheim say so.

4. Some of the ECFs eg: Tertullian and the Didache support your contention.

Correct so far?

Now, let me start with the last of your assertions. Yes, the Didache is a contemporary primary source document from the 2nd century. But all it tells us is the method of baptism; it makes no mention of what the Christians of the time thought baptism actually did. Similarly, while Tertullian is contemporary and primary from the end of that century, again, to ascribe to him proto-Baptist beliefs is stretching it a bit. True, he did not believe in infant baptism. But the reason for that belief was very different from that of modern Baptists: Tertullian believed that not only did baptism regenerate the sinner and forgive all sins, but he also believed that sins committed after baptism could not be forgiven; therefore he was in favour of deferring baptism for as long as possible - ideally until the candidate was at the point of death. Now, I think you'll agree with me that that is very different from the modern Baptist view of baptism.

Mosheim and Carroll and Co lived many centuries after the 1160s and cannot in any way be described as contemporary primary source material; nor, crucially, do they adduce any such material.

To reiterate, Bob, so that you can be perfectly clear what is required to support your contention re the Waldenses, if you are asserting that they existed in, say, the 8th century, you need to produce an 8th century document showing that to be the case. Otherwise your assertions are pure conjecture.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[BobRyan]

Now, with the Waldenses, we have a somewhat different evidential scenario. Let me try to follow your argument, and correct me if I go wrong at any point:-

1. The Waldenses were proto-Baptists, proto-Adventists and/ or proto-evangelicals.

2. They existed prior to the 1160s, and indeed go back to the Apostles.

3. You know this because 'historians' like Carroll and Mosheim say so.

4. Some of the ECFs eg: Tertullian and the Didache support your contention.

Correct so far?

#1. The Waldenses are french - not arabs.
#2. They were nicknamed the Waldenses -- so the "name" does not go beyond the assigning of the nick=name.
#.3 The DOCTRINE is that of anabaptists - refusing to baptize infants.
#4. The DIDACHE SHOWS this to be the case when IT WAS written.
#5. Tertullian SHOWS this to be HIS belief.
#6. The other ECF sources quoted by the Catholic Digest on the EVOLUTION of baptism SHOW that it starts as believers baptism by full water emersion.
#7. "Christians make Christians of others". It is through that doctrinal "lineage" that the French Christians are traced.

That is my position.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Your position must be that you rely so heavily on the Catholic church being able to "exterminate" believers that you conclude no matter WHAT the ECF sources say - at some point - there are no Christians STILL holding to the early practices of baptism -- (AS if you had exhaustive records to prove such a thing).

Paul thought something like that when God pointed out that like the days of Elijah He had UNDOCUMENTED "7000 that have not bowed the knee to Baal".

The wild-assumption that "we always have exhaustive records of the faithful believers in every age" has never been "proven" and often "disproven".

(A note with many thanks to Gene Bridges)

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Tertullian believed that not only did baptism regenerate the sinner and forgive all sins, but he also believed that sins committed after baptism could not be forgiven; therefore he was in favour of deferring baptism for as long as possible - ideally until the candidate was at the point of death. Now, I think you'll agree with me that that is very different from the modern Baptist view of baptism.

One does not have to BE a Baptist to believe in BELIEVER's baptism. I am proof of that fact.

The salient point between infant baptism and BELIEVERS baptism is that one must CHOOSE Baptism. One must REPENT FIRST (as Tertullian said) AND THEN be Baptized.

As soon as you accept that fact - infant baptism is dead. No such thing as magic waters of the sacrament that can forgive sins (or a priest with the POWER to forgive sins) IF it is VOID without FIRST repenting.

That ends the discussion before it gets started on infant baptism.

As for the fact that Tertullian himself DID NOT wait until death for baptism - left as an exercise for the reader.

AS for whether Tertullian regarded himself as "sinless since baptism" and never in need of repentance or forgiveness -- I have not seen that proven. But I am open to some document saying that is how he viewed himself.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Now, with the Waldenses, we have a somewhat different evidential scenario. Let me try to follow your argument, and correct me if I go wrong at any point:-

1. The Waldenses were proto-Baptists, proto-Adventists and/ or proto-evangelicals.

2. They existed prior to the 1160s, and indeed go back to the Apostles.

3. You know this because 'historians' like Carroll and Mosheim say so.

4. Some of the ECFs eg: Tertullian and the Didache support your contention.

Correct so far?

#1. The Waldenses are french - not arabs.
#2. They were nicknamed the Waldenses -- so the "name" does not go beyond the assigning of the nick=name.
#.3 The DOCTRINE is that of anabaptists - refusing to baptize infants.
#4. The DIDACHE SHOWS this to be the case when IT WAS written.
#5. Tertullian SHOWS this to be HIS belief.
#6. The other ECF sources quoted by the Catholic Digest on the EVOLUTION of baptism SHOW that it starts as believers baptism by full water emersion.
#7. "Christians make Christians of others". It is through that doctrinal "lineage" that the French Christians are traced.

That is my position.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]#1 I never said they were Arabs. Where are you getting this from??!
#2 Granted
#3 But you still have not adduced any primary source documents from, say, the 8th century to support your thesis that Anabaptist/ believers' baptism beliefs existed at this point
#4 No, the Didache merely tells us how to baptise, not whom.
#5 Yes, but for non-Anabaptist reasons - it was because he believed in baptismal regeneration to such an extent that no forgiveness could be granted for sins committed afterwards
#6. The ECF documents show they believed in baptismal regeneration
#7. And the primary source documents for this are what, exactly?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Your position must be that you rely so heavily on the Catholic church being able to "exterminate" believers that you conclude no matter WHAT the ECF sources say - at some point - there are no Christians STILL holding to the early practices of baptism -- (AS if you had exhaustive records to prove such a thing).

Paul thought something like that when God pointed out that like the days of Elijah He had UNDOCUMENTED "7000 that have not bowed the knee to Baal".

The wild-assumption that "we always have exhaustive records of the faithful believers in every age" has never been "proven" and often "disproven".

(A note with many thanks to Gene Bridges)

In Christ,

Bob

Yes, but the quote about Baal is in Scripture and that is why I believe it. Mosheim, Carroll et al are not Scripture!

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[BobRyan]

True - actual historic "people" living before you were able to talk -- believe it or not.

I guess you choose not to believe them.

But you say you WILL believe scripture??

Who must read it to you for you to know WHAT to believe?

(And isn't that the point of this thread?)

 

[Matt Black]

Yes it is but i'm not sure what your point is?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Tertullian believed that not only did baptism regenerate the sinner and forgive all sins, but he also believed that sins committed after baptism could not be forgiven; therefore he was in favour of deferring baptism for as long as possible - ideally until the candidate was at the point of death. Now, I think you'll agree with me that that is very different from the modern Baptist view of baptism.

One does not have to BE a Baptist to believe in BELIEVER's baptism. I am proof of that fact.

The salient point between infant baptism and BELIEVERS baptism is that one must CHOOSE Baptism. One must REPENT FIRST (as Tertullian said) AND THEN be Baptized.

As soon as you accept that fact - infant baptism is dead. No such thing as magic waters of the sacrament that can forgive sins (or a priest with the POWER to forgive sins) IF it is VOID without FIRST repenting.

That ends the discussion before it gets started on infant baptism.

As for the fact that Tertullian himself DID NOT wait until death for baptism - left as an exercise for the reader.

AS for whether Tertullian regarded himself as "sinless since baptism" and never in need of repentance or forgiveness -- I have not seen that proven. But I am open to some document saying that is how he viewed himself.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Some sources for you:-

"Sole Opponent -- A Heretic
In the 1,500 years from the time of Christ to the Protestant Reformation, the only bonafide opponent to infant Baptism was Tertullian (160-215), bishop of Carthage, Africa. His superficial objection was to the unfair responsibility laid on godparents when the child of pagans joined the church. However, his real opposition was more fundamental. It was his view that sinfulness begins a the "puberty of the soul," that is "about the fourteenth year of life" and "it drives man our of the paradise of innocence" (De Anima 38:2). This rules out the belief in original sin.

Tertullian's stance, together with other unorthodox views, led him to embrace Montanism in 207. Montanism denied the total corruption and sinfulness of human nature. With its emphasis upon the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit, it was the precursor to the modern Charismatic Movement.

Except for Tertullian's heretical views, marking his departure from mainstream Christianity, the only other opposition to infant Baptism came during a brief period in the middle of the fourth century. The issue was the fear of post-Baptismal sin. This heretical view also denied Baptism to adults until their death-bed. It was not in reality a denial of infant baptism in and of itself. In fact, the heresy encouraged Baptism of infants when death seemed imminent, as it also did for adults."

SOURCE

Tertullian himself (NB this is rather turgid stuff!)

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[BobRyan]

you say you will not believe early 17th century sources talking about true Christians living a few centuries before their day but you take yourself as being in "better position" to know exhaustively what the Vaudois were doing?

 

[Matt Black]

It's not a 'few centuries,; it's more like a millenium. I'm not saying I know what people in the Vaud believed in the 8th century; that's just the point, I don't know and neither do you; neither did Mosheim and Carroll. None of us were there and none of us have any documents from that time to prove the assertions of you and Messrs Carroll, Newton and Mosheim. Your argument is one from total silence.

We do however have ample evidence of what the Church believed at that time

Yours in Christ

Matt