Re: Are Roman Catholics Christian? NO!
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
news:8jh%h.4180$296...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Are Roman Catholics Christian?
No! as they are not authentically baptised as adults.
They are uselessly unscripturally 'christened' as hapless babies without any
belief in Christ what-so-ever.
Jesus himself stated "He that BELIEVETH and is baptised, shall be saved"
duke
<nospa...@add.com> wrote:
>"DRS PURNOMO" <alma...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:8jh%h.4180$296...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Are Roman Catholics Christian?
>No! as they are not authentically baptised as adults.
>They are uselessly unscripturally 'christened' as hapless babies without any
>belief in Christ what-so-ever.
Christ didn't say that an infant had to believe.
In baptism, we are buried with Christ to sin in hopes of rising with him to the
Father.
Romans 6:3-4 (New International Version)
3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were
baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into
death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory
of the Father, we too may live a new life.
Colossians 2:12 (New International Version)
12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith
in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
The Catholic Church IS the church founded by Christ.
>Jesus himself stated "He that BELIEVETH and is baptised, shall be saved"
Jesus as also said:
Matthew 28:18-20 (New International Version)
18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has
been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing
them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and
teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you
always, to the very end of the age."
1. Make disciples (student)
2. Baptize.
3. Teach to obey.
You'll note that "student" starts with no knowledge (infant) to adult
(believes).
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
OrthoNews1
Geesh! This is biblically sound.
"1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist" <nospa...@add.com> wrote in
message news:_CB%h.6692$8E....@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
RCs chrismate as adolescence, baptise at birth. Baptists the reverse.
Christ & his mom were chrismated as infants.
Orthodox do both as infants because in those days a lot of newborns died.
But as to who is Christian.. those baptised in the name of Holy
Trinity are heterodox, Christians.. Mormons, JWs, Unitarians, Moonies
are heretics.. they can be nice people, but they ain't Christian..
- = -
Vasos Panagiotopoulos, Columbia'81+, Reagan, Mozart, Pindus, BioStrategist
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
[Urb sprawl confounds terror] [Remorse begets zeal] [Windows is for Bimbos]
OrthoNews1
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:0kut33h8ote2jqvt3...@4ax.com...
> The Catholic Church IS the church founded by Christ.
***No, it is in schism from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church since
the 11th century.
OrthoNews1
<vjp...@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com> wrote in message
news:f1n2t7$nt$2...@reader2.panix.com...
> Well, there is a distinction between chrismation and baptism..
> RCs chrismate as adolescence, baptise at birth. Baptists the reverse.
> Christ & his mom were chrismated as infants.
> Orthodox do both as infants because in those days a lot of newborns died.
***For the Orthodox, we are "born again" in the waters of our baptism.
Chrismation brings us, infants included, into the Body of Christ. Infants,
therefore, receive communion (as they do in Eastern Rite Roman Catholic
churches).
>
> But as to who is Christian.. those baptised in the name of Holy
> Trinity are heterodox, Christians.. Mormons, JWs, Unitarians, Moonies
> are heretics.. they can be nice people, but they ain't Christian..
***On the Unitarian web site, they admit that they are heretics.
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
<nospamat...@add.com> wrote:
> "DRS PURNOMO" <almad...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
Mr 10:15 - Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the
kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
Mt 18:10 - Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for
I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face
of my Father which is in heaven.
11:6 - The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard
shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the
fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
Ac 2:39 - For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to
all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Jim
Edward Curtis
LiamToo
Yes and the Bible said baptism is for everyone, including children.
Acts 2: 38-40, "Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins;
and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 "For the promise
is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as
the Lord our God will call to Himself." 40 And with many other words
he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "Be saved
from this perverse generation!"
Read and learn!
Olympiada
Eastern Orthodoxy is an adjective modifying Christianity.
Olympiada
LiamToo
wrote:
> Roman Catholicism is an adjective modifying Christianity, just like
> Eastern Orthodoxy is an adjective modifying Christianity.
Are you saying that since both churches baptize children, they are not
Christians as defined by the OP?
Olympiada
learned from an abbot, that Eastern Orthodoxy is an adjective not a
noun, and that I apply this to Roman Catholicism. This is the same abbot
who taught me that one can being on the Old Calendar and not be an Old
Calendarist and so I learned one can be female and not be a feminist.
Olympiada
duke
>***No, it is in schism from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church since
>the 11th century.
The one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church has a Pope as first assigned by
Jesus Christ.
duke
<amkemail2006-google-at-yahoo-dot-com> wrote:
>Roman Catholicism is an adjective modifying Christianity, just like
>Eastern Orthodoxy is an adjective modifying Christianity.
>Olympiada
The Eastern group walked away over the Papacy. The Pope is the man elected
Bishop of Rome, which was the Western Church.
.... . Timothy ... .
"Edward Curtis" <whfa...@myway.com> wrote in message
news:1178557192.3...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Just fixing the subject line. :)
>
The next question is, "Are Christadelphians Christian?", since such is the
original background of the poster who began this thread.
Tim.
LiamToo
> ***No, it is in schism from the One Holy Catholic and
> Apostolic Church since the 11th century.
Wrong! In fact in the words of some Orthodox writers, the
president...or..."first among equal Bishop of Rome" or simply the Pope
of the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" gave the ex-
communication to Patriach Cerularius first, through the Papal Legate,
Cardinal Humbert. Then in revenge, Cerularius gave the anathema to
Humbert alone, but not the Roman Catholic Church. However, both
anathemas were lifted in 1965 by both churches.
Orthodox bishop Kallistos Ware (formerly Timothy Ware) writes, "The
choice of Cardinal Humbert was unfortunate, for both he and
Cerularius were men of stiff and intransigent temper. . . . After [an
initial,
unfriendly encounter] the patriarch refused to have further dealings
with the legates. Eventually Humbert lost patience, and laid a bull
of excommunication against Cerularius on the altar of the Church of
the
Holy Wisdom. . . . Cerularius and his synod retaliated by
anathematizing Humbert (but not the Roman Church as such)" (From the
book, "The Orthodox Church," 67).
Olympiada
popes and Patriarchs and I don't know any popes or patriarchs yet. I am
merely embracing you as my Christian brother and saying I do not reject
you because you are Roman Catholic. I have many Roman Catholic friends,
know many Roman Catholic converts to Eastern Orthodoxy, clergy even, and
even have many books by Roman Catholic priests and scholars, given to
me. My own background is Roman Catholic and I chose to reject that in
favor of Eastern Orthodoxy. I am interested in building relationships
with Roman Catholics, not making enemies.
Olympiada
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
".... . Timothy ... ." <timr...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rcK%h.12892$615....@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
Christadelphians to which I was a member some 28 long years ago, are
properly baptised by water immersion, ONCE they confess their belief in
Christ and repent of their sins.
After that is up to each and every individual how they live the rest of
their lives before God.
But being 'christened', which is NOT a 1st Century baptism in any way shape
or form, does not invoke from God the sin forgiving saving name of Jesus.
They remain in their sins for the rest of their lives, and die in them also.
Jeff...
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
"LiamToo" <liamt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178557232.7...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On May 7, 3:41 am, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
> <nospamat...@add.com> wrote:
>> "DRS PURNOMO" <almad...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:8jh%h.4180$296...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> > Are Roman Catholics Christian?
>>
>> No! as they are not authentically baptised as adults.
>> They are uselessly unscripturally 'christened' as hapless babies without
>> any
>> belief in Christ what-so-ever.
>>
>> Jesus himself stated "He that BELIEVETH and is baptised, shall be saved"
>
> Yes and the Bible said baptism is for everyone, including children.
>
> Acts 2: 38-40, "Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be
> baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins;
> and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 "For the promise
> is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as
> the Lord our God will call to Himself."
Believing understanding children can be baptised, but not unbelieving
babies.
Think of the Ethiopian convert who ask Phillip the question.
" See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest"
Acts 8:37 (KJV)
Hapless babies do not believe in Christ, thus a 'christening' (which is not
baptism anyway) is a useless exercise.
> Read and learn!
Exactly!
Jeff...
Alexander Arnakis
>On Mon, 7 May 2007 07:35:31 -0400, "OrthoNews1" <Ortho...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
>>***No, it is in schism from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church since
>>the 11th century.
>
>The one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church has a Pope as first assigned by
>Jesus Christ.
>
The Pope, at most, is a first hierarch among equals. (In other words,
a "presider," not a "decider.") When Jesus Christ told Peter that
"Upon this rock I shall build My Church," He meant that the rock of
the Church was to be the *faith* exemplified by Peter, not the very
person of Peter. There is only one personality that's at the head of
the Church -- that of Christ Himself.
LiamToo
<nospamat...@add.com> wrote:
> Believing understanding children can be baptised, but not unbelieving
> babies.
>
> Think of the Ethiopian convert who ask Phillip the question.
> " See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
> 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest"
> Acts 8:37 (KJV)
>
> Hapless babies do not believe in Christ, thus a 'christening' (which is not
> baptism anyway) is a useless exercise.
You're not making any sense. Where in the Bible does it say hapless or
unbelieving babies cannot be baptized?
In every version of the Bible, the scripture is saying "everyone"
including children, no exceptions. Here read and learn!
Acts 2:38, " πετρος δε εφη προς αυτους μετανοησατε και βαπτισθητω
εκαστος υμων επι τω ονοματι ιησου χριστου εις αφεσιν αμαρτιων και
ληψεσθε την δωρεαν του αγιου πνευματος"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASB: Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the
name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will
receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GWT: Peter answered them, "All of you must turn to God and change the
way you think and act, and each of you must be baptized in the name of
Jesus Christ so that your sins will be forgiven. Then you will receive
the Holy Spirit as a gift.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KJV: Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of
you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye
shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASV: And Peter'said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of
you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and
ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BBE: And Peter said, Let your hearts be changed, every one of you, and
have baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of your
sins; and you will have the Holy Spirit given to you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DBY: And Peter said to them, Repent, and be baptised, each one of you,
in the name of Jesus Christ, for remission of sins, and ye will
receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEY: "Repent," replied Peter, "and be baptized, every one of you, in
the name of Jesus Christ, with a view to the remission of your sins,
and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WBS: Then Peter said to them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you
in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall
receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEB: Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized, every one of you,
in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will
receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YLT: and Peter said unto them, 'Reform, and be baptized each of you on
the name of Jesus Christ, to remission of sins, and ye shall receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit,
Alexander Arnakis
<Ortho...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
>***On the Unitarian web site, they admit that they are heretics.
>
"heretic" Christian is to admit that one is in the broader Christian
tradition. A Moslem, for example, is not a "heretic" with respect to
Christianity. He's a member of a different religion entirely.
Alexander Arnakis
What's not Christian is to look down your nose at and question the
authenticity of other Christians who may not agree with you in details
of practice and dogma.
LiamToo
> The Pope, at most, is a first hierarch among equals. (In other words,
> a "presider," not a "decider.") When Jesus Christ told Peter that
> "Upon this rock I shall build My Church," He meant that the rock of
> the Church was to be the *faith* exemplified by Peter, not the very
> person of Peter. There is only one personality that's at the head of
> the Church -- that of Christ Himself.
Yes and in the words of brilliant men of yesteryears are as follows:
Ignatius of Antioch: "Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds
the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy
of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy
of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the
presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the
Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).
Hermas: "Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send
one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then
send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty" (The Shepherd
2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).
"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have
taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions
may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1).
Dionysius of Corinth: "For from the beginning it has been your custom
to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send
contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom
your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting,
by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging
with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren
who are journeying" (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History
4:23:9 [A.D. 170]).
"Today we have observed the Lord's holy day, in which we have read
your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall
be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier
letter written to us by Clement" (ibid., 4:23:11).
The Martyrs of Lyons: "And when a dissension arose about these said
people [the Montanists], the brethren in Gaul once more . . . [sent
letters] to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia and, moreover to
Eleutherius, who was then [A.D. 175] bishop of the Romans, negotiating
for the peace of the churches" (Eusebius, Church History 5:3:4 [A.D.
312])
"And the same martyrs too commended Irenaeus, already at that time
[A.D. 175] a presbyter of the community of Lyons, to the said bishop
of Rome, rendering abundant testimony to the man, as the following
expressions show: 'Once more and always we pray that you may rejoice
in God, Pope Eleutherius. This letter we have charged our brother and
companion Irenaeus to convey to you, and we beg you to receive him as
zealous for the covenant of Christ'" (ibid., 5:4:1-2).
Irenaeus: "But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a
volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound
all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction
or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other
than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the
bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded
and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and
Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes
down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With
that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must
agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her
that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic
tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
Eusebius of Caesarea: "A question of no small importance arose at
that time [A.D. 190]. For the parishes of all Asia [Minor], as from an
older tradition held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which the
Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the
feast of the Savior's Passover. . . . But it was not the custom of the
churches in the rest of the world . . . as they observed the practice
which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of
terminating the fast [of Lent] on no other day than on that of the
resurrection of the Savior [Sunday]. Synods and assemblies of bishops
were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual
correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of
the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the
Lord's day and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on
this day only. . . . Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the
church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community
the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with
them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren
there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops,
and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of
neighborly unity and love. . . . [Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes
Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed
the tradition of an ancient custom" (Church History 5:23:1-24:11).
"Thus then did Irenaeus entreat and negotiate [with Pope Victor] on
behalf of the peace of the churches-[Irenaeus being] a man well-named,
for he was a peacemaker both in name and character. And he
corresponded by letter not only with Victor, but also with very many
and various rulers of churches" (ibid., 24:18).
Cyprian of Carthage: "The Lord says to Peter: 'I say to you,' he
says, 'that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,
and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the
keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth
shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they
shall be loosed also in heaven' [Matt. 16:18-19]). ... On him [Peter]
he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the
sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the
apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established
by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity.
Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a
primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but
one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds,
and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-
minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter,
can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert
the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be
confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church
4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
"Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided
to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the
province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their
decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to
both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church" (Letters 48:1,
3 [A.D. 253]).
"Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting ... You wrote ... that I
should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope]
Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know
that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic
Church" (ibid., 55[52]:1).
"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ,
by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the
people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good
men ... when the place of Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the
dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been
occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all
of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside [the
Church]. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to
the unity of the Church" (ibid., 55[52]:8).
"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare
even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to
the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which
sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).
Firmilian: "[Pope] Stephen ... boasts of the place of his episcopate,
and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the
foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. ... Stephen ...
announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter" (collected
in Cyprian's Letters 74[75]:17 [A.D. 253]).
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
<nospamat...@add.com> wrote:
> "LiamToo" <liamtoo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Heb 11:6 -But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he
that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder
of them that diligently seek him.
Since you claim infants of believing parents
have no faith, then it follows if they die before
they reach "The Age of Reason" they are under
the wrath of God.
view proposed by Albright is that the name is connected to shadayim
which means 'breasts' in Hebrew. It may thus be connected to the
notion of God's fertility and blessings of the human race. In several
instances it is connected with fruitfulness: "May God Almighty [El
Shaddai] bless you and make you fruitful and increase your
numbers . . ." (Gen. 28:3). "I am God Almighty [El Shaddai]: be
fruitful and increase in number" (Gen. 35:11). "By the Almighty [El
Shaddai] who will bless you with blessings of heaven above, blessings
of the deep that lies beneath, blessings of the breasts [shadayim] and
of the womb [racham] " (Gen. 49:25).
http://www.answers.com/topic/ha-shem
If you have ever seen a child at it's
mother's breast, you see a person
who has complete faith.
Jim
Paul J. Chiasson
The problem you have is placing everything within the the context
only of "scripture". Not even Martin Luther would have done
that. Catholicism was around and about long before Luther, and
it's stated in Acts that Paul, himself, baptized whole families
as units, child, parents, grandparents, whatever (the extended
family was the norm then). So, you see, the Tradition of the
Church is more important as action during the first generation of
Christians--ie. the apostles blessings and preaching and teaching
things that were only vaguely referenced in the Bible as a whole.
Think again about the Bible within the context of the first
forty years after Jesus; Mark was not written until just before
the end of or otherwise after the war against the Roman's (c. 66
- 75 CE), so where was the basis of the gospels if not in the
letters of the apostles--many which are now lost, because I am
sure that others beside those canonically approved wrote to their
congregations as well. No, the Church is the first recognition
by Christ of authority in his stead on earth; and that Church has
a direct link to Peter by Jesus's own blessing, no matter what
you literalists might want to re-make certain passages echo. You
can't have it both ways.
================================
Paul J. Chiasson
paul.c...@ns.sympatico.ca
ai...@chebucto.ns.ca
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/paul.chiasson
================================
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
> "DRS PURNOMO" <alma...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
che...@flapper.com
>"DRS PURNOMO" <alma...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:8jh%h.4180$296...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Are Roman Catholics Christian?
>
>No! as they are not authentically baptised as adults.
>They are uselessly unscripturally 'christened' as hapless babies without any
>belief in Christ what-so-ever.
>
>Jesus himself stated "He that BELIEVETH and is baptised, shall be saved"
>
I have several Roman Catholics who ARE Christians. They have FAITH in
Jesus Christ as their Savior and they submit to Him as their Lord.
Baptism has nothing to do with it. Baptism is NOT required to be
saved from the penalty of your sins.
in the Name of Jesus,
Checker
che...@flapper.com
<Ortho...@nospam.org> wrote:
>***Just told the Apostles to go and baptize with no restrictions on age.
>Geesh! This is biblically sound.
>
>
EVERY example of Baptism in the Bible is with Adults. NO infant is
baptized in the Bible. ONE REQUIREMENT is given for baptism. . .FAITH
IN JESUS CHRIST, something an infant does not have. He/she doesn't
even know that Jesus Christ exists.
Sorry, but you should STUDY your Bible. Then you might know what you
are talking about.
in Christ Jesus,
Checker
che...@flapper.com
<Ortho...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:0kut33h8ote2jqvt3...@4ax.com...
>
>> The Catholic Church IS the church founded by Christ.
>
>
>***No, it is in schism from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church since
>the 11th century.
>
According to them the ORTHODOX schismed, broke away.
Sorry, but you two groups will have to fight it out amongst
yourselves.
We Christians don't need to bother with your fight.
in Christ Jesus,
Checker
min...@gmail.com
the first Pope has always taught the necessity of Baptism for ALL.
Everyone, except The Blessed Virgin Mary (and most likely St. John the
Baptist) is born with the stain of Original Sin on his soul.
Therefore it has been the 2000 YEAR tradition of the Church to Baptize
babies.
Until the Protestant Relegion was MADE UP by MEN 1500 years later, it
was never even a question.
"But our Lord Himself said (John 3:5): 'Unless a man be born again of
water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'
Consequently it became necessary to baptize children, that, as in
birth they incurred damnation through Adam so in a second birth they
might obtain salvation through Christ. Moreover it was fitting that
children should receive Baptism, in order that being reared from
childhood in things pertaining to the Christian mode of life, they may
the more easily persevere therein; according to Prov. 22:5: "A young
man according to his way, even when he is old, he will not depart from
it." - St. Thomas Aquinas ("Summa Theologica" 13th century A.D.)
You have set yourself up as your own Pope in deciding the meaning of
our Lord's words. In doing so, you go against the unchanging
teachings of the One Church that Christ founded. You are also
preaching Heresy. By doing that, you seperate yourself from the
Church which is necessary for your salvation.
Is the Bible the sole authority and foundation of truth for
Christianity? No, the CHURCH is the "pillar and bulwark of truth" (1
Timothy 3:15) and the final authority (Matthew 18:17). Furthermore,
there are traditions to be observed which are on equal footing with
Scripture, for not everything the Apostles taught or Jesus said, was
written down (1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6; John
21:25).
"Wherever the bishop appears, let the congregation be there also.
Just as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church..."
St. Ignatius of Antioch ("Epistle to the Smyrnaeans," c. 105 A.D.)
"Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Savior of our souls, the Governor of our
bodies, and the Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the
world." St. Polycarp ("The Martyrdom Of St. Polycarp," c. 135 A.D.)
"The house of God is one, and there can be no salvation to anyone
except in the church." St. Cyprian of Carthage ("Letter 61," c. 250
A.D.)
"There is no salvation outside of the church." St. Cyprian of
Carthage ("Letter 72," c. 250 A.D.)
"The Catholic church is one." St. Victorinus ("Against Arius," c. 280
A.D.)
che...@flapper.com
Is that like it "not being Jewish" to look down your nose at and
question the authenticity of other Jews who may not agree with you?
Like Jesus did.
Like Paul Did.
Like ALL of the Apostles and disciples did?
LOL!
Sorry, but your claim that "it's not Christian" is a farce!
1 Thess 5:19-22
19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not despise prophecies. 21 Test all
things; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil.
NKJV
Testing the doctrines of your religion is a GOOD thing to do. If you
did that, you might become a Christian, maybe even a Baptist
Christian!
LOL!
In Christ Jesus,
Checker
Olympiada
> On May 7, 12:37 pm, Olympiada <amkemail2006-google-at-yahoo-dot-com>
> wrote:
>> I did not read the definition by the OP. I wanted to share what I
>> learned from an abbot, that Eastern Orthodoxy is an adjective not a
>> noun, and that I apply this to Roman Catholicism. This is the
>> same abbot who taught me that one can being on the Old
>> Calendar and not be an Old Calendarist and so I learned
>> one can be female and not be a feminist.
>
> should be because they are not males. My wife is a feminist and she's
> proud to be one.
>
> If you read the definition of a Christian as defined by the original
> poster, who might be Baptist, and make your opinion, then this thread
> will make sense.
>
Females should be feminists because they are not males? That makes no
sense at all. I know whole groups of male feminists. One does not need
to be female to be a feminist. Both male and females can and do make
gender a moral issue. A Christian is someone who believes that Christ is
God. Its hard enough to believe that in today's post baby boomer, post
hippie generation. All this other stuff, Roman Catholic, Eastern
Orthodox, Baptist, is the icing on the cake. That's all I need to know.
That person is teaching falsehood. The Eastern Orthodox church views
Baptists as heretics. And that Baptist is proving himself to be a
heretic for the world to see.
Olympiada
Alexander Arnakis
Traditionalist" <nospa...@add.com> wrote:
>
>Hapless babies do not believe in Christ, thus a 'christening' (which is not
>baptism anyway) is a useless exercise.
>
orientation. That is, you view the rite of baptism as affecting the
individual member of the Church, alone.
But baptism is a social, communal manifestation as well. When a baby
is baptized in Orthodoxy, this is a symbolic entrance of the child
into the community, and an affirmation of the relationships between
the child, its parents, and the larger community. In fact, one cannot
be fully Orthodox in social isolation. One's Orthodoxy is informed by
interaction with the entire Orthodox community. Even monks have to be
part of some kind of monastic community.
LiamToo
wrote:
> Females should be feminists because they are not males?
> That makes no sense at all. I know whole groups of male
> feminists. One does not need to be female to be a feminist.
> Both male and females can and do make gender a moral issue.
Really? I thought females are feminists as males as maleists? I really
don't know.
> A Christian is someone who believes that Christ is
> God. Its hard enough to believe that in today's post baby boomer, post
> hippie generation. All this other stuff, Roman Catholic, Eastern
> Orthodox, Baptist, is the icing on the cake. That's all I need to know.
> That person is teaching falsehood. The Eastern Orthodox
> church views Baptists as heretics. And that Baptist is
> proving himself to be a heretic for the world to see.
The Baptists even claim that their religion pre-dates the Orthodox and
Catholic Churches. When I asked them to name some of their members
before the 1500s, they become belligerent and resort the name-calling,
ad hominem and innuendos.
Alexander Arnakis
>On Mon, 07 May 2007 19:20:08 GMT, Alexander Arnakis
><inv...@address.none> wrote:
>
>>What's not Christian is to look down your nose at and question the
>>authenticity of other Christians who may not agree with you in details
>>of practice and dogma.
>
>Is that like it "not being Jewish" to look down your nose at and
>question the authenticity of other Jews who may not agree with you?
>
>Like Jesus did.
>Like Paul Did.
>Like ALL of the Apostles and disciples did?
>
>LOL!
>
>Sorry, but your claim that "it's not Christian" is a farce!
>
>Testing the doctrines of your religion is a GOOD thing to do. If you
>did that, you might become a Christian, maybe even a Baptist
>Christian!
>
>LOL!
>
The "bottom line" in Christianity is to be charitable to, love, and
respect your brothers (even those whom you don't even consider to be
Christian). Pharisaic condescension has no place in Christ's
teachings.
You won't persuade anyone by following the fanatic line.
Alexander Arnakis
>
>I have several Roman Catholics who ARE Christians. They have FAITH in
>Jesus Christ as their Savior and they submit to Him as their Lord.
>Baptism has nothing to do with it. Baptism is NOT required to be
>saved from the penalty of your sins.
>
standing of the Christian community. (If for no other reason than for
following the externals of social convention.)
Olympiada
> On May 7, 3:47 pm, Olympiada <amkemail2006-google-at-yahoo-dot-com>
> wrote:
>> Females should be feminists because they are not males?
>> That makes no sense at all. I know whole groups of male
>> feminists. One does not need to be female to be a feminist.
>> Both male and females can and do make gender a moral issue.
>
> Really? I thought females are feminists as males as maleists? I really
> don't know.
>
like Fire in the Belly by Sam Keen but that's not what I am dealing with
here. I think the male equivalent would be chauvinist.
>> A Christian is someone who believes that Christ is
>> God. Its hard enough to believe that in today's post baby boomer, post
>> hippie generation. All this other stuff, Roman Catholic, Eastern
>> Orthodox, Baptist, is the icing on the cake. That's all I need to know.
>> That person is teaching falsehood. The Eastern Orthodox
>> church views Baptists as heretics. And that Baptist is
>> proving himself to be a heretic for the world to see.
>
> The Baptists even claim that their religion pre-dates the Orthodox and
> Catholic Churches. When I asked them to name some of their members
> before the 1500s, they become belligerent and resort the name-calling,
> ad hominem and innuendos.
>
as Christians and leave it at that. I have a friend who is a Southern
Baptist pastor in my town and I get along fine with him. He even enjoys
talking about theology with me and wants to do so, at his initiation. In
addition there is a Baptist seminary in my town. All Christians can
co-exist if they choose to. Society is divided between atheists and
Christians. Why should we be divided amongst ourselves? We need to be
united.
I am a Christian convert, just so you know. Its God will, not mine, that
I be a Christian. I used to hate Christians, like St. Paul hated
Christians, believe it or not. In fact, I believe I used to persecute
them like St. Paul used to persecute them, which is why I am being
persecuted now. What goes around, comes around.
Olympiada
Troia
"Christian", or "Orthodox"?
-- Troia
Olympiada
Olympiada
There is no need to quote Christian or Orthodox, both are valid words.
Alexander is not a practicing Orthodox, by his own admission. I am.
duke
<nospa...@add.com> wrote:
>> Acts 2: 38-40, "Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be
>> baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins;
>> and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 "For the promise
>> is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as
>> the Lord our God will call to Himself."
>Believing understanding children can be baptised, but not unbelieving
>babies.
Nope, sorry. Acts 2:39 well says "for children" and that includes infants.
Baptism is not a belief thing, although belief for an older person does come
into play. Baptism brings one into the Body of Christ, from which the infant
will grow, learn, and become a disciple and member of the Body.
That's the way it's been for 2000 years.
>Ethiopian convert who ask Phillip the question.
>" See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
>37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest"
>Acts 8:37 (KJV)
Right, he was an adult, but Christ well said the Kingdom of Belongs to the
children, and he well said that no one can see the Kingdom of God unless they
are born again, ie, baptized.
>Hapless babies do not believe in Christ, thus a 'christening' (which is not
>baptism anyway) is a useless exercise.
You're beginning to understand now - belief by an individual in Christ is not
required to become a member of his Church. Belief develops later.
>> Read and learn!
>Exactly!
Pay attention to scripture.
duke
<nospa...@add.com> wrote:
>But being 'christened', which is NOT a 1st Century baptism in any way shape
>or form, does not invoke from God the sin forgiving saving name of Jesus.
>They remain in their sins for the rest of their lives, and die in them also.
That's exactly what it's been for 2000 years now - Christened, becoming a member
of the Body of Christ.
Troia
> Troia wrote:
>> Alexander Arnakis wrote:
>>> On Mon, 07 May 2007 14:21:49 -0600, che...@flapper.com wrote:
>>>> I have several Roman Catholics who ARE Christians. They have FAITH in
>>>> Jesus Christ as their Savior and they submit to Him as their Lord.
>>>> Baptism has nothing to do with it. Baptism is NOT required to be
>>>> saved from the penalty of your sins.
>>>>
>>> Maybe not, but baptism *is* required in order to be a member in good
>>> standing of the Christian community. (If for no other reason than for
>>> following the externals of social convention.)
>>>
>>
>> "Christian", or "Orthodox"?
>>
> Christian. Orthodox accept other baptisms, but not other chrismations.
> Olympiada
You are not in a position to answer; I asked Alex what he meant in his
writing.
>
> There is no need to quote Christian or Orthodox, both are valid words.
> Alexander is not a practicing Orthodox, by his own admission. I am.
Please do not attempt to tell me how to write, especially since you are
-always- WRONG in your judgments.
There is, in fact, a "need" to quote "Christian" or "Orthodox" just as I
did, even if you don't understand it, just as there is a need to quote
"need" in the preceding.
-- Troia
duke
wrote:
>>The one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church has a Pope as first assigned by
>>Jesus Christ.
>The Pope, at most, is a first hierarch among equals. (In other words,
>a "presider," not a "decider.") When Jesus Christ told Peter that
>"Upon this rock I shall build My Church," He meant that the rock of
>the Church was to be the *faith* exemplified by Peter, not the very
>person of Peter.
Actually Jesus meant "Vicar of Christ", as is evident to what has been actually
happening for 2000 years now as instituted by Christ - a continuation of the
Papacy from man to man - given the keys to the kingdom of God, to bind earth to
be so in heaven.
Matthew 16:17-20 (New International Version)
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not
revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you
are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[b]
will not overcome it.[c] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven;
whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on
earth will be[e] loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell
anyone that he was the Christ.
> There is only one personality that's at the head of
>the Church -- that of Christ Himself.
And Christ is in heaven, and the Pope is in charge on earth.
duke
>We Christians don't need to bother with your fight.
Which you do by turning your back on the Church that Jesus founded.
duke
>EVERY example of Baptism in the Bible is with Adults. NO infant is
>baptized in the Bible. ONE REQUIREMENT is given for baptism. . .FAITH
>IN JESUS CHRIST, something an infant does not have. He/she doesn't
>even know that Jesus Christ exists.
>Sorry, but you should STUDY your Bible. Then you might know what you
>are talking about.
Sorry, checker:
Acts 2:39 (New International Version)
39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off庸or all
whom the Lord our God will call."
You do recognize the verse that comes before, don't you. Verse 38 says "you,
your children, all called". Infants are children.
OrthoNews1
http://www.stjohndc.org/Russian/orthhtrdx/e_P04.htm
IV. The Great Schism of 1054
The breakaway of the Roman Church from the Church Universal occurred in the
following manner.
In the year 752, Pope Zacharias anointed Pepin the Short, the chief steward
of the Frankish kings, to be king, and by this gave, as it were, the
Church's blessing to the overthrow carried out by Pepin in the Frankish
kingdom that removed the lawful Frankish king from power. For this, Pepin,
in the year 755, took away from the Germanic tribe of the Lombards the lands
conquered by them in Italy and delivered into the pope's hands the keys to
twentytwo cities and the Ravenna Exarchate, which had previously belonged
to the Byzantine Empire. Thus, the Pope was transformed from a subject of
the Eastern Roman (Constantinopolitan) emperor into an independent secular
sovereign, not dependent on any other sovereign, with an independent
territory and with possession of supreme state authority on this territory.
This rapidly demoralized the papacy. The inner contradiction between the
ascetic ideal and secular authority appeared as a dangerous enemy of the
moral purity of the popes. It entailed a radical change not only in the
status, but also in the behavior, in the intentions, in the aspirations and
in the modi-operandi of the Roman popes. Conceit, pride, lust for power and
the aspiration to subordinate all the local churches to their authority,
which had previously appeared in the behavior of the Roman popes only as
tendencies, as sporadic phenomena now wholly take possession of the popes.
At first, the popes set themselves the task of strengthening their authority
in those Western churches the African, Spanish and Gallic Churches which
did not form a part of the Roman Church. Despite a certain resistance on the
part of the African Church, the popes succeeded comparatively easily in
securing the subordination to themselves of these churches: great was the
authority of Rome in these its former provinces.
As for the churches in Britain, Germany and in the other countries of
Western Europe that were newly founded by missionaries of the Roman bishop,
the popes succeeded in subordinating them to their authority all the more
easily, inasmuch as the idea of the supremacy of the pope in the Church was
inculcated in them simultaneously with the preaching of Christianity.
While subordinating to themselves the Western churches, the popes were
simultaneously taking measures in order to substantiate their authority, if
not dogmatically, then at least juridically. For this, a collection of
ecclesiastical juridical acts was compiled in the West at the beginning of
the ninth century in the name of Isidore, an authoritative Spanish sacred
minister. Since both the name of the compiler and the contents of the
collection, as was established later on, were spurious, it received the name
of the "PseudoIsidorian Decretals." The collection consists of three parts.
In the first part, there are fifty Apostolic Canons and sixty decretals of
the Roman popes. Of these sixty decretals, two are partly falsified, while
fiftyeight are altogether spurious. In the second part, among other
spurious material, there is the spurious donation of the city of Rome by the
Emperor Constantine the Great to the Roman Pope Silvester.
The collection was first published only at the end of the sixteenth century,
and then scholars proved without difficulty the spuriousness of the
documents that were in it. At the present time, even Catholic scholars do
not recognize their authenticity. But at that time, the collection served as
an authoritative basis for the development of ecclesiastical relations in
the West, inasmuch as it was accepted on faith, and in the course of all the
Middle Ages enjoyed the authority of authenticity. The popes began
categorically to cite the decretals of the collection in substantiation of
their rights to supremacy in the whole Church.
Pope Nicholas the First (858876) began first to cite the "PseudoIsidorian
Decretals," since he first formulated sharply and decisively the idea of
papal omnipotence in the Church. But the East, naturally, did not recognize
this omnipotence. Pope Nicholas the First tried to subordinate the East to
himself in a swoop. But he did not succeed in this. As a consequence of this
failure, the Church schism appeared: for the first time in the ninth
century, and definitively in the eleventh century (1054).
The external history of the falling away of the Roman Church is such.
Because of the minority of the Emperor Michael III, the Byzantine (Eastern)
Empire was ruled from the year 842 by his mother, Theodora, and the
Emperor's uncle, Bardas. The patriarch in Constantinople was Ignatius (from
the year 847). At the instigation of Bardas, the Emperor confined his mother
in a convent; but the Patriarch, who before this had reproached Bardas for
cohabiting with his daughterinlaw, opposed this. Bardas secured the
deposition of Ignatius (in the year 852) and the elevation of Photius a
man learned and worthy to the patriarchal throne. Enmity between the
partisans of Ignatius and Photius began. On the advice of Bardas, the
Emperor Michael decided to convoke a great council, to which he also invited
Pope Nicholas the First. The latter decided to make use of the occasion and
come out as the judge of the Eastern Church. He dispatched two of his
legates to the council with a letter to the Emperor.
In it, he wrote that the Emperor had acted incorrectly, contrary to the
Church canons, by having appointed one patriarch and by having deposed
another without the knowledge of the pope. The Constantinopolitan Council
(in the year 861), recognized Ignatius as deposed, and Photius as lawfully
installed as patriarch. Pope Nicholas the First might well have recognized
Photius as patriarch, if he had not seen in him a firm opponent of his
pretensions to supremacy in the Church. He wrote a letter to the Emperor
that declared Photius deprived of the patriarchal rank, and Ignatius
restored. In the year 862, the pope convoked a council in Rome, which
declared Photius deposed. In Constantinople, this enactment was not
recognized, and a breach between the churches began.
The question of the governance of the Bulgarian Church intensified the
inimical relations between the churches. In response to the arbitrary
actions of the pope and his clergy in Bulgaria, Photius assembled a Local
Council, at which he condemned all the Roman errors. In the year 867, a new
council assembled in Constantinople, with representatives of the Eastern
patriarchs, which again condemned the Roman errors and the pretensions of
Pope Nicholas the First in the East.
At this time, the Emperor Michael was killed through the intrigues of his
coruler, Basil the Macedonian, who occupied the imperial throne and sought
support from the pope. In Constantinople, in the year 869, in the presence
of papal legates, a council took place, which deposed Photius and recognized
the supremacy of the pope and the subordination of the Eastern Church to
him. But in the year 879, Ignatius died, and the Emperor Basil, who at that
time no longer needed the pope, restored Photius. In the same year of 879, a
council assembled in Constantinople with legates from Pope John VIII. Not
one of the pope's conditions did the council accept; and the pope did not
recognize the enactments of the council.
From the middle of the ninth century to the middle of the eleventh century,
relations between the churches were indeterminate, and contacts between them
were wanting, except for rare instances of correspondence by the emperors
with the popes. In the middle of the eleventh century, relations were
renewed, but only to end in a definitive breach. Leo IX was the pope at that
time, and Michael Cerularius was the patriarch in Constantinople. The pope
bethought to subordinate to himself certain churches in southern Italy that
were subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople, while the latter then
closed the Latin monasteries and churches located in Constantinople. For the
regularization of mutual relations, the pope sent his legates to
Constantinople, who behaved rudely and haughtily towards the patriarch.
Bishop Arsenius, in "The Chronicle of Church Events," describes the action
of the papal legates thus:
"And so, the papal legates, "having become bored by the opposition of the
patriarch," as they said, decided on a most insolent action. On the 15th of
July, they entered the Church of Hagia Sophia, and, while the clergy were
preparing for the service at the third hour of the day on Saturday, they
laid a bull of excommunication on the main altar in full view of the clergy
and people present. Going out thence, they shook off even the dust from
their feet as a testimony against them, according to the words of the Gospel
(Mathew 10: 14)), exclaiming: "Let God see and judge."
Thus does Cardinal Humbert himself portray the deed. In the bull of
excommunication, it was said incidentally: "As for the pillars of the Empire
and the honorable, wise citizens, the city (that is, Constantinople) is most
Christian and Orthodox. But as for Michael, who is unlawfully called
patriarch, and the champions of his stupidity, innumerable weeds of heresies
are scattered in it... Let them be anathema, let them be anathema
maranatha (I Corinthians 16:22). Amen." After this, and in the presence of
the emperor and his grandees, they orally pronounced: "whoever obstinately
begins to oppose the faith of the holy Roman and apostolic throne and its
sacrificial offering, let him be anathema, let him be anathema maranatha
(that is, let him be excommunicated and let him perish at the coming of the
Lord) and let him not be considered a Catholic Christian, but a heretical
Prozymite (that is, those who do not accept unleavened bread and prefer
leavened bread). So be it, so be it, so be it." The insolence of the papal
legates stirred up the whole population of the capital against them; only
thanks to the emperor, who esteemed their position as emissaries, were they
able to freely depart."
In response, a Constantinopolitan council gave the papal legates over to
anathema. From this time, the pope ceased to be commemorated in all the
Eastern churches at the divine services.
Thus, the causes of the Church schism in the ninth and eleventh centuries
were one and the same: the illegal pretensions of the popes to subordinate
to their authority all the local churches, with the simultaneous, as we
shall see below, deviations of the Roman popes from Orthodoxy in matters
dogmatical, canonical and ritual. In this is the essence of the events,
while those factual events that served as the concrete reason for the breach
happened by simple chance. It was not a matter of individual facts, but the
whole aggregate of the ideas and aspirations of the Romans popes of that
time. The spirit of lust for power begat the idea of a great and dangerous
untruth the unlimited sovereignty of the popes over the whole Universal
Church.
This subordination of the papacy to a sinful principle occurred only from
the ninth century. But when the Roman popes in the ninth century first
formulated their pretensions, they did not present them as innovations, but,
on the contrary, they naturally strove to prove that their authority was a
right, everywhere and always recognized in the Universal Church.
So, from the ninth century, the Eastern and Western Churches have gone along
different paths. The appellations which they themselves appropriated for
themselves speak of the aims pursued by them: the Eastern Church began to
call herself Orthodox, underscoring by this that her main aim is to preserve
the Christian faith unharmed. The Western Church began to call herself
Catholic (universal), underscoring by this that her main aim is the
unification of the whole Christian world under the authority of the Roman
pope.
©V.Potapov, 1996-98
OrthoNews1
<che...@flapper.com> wrote in message
news:em2v33tbql3dtaeiq...@4ax.com...
***It's really not a fight. Orthodoxy is the last vestige of the Church
founded by Christ at Pentecost.
Olympiada
to answer. I am a practicing Eastern Orthodox mother. He is not a
practicing Eastern Orthodox Christian. You are being misled. That's your
choice. He is seducing you spiritually. You may not talk down to me just
because you are older, own a house and a business, have a teenage
daughter, and are an experienced sub and Usenet user.
Olympiada
LiamToo
wrote:
> No, there is a men's movement, but that is different. There are books
> like Fire in the Belly by Sam Keen but that's not what I am dealing with
> here. I think the male equivalent would be chauvinist.
Aha, that's where the phrase "Male Chauvinist Pork" came from. I hope
you know that I kidding.
> I am a Christian convert, just so you know. Its God will, not mine, that
> I be a Christian. I used to hate Christians, like St. Paul hated
> Christians, believe it or not. In fact, I believe I used to persecute
> them like St. Paul used to persecute them, which is why I am being
> persecuted now. What goes around, comes around.
What goes around is your goodness now. And it will come around.
OrthoNews1
<che...@flapper.com> wrote in message
news:8j2v335kefshqupsk...@4ax.com...
***I did study the Bible. That is how I concluded that infants were not
excluded from the command to baptize entire families. There is **NO** ban on
infants in Holy Scripture.
duke
<amkemail2006-google-at-yahoo-dot-com> wrote:
>> The Eastern group walked away over the Papacy. The Pope is the man elected
>> Bishop of Rome, which was the Western Church.
>I am not interested in arguing this.
ok, don't.
> I believe that is a matter for
>popes and Patriarchs and I don't know any popes or patriarchs yet. I am
>merely embracing you as my Christian brother and saying I do not reject
>you because you are Roman Catholic. I have many Roman Catholic friends,
>know many Roman Catholic converts to Eastern Orthodoxy, clergy even, and
>even have many books by Roman Catholic priests and scholars, given to
>me. My own background is Roman Catholic and I chose to reject that in
>favor of Eastern Orthodoxy. I am interested in building relationships
>with Roman Catholics, not making enemies.
>Olympiada
Sorry, I didn't realize you were speaking as EOC. I was just expressing what my
understanding was.
LiamToo
> Sorry, but you two groups will have to fight it out amongst
> yourselves.
>
> We Christians don't need to bother with your fight.
Not a fight at all. Catholicism was the earliest vestige of
Christianity as manifested in the writings of early Christians as
follows:
"Wherever the bishop appears, let the congregation be there also.
Just as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church..."
St. Ignatius of Antioch ("Epistle to the Smyrnaeans," c. 105 A.D.)
"Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Savior of our souls, the Governor of
our
bodies, and the Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the
world." St. Polycarp ("The Martyrdom Of St. Polycarp," c. 135 A.D.)
"The house of God is one, and there can be no salvation to anyone
except in the church." St. Cyprian of Carthage ("Letter 61," c. 250
A.D.)
"The Catholic church is one." St. Victorinus ("Against Arius," c.
280
A.D.)
Olympiada
> On May 7, 4:34 pm, Olympiada <amkemail2006-google-at-yahoo-dot-com>
> wrote:
>> No, there is a men's movement, but that is different. There are books
>> like Fire in the Belly by Sam Keen but that's not what I am dealing with
>> here. I think the male equivalent would be chauvinist.
>
> Aha, that's where the phrase "Male Chauvinist Pork" came from. I hope
> you know that I kidding.
>
with men, and men will behave as chauvinistically with women as they
allow it. Therefore all the men in my life are gentlemen because I
wouldn't have it any other way. And I think they feel better about
themselves because I will not allow bad behavior.
Olympiada
OrthoNews1
Turner. This is a contribution to the interpretation of the biblical
passage: Matthew 16.18. the introduction states: "The passages of Holy
Scripture with which Roman Catholic theologians usually support the Pope's
primacy as heir to the Apostle Peter are the following: Matthew 16:13-19,
Luke 22:32, and John 21:15-17. In this present short study we shall deal
mainly with the verse 16. 18 from the section of St Matthew's Gospel,
following the synoptic process of canonical methodology. It is this verse,
after all, which is provided as the basis of the Roman Catholic Church's
governing system and its claims to papal primacy. It helps if the reader
understands and reads Greek because the author draws heavily on early texts
in Greek. This is from the web site of MYRIOBIBLOS, the e-text library of
the Church of Greece. (Links at the top of the article lead to its
translation in many languages.)
OrthoNews1
this sermon, Blessed Augustine, considered the "father" of the Latin
church's theology, argues so eloquently against the notion that Peter is the
"rock." A quote from the sermon:
Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the final days of His earthly life, in the
days of His mission to the race of man, chose from among the disciples His
twelve Apostles for preaching the Word of God. Among them, the Apostle Peter
for his fiery ardour was vouchsafed to occupy the first place (Mt 10:2) and
to be as it were the representative person for all the Church. And therefore
it is said to him, preferentially, after the confession: "And I give thee
the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: and if thou bindest upon the earth, it
will be bound in the Heavens: and if thou loosenest upon the earth, it will
be loosened in the Heavens (Mt 16; 19). Wherefore it was not one man, but
rather the One Universal Church, that received these "keys" and the right
"to bind and loosen." And that actually it was the Church that received this
right, and not exclusively a single person, turn your attention to another
place of the Scriptures, where the same Lord says to also all His Apostles:
"Receive ye the Holy Spirit" -- and further after this: "Whoseso sins ye
remit, are remitted them: and whoseso sins ye retain, are retained" (Jn
20:22-23); or: "with what ye bind upon the earth, will be bound in Heaven:
and with what ye loosen upon the earth, will be loosened in the Heavens" (Mt
18:18). Thus, it is the Church that binds, the Church that loosens; the
Church, built upon the foundational corner-stone -- Jesus Christ Himself
(Eph 2:20) doth bind and loosen. Let both the binding and the loosening be
feared: the loosening, in order not to fall under this again; the binding,
in order not to remain forever in this condition. Wherefore "by the passions
of his own sins -- says Wisdom -- is each ensnared" (Prov 5:22); and except
for Holy Church nowhere is it possible to receive the loosening.
OrthoNews1
"LiamToo" <liamt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178575691....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 7, 3:24 pm, chec...@flapper.com wrote:
>> Sorry, but you two groups will have to fight it out amongst
>> yourselves.
>>
>> We Christians don't need to bother with your fight.
>
> Not a fight at all. Catholicism was the earliest vestige of
> Christianity as manifested in the writings of early Christians as
> follows:
***True. But not a reference to the ROMAN CATHOLIC church. The term
"catholic" to describe the universality of The Church was first used in 92
A.D.
>
> "Wherever the bishop appears, let the congregation be there also.
> Just as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church..."
> St. Ignatius of Antioch ("Epistle to the Smyrnaeans," c. 105 A.D.)
***Not a reference to the ROMAN CATHOLIC Church.
>
> "Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Savior of our souls, the Governor of
> our
> bodies, and the Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the
> world." St. Polycarp ("The Martyrdom Of St. Polycarp," c. 135 A.D.)
***Not a reference to the ROMAN CATHOLIC Church.
>
> "The house of God is one, and there can be no salvation to anyone
> except in the church." St. Cyprian of Carthage ("Letter 61," c. 250
> A.D.)
***Not a reference to the ROMAN CATHOLIC Church. There was only one Church
at this time.
>
> "The Catholic church is one." St. Victorinus ("Against Arius," c.
> 280
> A.D.)
***Not a reference to the ROMAN CATHOLIC Church.
***All of these quotes are references to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic
Church. The term ROMAN CATHOLIC as an entity was not used until many decades
after the Great Schism in the 11th century.
OrthoNews1
Infant Baptism
Jordan Bajis
"Should I be baptized again" Many renewed Orthodox Christians have asked
themselves and others whether they should be baptized as adults. I readily
understand why this question is asked, for I myself must admit that I did
not always feel comfortable about the Orthodox Church baptizing infants. I
asked myself several other questions as well: "How can an infant 'believe
and be baptized'?" "Where in Scripture does it show an infant being
baptized?" "Is not the baptizing of infants the reason why the contemporary
Orthodox Church has a need for renewal and re-evangelization?"
These questions were so significant to me that I refused to actively support
or encourage the practice of infant baptism until I was able to get some
satisfactory answers. On one occasion I even rejected the honor of being the
best man at a close friend's wedding unless he was willing to absolve me of
the accompanying responsibility of being the baptismal sponsor for his first
child. Only after he agreed to my request did I consent to become his best
man.
Knowing that as a committed Christian I could not refrain indefinitely from
making a decision on this matter, I embarked on an intensive study of
Scripture and early Christian history. I resolved that I would not finish my
study until I had settled the issue in my mind and in my heart.
Surprisingly, the area was much more complex than I first envisioned it to
be. I must admit at the outset it looked as though the argument for infant
baptism was about as valid as the theory that the earth was cigar-shaped.
However, I uncovered many facts that are usually unknown to the common
layman and which I think will prove helpful for those who are now in a
doctrinal dilemma similar to the one I was in previously. I can now say,
after having looked into the arguments of some of the most respected
scholars on this subject, that there is a very strong case for the baptism
of infants of Christian parents.
Before I begin to share some of the things I discovered, I think it is
important to note that, although I have dedicated months to the thorough
study of this subject, I do not pretend to be a theologian, professor of
Church history, or Greek scholar. I am not an expert on the subject; I am a
student of the subject. It is also important to note, however, that the
evidences and arguments I produce here are, in the main, not my own but
rather a synthesis of research and conclusions distilled from several
noteworthy scholars. It is not my purpose to be overly technical, to
illustrate the minute peculiarity of each counter-argument's
counter-argument, or to take the reader back to study the original documents
in order to discuss grammatical controversies surrounding the texts. It is
not that I consider these types of investigations unimportant, but I simply
restrained myself from doing this because I do not think it is very
profitable for the average layman. The scholars are much better qualified
than I to define and explain these more exacting details, in any case.
Given this preface, let me get to the point of the article. How is it that I
can now recognize infant baptism as a valid practice whereas before I was
highly distrustful of it? I will record a number of reasons for this below
in as straightforward and direct a way as I know. Some facts will require a
bit of explanation, but many will consist of only a sentence or two. At the
close of the list, I will offer some concluding thoughts and insights about
infant baptism. I have categorized the evidence supporting the practice of
infant baptism into three main sections: Scripture, History, and the Fathers
of the Early Church. I recognize that each argument may not be able to stand
on its own, but taken together they present a conclusive picture.
SCRIPTURE
Peter's Sermon
The first time the Gospel was ever proclaimed was on the day of Pentecost by
the Apostle Peter. In his Spirit-inspired sermon he made it clear that the
blessing and promise of salvation was not just for adults, but for children
as well.
"And Peter said to them, 'Repent and let each of you be baptized in the
name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children,
and for all who are far off as many as the Lord our God shall call to
Himself " (Acts 2:38,39).
It is also interesting to note that this quote from Peter's Pentecostal
sermon does not merely state "... the promise is for you and children," but
"for you and your children," which makes it clear that the children
mentioned here were young enough to still be considered under the protection
and authority of their parents. This is underscored when one understands
that it was common for women and men to marry at the very young ages of
twelve and thirteen, respectively. From this it becomes reasonable to assume
that these children to whom Peter refers were young juveniles or, at the
very least, in their preadolescence.
The Baptism of Households
Although this is only indirect Scriptural evidence, the fact that the Bible
mentions that entire "households" were baptized does make it seem probable
that children and infants were included. "Now I did baptize the household of
Stephanas . . . " (1 Corinthians 1:16) (An angel spoke to Cornelius saying)
"Send to Joppa, and have Simon, who is called Peter, brought here; and he
shall speak words to you by which you will be saved, and all your household
" (Later, when Peter arrived at (Cornelius' household) "... he ordered them
to be baptized."(Acts 11:13b, 14; Acts 10:48a) "And when she (Lydia of
Thyatira) and her household had been baptized . . . " (Acts 16:15a) "Believe
in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household . . . and
immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. " (Acts 16:31, 33b)
We know that the Greek word oikos, translated "house" or "household," has
traditionally included infants and children in its meaning for several
reasons. There is no evidence of this word being used either in secular
Greek, Biblical Greek,or in the writing of Hellenistic Judaism in a way
which would restrict its meaning only to adults. The Old Testament parallel
for "house" carries the sense of the entire family. The Greek translation of
the original Hebrew manuscripts (completed in 250 B.C.) uses this word when
translating the Hebrew word meaning the complete family (men, women,
children, infants). Similarly, we know that the phrase "he and his house"
refers to the total family; the Old Testament use of this phrase clearly
demonstrates this by specifically mentioning the presence of children and
infants at times.
No Baptism of Older Children of Christian Parents Recorded
If the baptism of infants was not acceptable during New Testament times,
then when does Scripture mention the alternative - the baptism of the
children of Christian parents once they have matured out of infancy? The
Bible never gives one example of the baptism of a Christian child as an
adult. It is important that Scripture also does not speak of an "age of
accountability or reason" (which many pinpoint at 13 years) when a child's
capacity to believe the Gospel is developed enough so that he can receive
baptism. Neither does the Bible state that every child is in a "suspended
state of salvation" until they have reached this age, which one would have
to believe if he held to the "age of accountability" theory.
The Saving Power of Christ's Presence in Holy Baptism
Although an opponent of infant baptism, Dr. Jewett, in his book Infant
Baptism and the Covenant of Grace, makes a very logical conclusion about
baptism if it is understood to be a release of supernatural power:
"... one believes that baptism washes away the guilt of eternal sin, so
that any one departing this life without it is in danger of eternal
damnation, he will have good reason to conclude that infants should be
baptized. In fact, the question of infant baptism can hardly be raised
without such a sacramental theology, since an affirmative answer is a
foregone conclusion."
Certainly if there were a taint of sin upon each who is born in this world,
there would be a need for every person to be cleansed from this impurity
before leaving the temporal life. The Bible's "sacramental theology" states
that there is such a need since "... through one man sin entered the world,
and death through sin, and so death spread to all men." (Romans 5:12) For
this reason " ... there are none righteous, not even one" (i.e. not
infants). (Romans 3:10) How are these young ones saved from the sin they
have received from Adam's race? They are saved through the regenerative
power of baptism and the faith of the Church (i.e. the Christian faithful):
"He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in
righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration
baptism) and renewing by the Holy Spirit." (Titus 3:5)
"Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for
the forgiveness of your sins." (Acts 2:38)
"Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water
and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.' " (John 3:5)
"... when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the
construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were
brought safely through the water, and corresponding to that, baptism now
saves you." (1 Peter 3:20,21)
Baptism is not just a symbolic testimony of what God has done in the heart
of an adult believer, but is in itself a dynamic means of actually effecting
the power of the Gospel (the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ) in a
life (Romans 6:4). Christian baptism is the means whereby we encounter and
identify with Jesus Christ Himself. This is one of the reasons why Paul
explains baptism as the manner in which we genuinely "put on" or "clothe"
ourselves with Christ (Galatians 3:27). This is not just a metaphor, the
Lord actually transforms a person through his baptism.
The Old Testament Symbols of Salvation and Baptism Include Infants:
1.. Circumcision, the sign of God's covenant between the people of Abraham
and Himself, was performed on every male child who was eight days old
(Genesis 17:12). Many see a direct parallel between circumcision and
Christian baptism in Scriptural passages such as Colossians 2:11,12: "And in
Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the
removal of the body of flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been
buried with Him in baptism ..." If baptism is the "New Testament
circumcision" there can definitely be no objection to "sealing" the infant
of a consecrated Christian family in Christ's New Covenant.
2.. Moses' leading his people through the Red Sea is seen as an Old
Testament foreshadowing of Christian baptism. The following New Testament
passage clearly points to this: "For I do not want you to be unaware,
brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through
the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and
all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink, for
they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them, and that rock
was Christ." (1 Corinthians 10:1-4) It is worthwhile to note that "all were
baptized" through Moses' leadership in crossing over the Red Sea. He did not
leave the infants or children on the shores of Egypt to become prey to the
angry armies of Pharaoh because they were not old enough to believe in the
promise of the Old Covenant. Rather, entrusted to the arms of their parents'
faith, they were carried through the "baptism of Moses."
3.. The saving of Noah's entire family by the ark can also be seen as a
prefigurement of a baptism which includes infants. All that needs to be
said, as in the case of Moses' passing through the Red Sea, is that the
entire family was on board the ark. Why should we leave infants out of the
ark of baptism?
Secular Philosophy Redefines "Faith" and "Personhood"
Larry Christenson, in his pamphlet "What About Baptism", quotes Edmund
Schlink (author of The Doctrine of Baptism) as stating that the rejection of
infant baptism was based on the secular philosophy of the sixteenth century
which assured man's individuality, and was not the result of a new
Scriptural inquiry:
"'Belier was seen in rationalistic and volitional terms, as an act of the
mind and the will. 'Because an infant cannot think or decide, it cannot have
faith, and therefore should not be baptized.' To this day. that is the only
argument raised against the validity of infant baptism. One tosses off the
sentence as though it were self-evident truth: 'A child can't believe.' But
that 'truth,' upon examination, is neither self-evident, nor is it
Biblical."
As Christenson goes on to say, faith is not merely a product of reason but
relation. It is a relationship of love and trust, a relationship which is
not limited to the mind. Some Scriptures which support the possibility of an
"infant faith" are these:
"Yet Thou are He who didst bring me forth from the womb; Thou didst make
me trust when upon my mother's breast." (Psalm 22:9)
"And whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it
would be better for him if with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he
had been cast into the sea." (Mark 9:42)
"For behold, when the sound of your greeting [Theotokos] reached my ears
[Elizabeth], the baby [John the Baptist] leaped in my womb for joy." (Luke
1:44)
CHURCH HISTORY
a.. Polycarp stated at his martyrdom (167/8 A.D.) that he had been in the
"service of Christ" for eighty-six years. Other recorded dates from
Polycarp's life make it likely that eighty-six years was his age from birth.
Jaochim Jeremias, in The Origins of Infant Baptism, concludes the following
from these facts: "This shows at any rate that his parents were already
Christians, or at least were converted quite soon after his birth. His
parents were pagans at his birth, he would have been baptized with the
'house' at their conversion. But even if his parents were Christians, the
words 'service of Christ for eighty-six years' supports a baptism soon after
his birth rather than one as a child of 'mature years' ... for which there
is no evidence at all."
a.. Jeremias supposes something similar for Polycrates of Ephesus. In
190/91, when writing to Rome concerning the dispute over Easter, Polycrates
states that he is "sixty five years in the Lord." Since this reference to
his age is made "because of his concern for his long unimpeachable Christian
standing," Jeremias postulates that his baptism "took place soon after
birth, rather than that there was an age limit for baptism."
a.. Justin Martyr gives still another testimony to the practice of infant
baptism by stating that many old men and women of sixty and seventy years of
age had been disciples of Christ from childhood.
a.. No incident is recorded in the earliest of Christian history which
gives evidence that baptism was forbidden to any person on the basis of an
age limit, or that the right of a Christian parent to have his children
baptized had ever been challenged or renounced.
a.. Although several examples exist from the third century of the children
of Christians being baptized as infants, in all of the literature and
collections of inscriptions from that century there is not a single example
of Christian parents delaying the baptism of their children.
a.. Neither the Ebionites, Novatians, Arians, Donatists, Montanists, nor
any other early heresy refuted infant baptism; many were even noted as
practicing it.
a.. A significant parallel exists between Jewish proselyte baptism (when
pagans were converted to Judaism) and early Christian baptism. The contacts
between early Christian baptism and proselyte baptism, with the similarities
in terminology, interpretation, symbolism, and the rite itself, are
especially notable. What is of greatest interest, however, is that the
baptism of the early Church followed that of proselyte baptism, in which
children and infants were baptized with the convert's family. This is
especially significant when one realizes that the very early Church was made
up primarily of converted Jews.
a.. There is no evidence that anyone being against infant baptism in the
early Church on the grounds that you must first "believe" and be baptized.
Tertulian (160 230 A.D.), was the only one who questioned infant baptism.
The bulk of his objection, however, was due to his heresy that sin after
baptism was almost unforgivable.
a.. Cyprian, a leading bishop of North Africa, convened a synod of
sixty-six bishops at Carthage to discuss whether or not they felt that
infant baptism should be delayed until the eighth day after birth instead of
the usual second or third day. Their unanimous decision upheld the
universally accepted practice which they had always followed.
EARLY CHURCH FATHERS
a.. A very early Christian teacher, Irenaeus (120-202 A.D.), wrote the
following:
"He came to save all through Himself - all I say, who through Him are
reborn in God-infants, and children, and youth, and old men. Therefore He
passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying
infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age, and at
the same time becoming for them an example of piety, of righteousness, and
of submission; a young man for youths, becoming an example for youths and
sanctifying them for the Lord."
Here we read that Jesus Christ came that all might be reborn in God. "How
can an infant be reborn if he cannot believe?" a person may ask. I ask in
return, "How can an infant be reborn if his Christian parents have refrained
from baptizing him?" Is a child who has not reached the "age of
accountability/reason" not reborn until he reaches the age of thirteen when
he then needs to be reborn?
a.. Origen's (185-254 A.D.) view of baptism is direct and transparent:
"For what is sin? Could a child who has only just been born commit a sin?
And yet he has sin for which it is commanded to offer a sacrifice, as Job
14:4ff and Psalm 51:5-7 show. For this reason the Church received from the
Apostles the tradition to administer baptism to the children also. For the
men to whom the secrets of divine mysteries had been entrusted knew that in
everyone there were genuine sinful defilements, which had to be washed away
with water and the Spirit."
In his Homily on Luke he again states his beliefs on infant baptism:
"Infants are baptized for the remission of sins. What sins? Whenever have
they sinned? In fact, of course, never. And yet: 'No one is free from
defilement.' (Job 14:4) But defilement is only put away by the mystery of
baptism. That is the reason why infants too are baptized. "
a.. Hippolytus' (170-236 A.D.) perception of infant baptism is clear and
straightforward as well:
"And first baptize the little ones; and if they can speak for themselves,
they shall do so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for
them."
a.. There is not one Church Father who denies or even questions the
validity of infant baptism. It was in no locality and at no time viewed as
something that was created after New Testament times.
SOME FINAL COMMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS:
The evidences I have so far presented I believe merit attention by
themselves. I would like, however, to make a number of random yet
significant comments and observations about the area of infant baptism
before I close this article.
Many times the debate regarding infant baptism is a defensive one; those who
propose that adult baptism is the only valid form challenge those who
practice infant baptism to prove that it is an acceptable practice. What if
those who exclusively favor adult baptism were interrogated? What answers
would they give to questions which up until now have been virtually
unaddressed? Questions such as these:
a.. If infant baptism is a later invention, when did it begin and who
began it? Where did it originate?
b.. Why are there no protests against the validity of infant baptism from
anyone in the early Church?
c.. Where is anything found in Scripture that expressly forbids the
baptism of infants or children?
d.. How is it that God established a covenantal, corporate relationship
with the tribes of Israel in the Old Testament, but you interpret the New
Testament as abolishing the faith of an entire household with the father at
its head in favor of a solely individualistic faith?
e.. Where does Scripture prescribe any age for baptism?
f.. Even if there were a special age when someone's faith reached
"maturity," how could one discern that? Doesn't faith always mature? When is
faith mature enough for baptism and when is it not? Who can judge?
g.. Where in Scripture does it say that children are free from the effects
of the Fall simply because they are not old enough to believe? (Even
creation is under the curse of mankind's fall - Romans 8:19-21).
h.. What about the many Biblical meanings and early Christian
understandings of baptism other than the one defining it as a visible sign
of inward repentance, meanings such as the sacrament of regeneration (Titus
3:5), a grafting into the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13), a passage
from the reign of Satan into Christ's authority (Romans 6:17), the
expression of the manifestation of God (Luke 3:21,22), an admission into
God's covenant (Colossians 2:11), the Lord's act of adoption and our putting
on of Christ (Galatians 3:26,27)? Why should these things be taken away from
the small child of a Christian family?
i.. If it was the norm to baptize children at a later age, why is there no
evidence in Scripture or early Church history of instruction given to
parents on how to help their adolescent children prepare for baptism?
j.. If it is granted that baptism is for the remission of sins, why would
the Church ever want to give baptism to infants if there were nothing in the
infants which needed remission? Would not the grace of baptism, in this
context, seem superfluous?
k.. In essence, laying aside all the polemics and prejudices and academic
intricacies, what Scriptural principle is being violated if a child is
baptized and matures in his faith?
There is a good reason why these questions are hard to answer for those who
exclusively advocate adult baptism: infant baptism is not an innovation, it
is the practice of the Early Church.
Over and over again I am told that is incorrect to allow infants to be
baptized because the Scriptural order is to first believe, and then to be
baptized (Mark 16:16). The error in this thinking is not that it is
incorrect to have an adult believe before he is baptized, but that one
cannot apply a command intended for adults to infants. The Bible was not
written to infants and is therefore not going to direct them to do anything.
They are under the care of their parents who can hear, understand, and
believe. Additionally, there is an important distinction to be made between
baptizing an infant and an adult believer-one has the need to repent, the
other does not.
It is also important to recognize that the New Testament records the
beginnings of the Christian people. This accounts for it reading like a
missionary diary in a number of places. I am certain that were I to begin an
apostolic work in a totally heathen country, and to write to the people
there or to record my progress in preaching the Gospel to them, I would not
mention infant baptism even once.
Some may ask why Sts. John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nanziansus, Basil the
Great, and Jerome were all baptized as adults, even though they had at least
one Christian parent. The earliest evidence that Christian parents refrained
from having their child baptized immediately after birth is in the middle of
the fourth century (Gregory was the first example of this in 360 A.D.). None
of these men postponed their baptism because of faith, however. Surely
Gregory and John Chrysostom at 30, Jerome at 20, and Basil at 27 (at which
ages they were baptized) had reached the "age of reason" and individual
faith long before then. They postponed their baptisms on the false premise
that they could better assure themselves a place in heaven if they minimized
the times they sinned after baptism. None of these men ever challenged the
validity of infant baptism.
Baptism in and of itself, of course, is not enough. It must be accompanied
by genuine faith. No parents should be allowed to baptize their infant if
they themselves have not made an expressed commitment to serve Jesus Christ
and raise their child in accordance with God's Word. As adults, we are
called to accept the challenge of our baptism and live dedicated lives for
Christ. If we do any less, we have rejected Christ and the gift of salvation
He has made available to us since our birth.
Going full circle, I now end this article with the question with which I
began it: "Should I be baptized again?" Given that our infant baptism is
valid, the Scriptural answer to that question is clear" "There is ... one
Lord, one faith, ONE baptism." (Ephesians 4:4,5) If you have been baptized
once, there is no need to be baptized again. Let us then determine to bear
witness to the truth of our baptism by living for Him who died and rose for
us.
Š 2003 Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
www.goarch.org
Alexander Arnakis
>
>Baptism is not a belief thing, although belief for an older person does come
>into play. Baptism brings one into the Body of Christ, from which the infant
>will grow, learn, and become a disciple and member of the Body.
>
much significance to the community as a whole, as it does to the
individual directly involved. Emphasizing *only* the individual aspect
is a very Protestant and western way of looking at it.
Alexander Arnakis
>
>Actually Jesus meant "Vicar of Christ", as is evident to what has been actually
>happening for 2000 years now as instituted by Christ - a continuation of the
>Papacy from man to man - given the keys to the kingdom of God, to bind earth to
>be so in heaven.
>
with you. In fact, this was the main reason for the Great Schism. If
there's ever going to be a reunion of the churches, the Roman
Catholics will have to give up this doctrine. As unlikely as it sounds
now, this may well happen in the future.
ChapelMouse
<snip>
>> Really? I thought females are feminists as males as maleists? I really
>> don't know.
> No, there is a men's movement, but that is different. There are books
> like Fire in the Belly by Sam Keen but that's not what I am dealing with
> here. I think the male equivalent would be chauvinist.
No, it wouldn't. A male chauvinist believes men are *superior*
to women, and dismisses them. A feminist believes women are
equal to men, and wants both men and women to be judged on merit
as individuals, not as members of a gender. The male equivalent
of a feminist...is a feminist.
<snip>
> Society is divided between atheists and
> Christians.
No, society is divided into a large variety of faith
communities, agnostics, and a small number of real
atheists, who are very rare, actually.
<snip>
che...@flapper.com
Not according to the rcc. They say THEY are it and YOU are the
"schism" group.
in Christ Jesus,
Checker
che...@flapper.com
You make the false ASSUMPTION that they baptized infants and people
who did not beleive in Jesus. The Bible makes NO allowance for
either.
in Christ Jesus,
Checker
che...@flapper.com
<inv...@address.none> wrote:
>On Mon, 07 May 2007 14:28:47 -0600, che...@flapper.com wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 07 May 2007 19:20:08 GMT, Alexander Arnakis
>><inv...@address.none> wrote:
>>
>>>What's not Christian is to look down your nose at and question the
>>>authenticity of other Christians who may not agree with you in details
>>>of practice and dogma.
>>
>>Is that like it "not being Jewish" to look down your nose at and
>>question the authenticity of other Jews who may not agree with you?
>>
>>Like Jesus did.
>>Like Paul Did.
>>Like ALL of the Apostles and disciples did?
>>
>>LOL!
>>
>>Sorry, but your claim that "it's not Christian" is a farce!
>>
>>Testing the doctrines of your religion is a GOOD thing to do. If you
>>did that, you might become a Christian, maybe even a Baptist
>>Christian!
>>
>>LOL!
>>
>The "bottom line" in Christianity is to be charitable to, love, and
>respect your brothers (even those whom you don't even consider to be
>Christian). Pharisaic condescension has no place in Christ's
>teachings.
>
>You won't persuade anyone by following the fanatic line.
Nor will you. And all of the manmade orchestrations of your religion
don't make it Christ's church either.
The FIRST part of the Bottom Line is to LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH
ALL YOUR HEART AND MIGHT AND MIND AND STRENGTH.
And if you see your BROTHER in trouble, following false leaders, do
you REALLY LOVE HIM if you don't tell him about it?
in Christ Jesus,
Checker
ChapelMouse
This is one reason Anglicans/Episcopalians, and the group within
Anglicanism which defines itself as Anglo-Catholic, sees itself as
so close to the Orthodox. We see ourselves as in the Apostolic
Succession, but not part of the Roman church. We can trace our
line of ordination back to a Christian Church in the British Isles
in Roman times. There is an old British legend that Joseph of
Arimathea was a tin merchant who brought the Grail to England
after Christ's death, and the British Church continued in Ireland
and Brittany after the Angles and Saxons overran Britain itself.
The break with Rome did not make the Church of England a
Protestant denomination. The doctrine and form of ordination
in Church of England and Church of Scotland ( which ordained the
first post-American-Revolution bishops in the U.S. )continued
unchanged from the earlier period. But the concept of
government returned to the older and earliest form of
churches ruled independently and co-equally in the Orthodox
form.
che...@flapper.com
<inv...@address.none> wrote:
>On Mon, 07 May 2007 14:21:49 -0600, che...@flapper.com wrote:
>>
>>I have several Roman Catholics who ARE Christians. They have FAITH in
>>Jesus Christ as their Savior and they submit to Him as their Lord.
>>Baptism has nothing to do with it. Baptism is NOT required to be
>>saved from the penalty of your sins.
>>
>Maybe not, but baptism *is* required in order to be a member in good
>standing of the Christian community. (If for no other reason than for
>following the externals of social convention.)
Actually being baptized is responding to Jesus' command to baptize
(and by inferance to BE baptized).
It is not a social thing, but an obedience thing. Pouring,
sprinkling, spraying, or spitting water on a baby only makes for a
baby who is wet.
in Christ Jesus,
Checker
++
>>
>>
>
> "Christian", or "Orthodox"?
>
> -- Troia
>
Dear Troia,
Same difference, even if the individuals who can be characterized as
both by God don't themselves know the difference.
Olympiada
feminists I take issue with. I am going to have to speak to that priest
who divided society into atheists and Christians. This was published in
a book published by my local Church, so really I need to speak to my
local Church about it and get back to you on it. I am more traditional
than most laity and clergy of my local Church, just so you know.
Olympiada
Olympiada
Olympiada
OrthoNews1
<che...@flapper.com> wrote in message
news:vdiv33pakej81d7ur...@4ax.com...
***Of course they must say this. It's part of their empire-building tactic
which, as we can see, is falling apart in many areas of the world...like the
U.S. Just the same, what the RCC says is immaterial to the Orthodox because
it doesn't change the facts.
OrthoNews1
<che...@flapper.com> wrote in message
news:nbiv33p38903bndl5...@4ax.com...
***I said nothing about nonbelievers. But I challenge you to quote the
chapter, and verse specifically banning infants from baptism.
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
because St Irene being a woman, he considered the chair empty.
Many of the differences in the eastern and western RITES predate
Constantine and hail from the catacombs. The Basil-vs-Augistine dichotomy
propogated that.
- = -
Vasos Panagiotopoulos, Columbia'81+, Reagan, Mozart, Pindus, BioStrategist
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
[Urb sprawl confounds terror] [Remorse begets zeal] [Windows is for Bimbos]
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
The Slavs and the Germans, overeager new converts (doesn't ANYTHING
change?) played a major role in worsening the hostilities.
The Slavs were more interested in the Bosporus than in any "heaven on
earth". The first "Third Rome" sillyness was squashed by Basil the
Bulgar-Slayer when he blinded the Bulgarian army, leving a few with only one
eye to guide the rest back. (I guess Vulgarotiflor doesn't sound as poetic as
Vulgaroktonor.)
An Orthodox Italian used to write in the Arizona listserv he wished to
"Liberate the Vatican from amillenium of German occupation!"
leushino
> On Mon, 07 May 2007 19:03:23 GMT, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
> <nospa...@add.com> wrote:
>
>>> Acts 2: 38-40, "Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be
>>> baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins;
>>> is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as
>>> the Lord our God will call to Himself."
>
>> Believing understanding children can be baptised, but not unbelieving
>> babies.
>
> Nope, sorry. Acts 2:39 well says "for children" and that includes infants.
> Baptism is not a belief thing, although belief for an older person does come
> into play. Baptism brings one into the Body of Christ, from which the infant
> will grow, learn, and become a disciple and member of the Body.
>
>
>> Ethiopian convert who ask Phillip the question.
>> " See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
>> 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest"
>> Acts 8:37 (KJV)
>
> Right, he was an adult, but Christ well said the Kingdom of Belongs to the
> children, and he well said that no one can see the Kingdom of God unless they
> are born again, ie, baptized.
>
>> Hapless babies do not believe in Christ, thus a 'christening' (which is not
>> baptism anyway) is a useless exercise.
>
> You're beginning to understand now - belief by an individual in Christ is not
> required to become a member of his Church. Belief develops later.
>
>>> Read and learn!
>> Exactly!
>
> Pay attention to scripture.
>
>
> duke, American-American
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
> *****
My dear deluded Sir. YOu do NOT KNOW whether infants believe or not, do
you?! Of course not. The Psalmist David said, "Thou art He that didst
make me to trust upon my mother's breast." Babies can trust, Sir. And
trust, not comprehension, is enough.
The Israelites did not leave their infants on Egypt's banks because they
could not understand the gravity of the situation. They carried them
across the part Red Sea to freedom whereas Pharoah's army was drowned.
St Paul tells us these things were a foreshadowing of spiritual things.
The Israelites were baptized as it were in the Sea as they fled from
Egypt, a type of the world, towards the Kingdom (heaven). Our infants
are carried through the waters of baptism by our faithfulness to our
Lord. They trust us. The baptism does not guarantee Heaven, just as
crossing the Red Sea did not guarantee the Kingdom. There was still 40
years of wandering in the wilderness and eating manna (bread from
heaven... the Eucharist, my friend). Our Lord says as much in the Gospel
of John chapter 6. It's all there in the scriptures. Christians
everywhere from antiquity have believed this. Only the last few
generations of rebellious Protestant fundamentalists have rejected the
clear teaching of the scriptures and the Church of our Lord.
leushino
> On Mon, 07 May 2007 19:03:23 GMT, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
> <nospa...@add.com> wrote:
>
>> or form, does not invoke from God the sin forgiving saving name of Jesus.
>> They remain in their sins for the rest of their lives, and die in them also.
>
> That's exactly what it's been for 2000 years now - Christened, becoming a member
> of the Body of Christ.
>
>
> duke, American-American
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
> *****
Evidently you are a rather ignorant of Christian history. Instead of
spouting off, why not ask some questions and learn something?
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
In order to combat your opponent you have to UNDERSTAND your opponent..
too many post what they have been taught and what they believe
without understanding the CONTEXT in which their opponent perceives them..
realise that every time someone like you replies to them, it only innoculates
them, provides an antibody.. the successful infection has to enter less
obviously, by stealth, appearing almost to agree with them long enough to get
their attention and not be ignored instinctively..
duke
wrote:
>On Mon, 07 May 2007 16:44:19 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
Protest_ants tend to turn to one verse and reject the others.
duke
>duke wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 May 2007 19:03:23 GMT, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
>> <nospa...@add.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But being 'christened', which is NOT a 1st Century baptism in any way shape
>>> or form, does not invoke from God the sin forgiving saving name of Jesus.
>>> They remain in their sins for the rest of their lives, and die in them also.
>>
>> That's exactly what it's been for 2000 years now - Christened, becoming a member
>> of the Body of Christ.
>Evidently you are a rather ignorant of Christian history. Instead of
>spouting off, why not ask some questions and learn something?
Interesting - I was just going to suggest the same thing to you.
duke
wrote:
>On Mon, 07 May 2007 16:51:29 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>Actually Jesus meant "Vicar of Christ", as is evident to what has been actually
>>happening for 2000 years now as instituted by Christ - a continuation of the
>>Papacy from man to man - given the keys to the kingdom of God, to bind earth to
>>be so in heaven.
>The Eastern Orthodox (not to mention the Protestants) would disagree
>with you. In fact, this was the main reason for the Great Schism.
The position always being Roman Catholic, not the job description.
>If
>there's ever going to be a reunion of the churches, the Roman
>Catholics will have to give up this doctrine. As unlikely as it sounds
>now, this may well happen in the future.
What doctrine is that?
duke
>> Not according to the rcc. They say THEY are it and YOU are the
>> "schism" group.
>> Checker
>***Of course they must say this. It's part of their empire-building tactic
>which, as we can see, is falling apart in many areas of the world...like the
>U.S. Just the same, what the RCC says is immaterial to the Orthodox because
>it doesn't change the facts.
The Papacy existed before the schism and was instituted by Christ. One left.
Christ's institution still exists.
duke
>> Not a fight at all. Catholicism was the earliest vestige of
>> Christianity as manifested in the writings of early Christians as
>> follows:
>***True. But not a reference to the ROMAN CATHOLIC church. The term
>"catholic" to describe the universality of The Church was first used in 92
>A.D.
It was called the Catholic Church until the Eastern group left.
>> "Wherever the bishop appears, let the congregation be there also.
>> Just as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church..."
>> St. Ignatius of Antioch ("Epistle to the Smyrnaeans," c. 105 A.D.)
>***Not a reference to the ROMAN CATHOLIC Church.
There was only the Catholic Church until the Eastern's left.
duke
>***I said nothing about nonbelievers. But I challenge you to quote the
>chapter, and verse specifically banning infants from baptism.
People like checker, a former Catholic and now protest_ant, ignores Acts 2:39,
Mark 3:3, Luke 18:15, Col 2:12, John 3:5-6 etc and leans heavily on Mark 16:16
only.
Why he thinks Christ relegated youth to hell in the case of youthful death
before baptism is beyond me.
OrthoNews1
some 300 centuries earlier when the filioque was first proposed by "Spanish
royalty" and began to take hold in the west.
<vjp...@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com> wrote in message
news:f1opql$5ib$2...@reader2.panix.com...
OrthoNews1
> On Mon, 7 May 2007 22:01:49 -0400, "OrthoNews1" <Ortho...@nospam.org>
> wrote:
>
>>> Not according to the rcc. They say THEY are it and YOU are the
>>> "schism" group.
>>> Checker
>
>>***Of course they must say this. It's part of their empire-building tactic
>>which, as we can see, is falling apart in many areas of the world...like
>>the
>>U.S. Just the same, what the RCC says is immaterial to the Orthodox
>>because
>>it doesn't change the facts.
>
> The Papacy existed before the schism and was instituted by Christ. One
> left.
> Christ's institution still exists.
***Yes, the office of the bishop of Rome has existed from nearly the
beginning. We must all realize that St. Peter founded many churches before
he and St. Paul entered Rome to organize the Christians already there. Peter
was first bishop of the Church of Antioch before he was the head man in
Rome.
The Orthodox Church is evangelical, but not Protestant. It is orthodox, but
not Jewish. It is catholic, but not Roman. It isn't non-denominational - it
is pre-denominational. It has believed, taught, preserved, defended and died
for the Faith of the Apostles since the Day of Pentecost 2000 years ago.
OrthoNews1
> On Mon, 7 May 2007 18:21:22 -0400, "OrthoNews1" <Ortho...@nospam.org>
> wrote:
>
>>> Not a fight at all. Catholicism was the earliest vestige of
>>> Christianity as manifested in the writings of early Christians as
>>> follows:
>
>>***True. But not a reference to the ROMAN CATHOLIC church. The term
>>"catholic" to describe the universality of The Church was first used in 92
>>A.D.
>
> It was called the Catholic Church until the Eastern group left.
>
>>> "Wherever the bishop appears, let the congregation be there also.
>>> Just as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church..."
>>> St. Ignatius of Antioch ("Epistle to the Smyrnaeans," c. 105 A.D.)
>
>>***Not a reference to the ROMAN CATHOLIC Church.
>
> There was only the Catholic Church until the Eastern's left.
***Remember that that Cardinal Humberto cast the first stone on behalf of
the Roman Patriarchate thus setting Rome apart from the rest of the One Holy
Catholic and Apostolic Church. With this in mind, it would be correct to
state that the Eastern's left...but not by their choice.
OrthoNews1
> On Mon, 7 May 2007 22:01:40 -0400, "OrthoNews1" <Ortho...@nospam.org>
> wrote:
>
>>***I said nothing about nonbelievers. But I challenge you to quote the
>>chapter, and verse specifically banning infants from baptism.
>
> People like checker, a former Catholic and now protest_ant, ignores Acts
> 2:39,
> Mark 3:3, Luke 18:15, Col 2:12, John 3:5-6 etc and leans heavily on Mark
> 16:16
> only.
>
> Why he thinks Christ relegated youth to hell in the case of youthful death
> before baptism is beyond me.
***For once I agree with a Roman Catholic! ;-)
OrthoNews1
"leushino" <leushin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:zGS%h.12205$vZ5....@newsfe06.lga...
>
> My dear deluded Sir. YOu do NOT KNOW whether infants believe or not, do
> you?! Of course not. The Psalmist David said, "Thou art He that didst make
> me to trust upon my mother's breast." Babies can trust, Sir. And trust,
> not comprehension, is enough.
>
> The Israelites did not leave their infants on Egypt's banks because they
> could not understand the gravity of the situation. They carried them
> across the part Red Sea to freedom whereas Pharoah's army was drowned. St
> Paul tells us these things were a foreshadowing of spiritual things. The
> Israelites were baptized as it were in the Sea as they fled from Egypt, a
> type of the world, towards the Kingdom (heaven). Our infants are carried
> through the waters of baptism by our faithfulness to our Lord. They trust
> us. The baptism does not guarantee Heaven, just as crossing the Red Sea
> did not guarantee the Kingdom. There was still 40 years of wandering in
> the wilderness and eating manna (bread from heaven... the Eucharist, my
> friend). Our Lord says as much in the Gospel of John chapter 6. It's all
> there in the scriptures. Christians everywhere from antiquity have
> believed this. Only the last few generations of rebellious Protestant
> fundamentalists have rejected the clear teaching of the scriptures and the
> Church of our Lord.
***Protestant generally do not consider the sacraments as mysteries of God
so deep they defy understanding by mere man. Thus, why deny the unfathomable
mystery of baptism and Chrismation to infants and young children (as well as
the Eucharist) when they will never reach an age, as humans, of
understanding?
•R L Measures
<amkemail2006-google-at-yahoo-dot-com> wrote:
> LiamToo wrote:
> > On May 7, 3:41 am, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
> > <nospamat...@add.com> wrote:
> >> "DRS PURNOMO" <almad...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> >>
> >> news:8jh%h.4180$296...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >>
> >>> Are Roman Catholics Christian?
> >> No! as they are not authentically baptised as adults.
> >> They are uselessly unscripturally 'christened' as hapless babies
without any
> >> belief in Christ what-so-ever.
> >>
> >> Jesus himself stated "He that BELIEVETH and is baptised, shall be saved"
> >
> > Yes and the Bible said baptism is for everyone, including children.
> >
> > Acts 2: 38-40, "Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be
> > baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins;
> > and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 "For the promise
> > is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as
> > the Lord our God will call to Himself." 40 And with many other words
> > he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "Be saved
> > from this perverse generation!"
> >
> > Read and learn!
> >
> >
> Roman Catholicism is an adjective modifying Christianity, just like
> Eastern Orthodoxy is an adjective modifying Christianity.
> Olympiada.
• ... and both organization were major contributors to the doctrine that
came from the Council of Nicaea in April, 325.
•R L Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 May 2007 07:35:31 -0400, "OrthoNews1" <Ortho...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
> >***No, it is in schism from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church since
> >the 11th century.
>
> The one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church has a Pope as first assigned by
> Jesus Christ.
>
>
*** Why would a guy who spent the last three years of his life lecturing
about the hypocrisy of organized religion, found one of the damn things?
•R L Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 07 May 2007 10:13:39 -0700, Olympiada
> <amkemail2006-google-at-yahoo-dot-com> wrote:
>
> >Roman Catholicism is an adjective modifying Christianity, just like
> >Eastern Orthodoxy is an adjective modifying Christianity.
> >Olympiada
>
> The Eastern group walked away over the Papacy. The Pope is the man elected
> Bishop of Rome, which was the Western Church.
>
** As I see it, the intrinsic lesson of history is that the Achilles'
Heel of Romans is lust for dominion.
•R L Measures
<Ortho...@nospam.org> wrote:
> ***I maintain that the seeds of Schism were sown by the Roman Patriarchate
> some 300 centuries earlier when the filioque was first proposed by "Spanish
> royalty" and began to take hold in the west.
>
** During the last ice age?
che...@flapper.com
<Ortho...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
>"LiamToo" <liamt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1178575691....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 7, 3:24 pm, chec...@flapper.com wrote:
>>> Sorry, but you two groups will have to fight it out amongst
>>> yourselves.
>>>
>>> We Christians don't need to bother with your fight.
>>
>> Not a fight at all. Catholicism was the earliest vestige of
>> Christianity as manifested in the writings of early Christians as
>> follows:
>
>
>***True. But not a reference to the ROMAN CATHOLIC church. The term
>"catholic" to describe the universality of The Church was first used in 92
>A.D.
>
>
>>
>> "Wherever the bishop appears, let the congregation be there also.
>> Just as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church..."
>> St. Ignatius of Antioch ("Epistle to the Smyrnaeans," c. 105 A.D.)
>
>
>***Not a reference to the ROMAN CATHOLIC Church.
>
Not a reference to the ORTHODOX church either.
>> "Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Savior of our souls, the Governor of
>> our
>> bodies, and the Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the
>> world." St. Polycarp ("The Martyrdom Of St. Polycarp," c. 135 A.D.)
>
>***Not a reference to the ROMAN CATHOLIC Church.
>
Not a reference to the ORTHODOX church either.
>>
>> "The house of God is one, and there can be no salvation to anyone
>> except in the church." St. Cyprian of Carthage ("Letter 61," c. 250
>> A.D.)
>
>***Not a reference to the ROMAN CATHOLIC Church. There was only one Church
>at this time.
>
Not a reference to the ORTHODOX church either. And the one church was
merely a Christian church.
>>
>> "The Catholic church is one." St. Victorinus ("Against Arius," c.
>> 280
>> A.D.)
>
>
>***Not a reference to the ROMAN CATHOLIC Church.
Not a reference to the ORTHODOX church either.
>
>***All of these quotes are references to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic
>Church. The term ROMAN CATHOLIC as an entity was not used until many decades
>after the Great Schism in the 11th century.
>
Same thing is said about the ORTHODOX religion as well.
in Christ Jesus,
Checker
che...@flapper.com
<Ortho...@nospam.org> wrote:
IF you take "and their households" to include EVERYONE, then you
ASSUME they baptized babies, then you MUST (to be consistant) ALSO
ASSUME that they included EVERYONE, believers and non-believers alike.
OR
You may take it as it is intended, an IDIOM that refers to all of the
BELIEVERS ONLY.
There is no passage in the Bible specifically banning baptizing
infants OR circumcising horses. BUT. . .
Acts 8:35-39
36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the
eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being
baptized?"
37 Then Philip said,"If you believe with all your heart, you may."
And he answered and said,"I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of
God."
38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the
eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. 39 Now when they
came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away,
so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing.
NKJV
"IF you believe with all your heart, you may."
Now you might try "explaining" how an INFANT can believe with all his
heart. . .
Jesus said of UNBAPTIZED BABIES AND SMALL CHILDREN,
Mark 10:13-14
Then they brought little children to Him, that He might touch them;
but the disciples rebuked those who brought them. 14 But when Jesus
saw it, He was greatly displeased and said to them, "Let the little
children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the
kingdom of God
NKJV
THEN (AFTER He said that), He blessed them (didn't baptize them, but
blessed them).
We Baptists baptize our children after they reach the point of letting
us know that they believe with all their hearts. We bless our babies,
dedicating them to the Lord.
THAT is the Biblical way. Not the made up way of the catholics.
in Christ Jesus,
Checker
che...@flapper.com
Since I have never made any such claim, again ducky is a LIAR. That
is why I plonked ducky into my killfile.
I DO NOT think that Jesus "relegated youth to hell" at all.
I have quoted over and over:
Mark 10:13-14
Then they brought little children to Him, that He might touch them;
but the disciples rebuked those who brought them. 14 But when Jesus
saw it, He was greatly displeased and said to them, "Let the little
children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the
kingdom of God
NKJV
And I have pointe out that baptism does NOT save you from your sins,
nor does baptism save anyone from hell. YOU may (if you wish) baptize
all the unbelievers you wish, but they will NOT be saved from the
penalty of their sins. . .eternal death.
Rom 6:23
23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life
in Christ Jesus our Lord.
NKJV
Try again. YOu seem to agree with ME!
in Christ Jesus,
Checker
che...@flapper.com
<Ortho...@nospam.org> wrote:
And what the orthodox says to the rcc doesn't change the facts either.
And the TRUTH is that neither group is the original church. You guys
want to be "it," and they want to be "it" and neither of you are.
in Christ Jesus,
Checker
LiamToo
> The Rock of Apostle Peter - By Panagiotis Boumis
The Rock of Apostle Peter according to the great minds of early
Christians:
Ignatius of Antioch: "Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you
[Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict" (Letter to the
Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110]).
Dionysius of Corinth: "You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very
admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and
Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our
Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy,
suffered martyrdom at the same time" (Letter to Pope Soter [A.D. 170],
in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8).
Irenaeus: "Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in
their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and
laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D.
189]).
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this
the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who,
in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or
through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is
proper, by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the
greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized
at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church
which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after
having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church [of
Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree,
that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that
the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic
tradition" (ibid., 3, 3, 2).
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up
the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to
Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2
Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third
place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had
seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be
said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles
and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there
were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In
the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the
brethren in Corinth, the church in Rome sent a very strong letter to
the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. ...
To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth
place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has
fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the
apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has
come down to us" (ibid., 3, 3, 3).
Gaius: "It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and
Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor
Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over
the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is
confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who
lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. This Gaius, in a
written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of
Cataphrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the
aforementioned apostles were deposited: 'I can point out the trophies
of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the
Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this
Church'" (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in Eusebius, Church
History 2:25:5).
Clement of Alexandria: "The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the
writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at
Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present
requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who
remembered his sayings, should write down what had been
proclaimed" (Sketches [A.D. 200], in a fragment from Eusebius, History
of the Church, 6, 14:1).
"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the
disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute
[Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what
does he say? 'Behold, we have left all and have followed you' [Matt.
19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D.
200]).
Tertullian: "But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where
authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which
the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where
Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with
the death of John [the Baptist, by being beheaded]" (Demurrer Against
the Heretics 36 [A.D. 200]).
"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their
lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp
was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement
was ordained by Peter" (ibid., 32:2).
"Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what
standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the
Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby
Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the gospel
and even sealed it with their blood" (Against Marcion 4, 5:1 [A.D.
210]).
"For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the
Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church,
which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and
made a confession [of faith]" (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D.
211]).
"[T]he Lord said to Peter, 'On this rock I will build my Church, I
have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you
shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in
heaven' [Matt. 16:18-19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my
Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church" (Modesty
21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).
Eusebius of Caesarea: "[In the second] year of the two hundredth and
fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]: The apostle Peter, after he has established
the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop
of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years" (The
Chronicle [A.D. 303]).
Peter of Alexandria: "Peter, the first chosen of the apostles, having
been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with
ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome" (Penance, canon 9 [A.D.
306]).
Lactantius: "When Nero was already reigning, Peter came to Rome,
where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he
worked . . . he converted many to righteousness and established a firm
and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero . . .
he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of
destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants
of God. Peter he fixed to a cross, and Paul he slew" (The Deaths of
the Persecutors 2:5 [A.D. 318]).
Cyril of Jerusalem: "[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that
Claudius erected a statue of him. . . .While the error was extending
itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the
Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the
weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and
struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel
at all, for Peter was there-he that carries about the keys of heaven.
And it was nothing to marvel at, for Paul was there-he that was caught
up into the third heaven" (Catechetical Lectures 6:14 [A.D. 350]).
"The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish.
Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost
of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant
girl, but he repented and wept bitterly" (Catechetical Lectures 2:19
[A.D. 350]).
"[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a
statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and
Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set
the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-
mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth.
It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there-
he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]" (ibid.,
6:14).
"In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the
apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the
name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now
called Diospolis [Acts 9:32-34]" (ibid., 17:27).
Optatus: "You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome
the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter
sat, the same who was head-that is why he is also called Cephas
['Rock']-of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is
maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
Epiphanius of Salamis: "At Rome the first apostles and bishops were
Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the
contemporary of Peter and Paul" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies
27:6 [A.D. 375]).
Jerome: "Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida
in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself
chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of
Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome
in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the
sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is
the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of
martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground
and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be
crucified in the same manner as his Lord" (Lives of Illustrious Men 1
[A.D. 396]).
"'But,' you [Jovinian] will say, 'it was on Peter that the Church was
founded' [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to
be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against
Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).
"Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the
province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief
of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and
having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the
second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the
sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is
the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of
martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground
and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be
crucified in the same manner as his Lord" (Lives of Illustrious Men 1
[A.D. 396]).
The Letter of Clement to James: "Be it known to you, my lord, that
Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure
foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the
Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful
mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the
apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ,
with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement
to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
Cyprian of Carthage: "The Lord says to Peter: 'I say to you,' he
says, 'that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my
Church.' . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he
gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he
assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single
chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and
an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also
which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter,
whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair.
So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be
one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does
not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still
holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom
the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the
Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D.
251]).
Ephraim the Syrian: "[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made
you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter,
because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of
those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to
build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are
the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the
chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples.
Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen
you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the
heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys
of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my
treasures" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).
Ambrose of Milan: "[Christ] made answer: 'You are Peter, and upon
this rock will I build my Church. . . .' Could he not, then,
strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority,
he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to
be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D.
379]).
Council of Ephesus: "Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine
I] said: 'We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that
when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to
you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy
acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of
the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the
apostle'" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).
"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said:
'There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that
the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles,
pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received
the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and
Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of
loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both
lives and judges in his successors'" (ibid., session 3).
leushino
You're a waste of my time. PLONK!
LiamToo
> And I have pointed out that baptism does NOT save you from
> your sins, nor does baptism save anyone from hell.
Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be
baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy
Spirit" (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults.
He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all
that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to
him" (2:39).
We also read: "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling
on his name" (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not
restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary
connection between baptism and salvation, a connection explicitly
stated in 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal
of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience,
through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul's
preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts
16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the
faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told
that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his
family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul
recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor.
1:16).
In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This
means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If
the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his
wife, then we would read that "he and his wife were baptized," but we
do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same
applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.
Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children; they may have
been past the age of reason, rather than infants. Then again, they
could have been babes in arms. More probably, there were both younger
and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age
of reason in some of the households that were baptized, especially if
one considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth
control. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household
baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as
infants), they would be explicit.