What the Nicene Creed is and isn’t etc..

[Cathode]

Not possible. Baptists hold to believers immersion. And it not the requirement in order to obtain forgiveness. See 1 Corinthians 1:17, For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

You are exactly the man that would have been astounded in Cornelius’s house, seeing a host of Gentiles filled with The Holy Spirit.

You care about mode! Really!. Take off the hall monitors hat and open your eyes and see. Rules is rules sometimes, but not always. Some things are minor considerations, The Holy Spirit broke the supposed rules and brought living fire to the hearts and minds and tongues of the Gentiles from the start.

God is gracious, not a bureaucrat, don’t you see.

Peter had to be re-educated before even going to Cornelius’s house. Totally against major rules, not just minor.

I wish you could have seen the newly baptised baby I saw. Baptism is not just symbolic, a powerful spiritual reality takes place, God’s Light invades the dark formless soul by water and Spirit.

The difference between Gamaliel and the other Pharisees who all knew the letter of the Law is that Gamaliel left room open for The Spirit of the Law.

There are so many spiritual realities even believers do not see, they are students of the letter and by the letter, but of the Spirit they do not see.

 

[Cathode]

The issue is that you consider a multitude of Christian churches, believing different doctrines, to be one and the same.

In a way, I agree and consider them to be the catholic church (not the Catholic Church and certainly not the Roman Catholic Church).

The problem is you take what began in the 4th century and look back to claim what does not belong.

There were, in fact, churches BEFORE Christianity reached Rome. And they looked to the "rock" or foundation as centered in Jerusalm.

But here there were different doctrines abs practices (Paul outlined a very small point of agreement in addition to the gospel).

Until the 3rd century these different churches often clashed. This is expected as they were working out theologians and doctrines.

All of the early church held, for example, to premillennialism....until Origen challenged the view. And this separated some (although it shouldn't have).


Prior to the 4th century the elements of Communion were viewed as to signify Jesus' Body and Blood.

But doctrines changed (taking on a form found in the mystery cults of Rome). In the 4th century Ambrose wrote - "Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood."

Chrysostom taught there was an actual change to the elements in some form, and Augustine that the elements transformed to flesh and blood.


Anyway...some of these churches that stood outside of the Catholic Church grew to accept non-Christian beliefs.

Others grew to hold doctrines that opposed the majority (heresies, unorthodox, but still Christian)....these often dealt with the nature of Communion (Ambrose would be a heretic to today's Catholic Church) and details of the Persons of the Trinity. BUT they were still churches.

Do you know where the franchise model of business was modelled off, The Catholic Church.

You get served exactly same thing at every outlet, in every location in the world.

“ While the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).

It’s not your baptist or even protestant model, you have no idea what you will served at all of these, the local managers make up their own ideas.

The Catholic Church is the One Apostolic Brand Name, where you get the same doctrine and faith handed down from the Apostles.

It’s the theological Holiday Inn that Jesus founded on the Apostles.

“And in one Holy Catholic Church;’ that thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which thou wast regenerated. And if ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 18:23,26 (A.D. 350).

And look for the really big Arches.

 

[37818]

You are exactly the man that would have been astounded in Cornelius’s house, seeing a host of Gentiles filled with The Holy Spirit.

You care about mode! Really!. Take off the hall monitors hat and open your eyes and see. Rules is rules sometimes, but not always. Some things are minor considerations, The Holy Spirit broke the supposed rules and brought living fire to the hearts and minds and tongues of the Gentiles from the start.

God is gracious, not a bureaucrat, don’t you see.

Peter had to be re-educated before even going to Cornelius’s house. Totally against major rules, not just minor.

I wish you could have seen the newly baptised baby I saw. Baptism is not just symbolic, a powerful spiritual reality takes place, God’s Light invades the dark formless soul by water and Spirit.

The difference between Gamaliel and the other Pharisees who all knew the letter of the Law is that Gamaliel left room open for The Spirit of the Law.

There are so many spiritual realities even believers do not see, they are students of the letter and by the letter, but of the Spirit they do not see.

You are arguing from your point of view. Not mine.

The Cornelius’ household received the Holy Spirit prior to even being water immersed aka baptized. Evidence the water immersion requirement wasn't for the salvation.

1 Corinthians 1:17.

 

[JonC]

Do you know where the franchise model of business was modelled off,

If you mean modern franchising, yes.

That started in the 1840's. Albert Singer is credited. (Yes, I took business economics in college....yuck).

If you mean the idea of franchising, that is ancient.

The Selucid Kingdom used a type of franchise system in terms of religion...even extending to the pre-Hasmonean Jews.

The Roman government used a type of franchise system to collect taxes. Matthew is an example of a tax collector.. You had to pay a substantial sum for this franchise, but you could make up that money.

The problem with applying it to religion, as we saw with the Selucid kingdom, is it generates a corrupt religious organization.

You could compare the Catholic Church to a franchise as the pope is a political figure historically chosen via political means or necessity. Then you have bishops which are the same, only lower in the pyramid. Then you have men spending military, monetary or political power to invest in the parent organization or franchise.

That is not the model of the Church.

The Apostolic Church held counsels, but these exerted a minimum outline (not even a theological outline). The congregations chose from within their body an "overseer", "pastor", "elder" or "bishop" The congregations chose "deacons" who handled the disbursement of funds to those in need (the "tables").

The Catholic Church, however, is an organization that is a blend of secular power, paganism and Christianity. There is nothing like it in Scripture.

 

[Cathode]

You are arguing from your point of view. Not mine.

The Cornelius’ household received the Holy Spirit prior to even being water immersed aka baptized. Evidence the water immersion requirement wasn't for the salvation.

No, look at the response.

“Can anyone withhold water to these people from being baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”

This was an extraordinary outpouring of The Holy Spirit, that descended on these people like the Apostles in the upper room. “who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have”
The Holy Spirit made the decision for them, because there was still good reason to withhold water for Baptism to bring Gentiles into the Church. Gentiles to that point were not included in the Church.
This actually shows Baptism was the norm for receiving The Holy Spirit, to bring people into the Church.

“to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.” 1 Peter 3: 20-22

The waters of the flood symbolise the baptism that now saves us. It wipes sin away and clears the conscience before God.

So the waters of the flood are the prefigurement of Baptism, where all that was evil was washed away and a new life and world was restored.

Baptism now saves you. Believe the word.

 

[37818]

No, look at the response.

“Can anyone withhold water to these people from being baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”

This was an extraordinary outpouring of The Holy Spirit, that descended on these people like the Apostles in the upper room. “who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have”
The Holy Spirit made the decision for them, because there was still good reason to withhold water for Baptism to bring Gentiles into the Church. Gentiles to that point were not included in the Church.
This actually shows Baptism was the norm for receiving The Holy Spirit, to bring people into the Church.

“to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.” 1 Peter 3: 20-22

The waters of the flood symbolise the baptism that now saves us. It wipes sin away and clears the conscience before God.

So the waters of the flood are the prefigurement of Baptism, where all that was evil was washed away and a new life and world was restored.

Baptism now saves you. Believe the word.

How did the flood save Noah and his family?
You don't understand my view. And honestly I do not think you can. I don't believe the instructed water immersion is essential in the way you do. And again I don't think you will hear to understand the difference in our views. 1 Corinthians 1:17.

 

[Cathode]

If you mean modern franchising, yes.

That started in the 1840's. Albert Singer is credited. (Yes, I took business economics in college....yuck).

If you mean the idea of franchising, that is ancient.

The Selucid Kingdom used a type of franchise system in terms of religion...even extending to the pre-Hasmonean Jews.

The Roman government used a type of franchise system to collect taxes. Matthew is an example of a tax collector.. You had to pay a substantial sum for this franchise, but you could make up that money.

The problem with applying it to religion, as we saw with the Selucid kingdom, is it generates a corrupt religious organization.

You could compare the Catholic Church to a franchise as the pope is a political figure historically chosen via political means or necessity. Then you have bishops which are the same, only lower in the pyramid. Then you have men spending military, monetary or political power to invest in the parent organization or franchise.

That is not the model of the Church.

The Apostolic Church held counsels, but these exerted a minimum outline (not even a theological outline). The congregations chose from within their body an "overseer", "pastor", "elder" or "bishop" The congregations chose "deacons" who handled the disbursement of funds to those in need (the "tables").

The Catholic Church, however, is an organization that is a blend of secular power, paganism and Christianity. There is nothing like it in Scripture.

Scripture shows precisely the Catholic model. It was not by pure congregational election that the clergy were selected, but ultimately through the Apostolic laying on of hands. Not congregational laying of hands, Apostolic laying on of hands.

The Councils were assemblies of bishops from everywhere, who maintained one Apostolic Tradition handed down from the Apostles.

“This gave occasion for an Ecumenical Council, that the feast might be everywhere celebrated on one day, and that the heresy which was springing up might be anathematized. It took place then; and the Syrians submitted, and the Fathers pronounced the Arian heresy to be the forerunner of Antichrist, and drew up a suitable formula against it. And yet in this, many as they are, they ventured on nothing like the proceedings of these three or four men. Without pre-fixing Consulate, month, and day, they wrote concerning Easter, ‘It seemed good as follows,’ for it did then seem good that there should be a general compliance; but about the faith they wrote not, ‘It seemed good,’ but, ‘Thus believes the Catholic Church;’ and thereupon they confessed how they believed, in order to shew that their own sentiments were not novel, but Apostolical; and what they wrote down was no discovery of theirs, but is the same as was taught by the Apostles.” Athanasius, Councils of Ariminum & Seleucia, 5( A.D. 362).

“Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in particular that they will communicate with persons who have been twice married, and with those who having lapsed in persecution have had a period [of penance] laid upon them, and a time [of restoration] fixed so that in all things they will follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church…” Council of Nicaea I (A.D. 325).

The Catholic Church maintained the same belief everywhere and also maintained governance everywhere.
There was no independent churches after the baptist and Protestant model, these are nowhere seen in scripture or tradition.

 

[JonC]

Scripture shows precisely the Catholic model.

Let's leave it alone 'cause we can't see eye to eye.There ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy.

There's only you and me and we just disagree.

 

[37818]

Scripture shows precisely the Catholic model. It was not by pure congregational election that the clergy were selected, but ultimately through the Apostolic laying on of hands. Not congregational laying of hands, Apostolic laying on of hands.

The Councils were assemblies of bishops from everywhere, who maintained one Apostolic Tradition handed down from the Apostles.

“This gave occasion for an Ecumenical Council, that the feast might be everywhere celebrated on one day, and that the heresy which was springing up might be anathematized. It took place then; and the Syrians submitted, and the Fathers pronounced the Arian heresy to be the forerunner of Antichrist, and drew up a suitable formula against it. And yet in this, many as they are, they ventured on nothing like the proceedings of these three or four men. Without pre-fixing Consulate, month, and day, they wrote concerning Easter, ‘It seemed good as follows,’ for it did then seem good that there should be a general compliance; but about the faith they wrote not, ‘It seemed good,’ but, ‘Thus believes the Catholic Church;’ and thereupon they confessed how they believed, in order to shew that their own sentiments were not novel, but Apostolical; and what they wrote down was no discovery of theirs, but is the same as was taught by the Apostles.” Athanasius, Councils of Ariminum & Seleucia, 5( A.D. 362).

“Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in particular that they will communicate with persons who have been twice married, and with those who having lapsed in persecution have had a period [of penance] laid upon them, and a time [of restoration] fixed so that in all things they will follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church…” Council of Nicaea I (A.D. 325).

The Catholic Church maintained the same belief everywhere and also maintained governance everywhere.
There was no independent churches after the baptist and Protestant model, these are nowhere seen in scripture or tradition.

I am not a Roman Catholic Christian.
So I do not hold to the necessity of water immersion aka baptism for salvation.

For starters John 3:5 is not about baptism.

1 John 5:9-13, If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

 

[Cathode]

How did the flood save Noah and his family?
You don't understand my view. And honestly I do not think you can. I don't believe the instructed water immersion is essential in the way you do. And again I don't think you will hear to understand the difference in our views. 1 Corinthians 1:17.

Paul was baptised where he stood or sat up in bed in Judas’s house. This was pouring, not immersion.

“And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.
And when he had received meat, he was strengthened.“

Paul was very weak.

 

[Cathode]

Let's leave it alone 'cause we can't see eye to eye.There ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy.

There's only you and me and we just disagree.

What point do you disagree with, you never said from my previous post.

I think we can nut things out in the cordial way we have been.

 

[Cathode]

I am not a Roman Catholic Christian.
So I do not hold to the necessity of water immersion aka baptism for salvation.

For starters John 3:5 is not about baptism.

1 John 5:9-13, If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

“Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

How did the early Christians understand Jesus words here?

” ‘And dipped himself,’ says [the Scripture], ‘seven times in Jordan.’ It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it 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 new-born 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.'” Irenaeus, Fragment, 34 (A.D. 190).

“When, however, the prescript is laid down that ‘without baptism, salvation is attainable by none” (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, “Unless one be born of water, he hath not life.'” Tertullian, On Baptism, 12:1 (A.D. 203).

All the ancient Churches hold that baptism is regenerative, and up to the reformation and beyond.

 

[37818]

This was pouring, not immersion.

. . . και αναστας εβαπτισθη.
Says immersed.

 

[37818]

“Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

How did the early Christians understand Jesus words here?

” ‘And dipped himself,’ says [the Scripture], ‘seven times in Jordan.’ It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it 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 new-born 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.'” Irenaeus, Fragment, 34 (A.D. 190).

“When, however, the prescript is laid down that ‘without baptism, salvation is attainable by none” (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, “Unless one be born of water, he hath not life.'” Tertullian, On Baptism, 12:1 (A.D. 203).

Two births. One of the flesh and the again of the Spirit.
John 3:6, That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
1 John 5:1, Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . .

 

[Cathode]

. . . και αναστας εβαπτισθη.
Says immersion.

No it doesn’t.

Mark 7:3 the Pharisees do not eat unless they wash “baptizo” their hands. This demonstrates that “baptizo” does not always mean immersion. It can mean pouring water over something in this case, over their hands.
Water is always drawn from the laver and poured over the hands in Jewish ritual, so that the laver was not contaminated for those after. Yet the same word is used for pouring and immersion.
Because people aren’t aware of ancient ritual, they end getting caught up in these senseless obsessions.

Mark 7:4 – we see that the Jews washed “bapto” from baptizo cups, pitchers and vessels, but this does not mean that they actually immersed these items. Also, some manuscripts say the Jews also washed “bapto” couches, yet they did not immerse the couches, they only sprinkled them.

I think this is an unjustifiable fixation you have here, which all seems rather silly considering you hold Baptism of no effect.

Besides the Fathers tell us baptism, poured and immersed is Apostolic.

 

[37818]

No it doesn’t.

Mark 7:3 the Pharisees do not eat unless they wash “baptizo” their hands. This demonstrates that “baptizo” does not always mean immersion. It can mean pouring water over something in this case, over their hands.
Water is always drawn from the laver and poured over the hands in Jewish ritual, so that the laver was not contaminated for those after. Yet the same word is used for pouring and immersion.
Because people aren’t aware of ancient ritual, they end getting caught up in these senseless obsessions.

Mark 7:4 – we see that the Jews washed “bapto” from baptizo cups, pitchers and vessels, but this does not mean that they actually immersed these items. Also, some manuscripts say the Jews also washed “bapto” couches, yet they did not immerse the couches, they only sprinkled them.

I think this is an unjustifiable fixation you have here, which all seems rather silly considering you hold Baptism of no effect.

Besides the Fathers tell us baptism, poured and immersed is Apostolic.

The word is still the word to immerse. Do you have a case where it explicitly refer to pouring was the means of immersion? There is another word pouring επιχεων.

 

[Cathode]

Two births. One of the flesh and the again of the Spirit.
John 3:6, That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
1 John 5:1, Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . .

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved”

“baptism that now saves you”

All the churches for the first 1500 years held that baptism is regenerative, East, West, doesn’t matter.

 

[37818]

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved”

Yes. But the immersion was not the requirement. Believing was.

“baptism that now saves you”

In the same sense as Noah and his family was saved by means of the flood.

All the churches for the first 1500 years held that baptism is regenerative, East, West, doesn’t matter.

That is simply not true.
1 Corinthians 1:17. The gospel, not baptism.

 

[Cathode]

The word is still the word to immerse. Do you have a case where it explicitly refer to pouring was the means of immersion? There is another word pouring επιχεων.

Even today you can see pouring from a secondary vessel on the hands, not the hands immersed in the laver.

I’m not making this up, you can see them use the same ancient method with secondary vessel to pour today, even though the laver itself is obviously a modern self draining sink.
The laver was never dunked in, thousands had to use the laver and it would have been befouled in no time, they weren’t self draining like today.

This is where a little knowledge of ritual practice can save a whole silly goose chase down a rabbit hole.

Secondary vessels, pouring.

 

[JonC]

What point do you disagree with, you never said from my previous post.

I think we can nut things out in the cordial way we have been.

Lol....I just heard that song this morning.

We disagree on a lot.

In regard to Scripture, I believe it is prescriptive and not up to the interpretation of a church. Catholics I know do believe in Scripture, but rely on the interpretation of the Catholic Church. I don't know where you fall here.

On regard to the Catholic Church, I believe that it started in the 4th century. I am not saying that it wasn't still a church as Christians were members by default. But it also included pagans who "became" Christian through baptism as it was the faith of Rome. Any congregation is comprised of believers and non-believers, but the Catholic Church became a blend of Christianity and paganism. It still is today, even after reforms from within.

Biblically, there is no structure like a Catholic Church structure found in Scripture. It was also not entirely congregational either (they had a counsel and was influenced by the Apostles alive at that time...BUT not in an authority over the congregation (Paul, for example, gave instruction when congregations departed from Scripture in their lives and doctrine, but Paul did not actually prescribe doctrine).

The early churches were very loosely connected (not a member of a larger body but a collection of churches that differed, under one gospel, as the catholic church). The church in Jerusalem was very different from the churches in Corinth, for example. But even though they were different Paul instructed there be no judgment as Hesus would "make them stand".



We Just Disagree is a good song, btw.