Sola Scriptura

Over what period of time? Certainly, Clement doesn't mention infant baptism? By the way your Priest, Pope, Cardinals were much later. Note like in Africa leaders of a tribe are called father. This is the early mediteranian way as well so church leaders would have been referrenced as Papa (Father) recognizing their position. Later the developement of the word Pope became a title. But that was many many years later. Cardinals weren't introduced until after the great schizm. And Priest is a progression in old english from Presbyter. Reading the Didache shows that immersion was still in practice as reading Apostolic Tradition from Hyppolitus. You seem to think this occured overnight. We are actually talking about hundreds of years. You still have to deal with the historical facts. BTW not all ante nicean fathers agreed with each other as they try to develop their theology from scratch so to speak. Since scripture didn't deal with every eventuality. Just like today whether or not moral activity of our online avatar's is a scriptural requirement. Certainly scriptures don't mention our avatars. We can infer that what ever we do should be to the Glory of God from scripture but technically speaking our avatar's aren't us. Or are they by extention? You see how questions and answers can be developed over eventualities not mention in scriptures?

 

Did not I explicitly list "Ante-Nicene, Nicene, Post-Nicene" Fathers????? Remember, your position of progressive change does not occur over the first four hundred years but between the end of the first century until the Reformation at the very least and your kind of church is rapidly changing from the Reformation to this very moment.

However, over the first four hundred years the most important basic of salvation was perverted into water regeneration. Every item I listed was a change in BASICS through the Anti-Nicene, Nicene, Post-Nicene periods of your PROGRESSIVE CHANGING CHURCH.

Jesus explicitly condemned the use of "Father" as a SPIRITUAL religious title given to any man as a religious sign of reverence. Paul may have described himself metaphorical as instrumental in the salvation of the Corinthians but he never encouraged anyone to call him "Father" or do we ever find in scripture ANYONE giving another believer the spiritiual religous title "father." So why defend error?

Your position of a PROGRESSIVE CHANGING church is absurdly rediculous as the Ante-Nicene, Nicene, and Post-Nicene Fathers is really PROGRESSIVE APOSTASY from the esential basics and anyone with eyes and two grains of common sense can see that most clearly.

 

Since I quote history as it is with out bias. You are left with two options 1) misconseptions entered the church (over a period of 300 years) based on their contextual understanding just like we understand scriptures and apply cultural contextual terms like soul liberty based on our american cultural context rather than the scriptures themselves. or 2) you are in error of your understanding of what was believed by the early church. I'm certain Agnus Dei would attach the latter rather than as I the former.

 

It is not I, that have this problem but YOU! You are the one that denies any THIRD option not me! You are the one in the dilemma you give not me. YOU CANNOT HOLD TO UNCHANGING BASICS OF THE FAITH and hold to your PROGRESSIVE CHURCH THEORY - can't be done as they are totally irreconcilable. Hence, YOU are forced back to the Catholic Church as it beyond dispute that the Gospel is denied in the Ante-Nicene Fathers and perverted into baptismal regeneration before the end of the fourth century.

Only the Roman Catholic Church provides you a basis for your PROGRESSIVE CHANGING CHURCH. Hence, you are in a dilemma (1) Give up your Progressive changing church theory or (2) Give up your position that the essentials of the faith never change.

Which will it be as you will not consider any THIRD option as I do.

 

I would hold to your successionist POV if there were historical evidence for it!!! There is not. None. We have tons of stuff on every other thing and the Majority of Historians side with me. You find yourself in the minority. I even quoted baptist who disdane your successionist view. So of both Secular and Christians you are in the minority. And even of baptist you find yourself in the successionist minority. Baptist were form form several differeing reformed traditions. primarily Ana-baptist, Calvin, Knox, and Puritans (of Oliver Cromwells ilk). There is only one group of baptist that I find prior to reformation and they are in Wales. Baptist as they are today just did not exist prior to this point. So you are mistaken Roman Catholics aren't the only ones. Anglicans, Methodist, Presbyterians, Orthodox, Copts, SDA, Pentecostals, and many baptist hold to my view.
Successionism is important to these groups 1) RCC 2) Coptic Church 3) Orthodox Church 4) certain baptist like primative, landmarkist, and other successionist baptist and 5) Mormons. That should put it in perspective.

 

All your doing is changing the subject. What are you going to do with the dilemma you have boxed yourself into????

Only the Roman Catholic Church provides you a basis for your PROGRESSIVE CHANGING CHURCH. Hence, you are in a dilemma (1) Give up your Progressive changing church theory or (2) Give up your position that the essentials of the faith never change. WHICH WILL IT BE?????????????

Last, the Baptist historian you quoted does not support your changing church theory but defends those very groups as Baptistic just as I do. Hence, Armitage holds open a THIRD option.

To be consistent, you must return to Rome as the only other alternative is to deny that basics of the faith never change!! WHICH WILL IT BE??????

 

I have not boxed myself in anything. The subject has not changed. There is evidence for the progressive church and I show how my resouces line up.

Your statement

is not true at all because there are documents, archeolocial finds that support my view as well as the support of THE MAJORITY OF HISTORIANS FROM EVERY DISCIPLINE whether christian or secular.
This statement is misleading

I have no dilemma because history is self evident. and I never said the essentials of faith changed in fact I said they didn't. I think you are making something essential that wasn't meant to be so. And where the ante-Nicean fathers may have erred in their speculative theology must be understood as such. Are you suggesting they weren't saved? I have documents that might make you reconsider that position.

 

First, I never charged you with saying the essentials of the faith changed. Indeed, my arguement was based upon the fact that you said they cannot change. Just reread my statements.

Second, you are in a dilemma because it can be easily shown that throughout the periods of the Nicene, Post-nicene that the doctrine of justification by faith without works has been totally reinterpreted to include works by the very undeniable fact that baptism is regarded just as essential to salvation as the judiazers beleived circumcision was essential to salvation (Acts 15:2) for which they were charged as preaching "another gospel" and considered "accursed." YOU CANNOT CLAIM THE NICENE AND POST NICENE CAN DO THE VERY SAME WITH BAPTISM AND ESCAPE THE VERY SAME BIBLICAL CONDEMNATION!!!!!!!!! Hence, between the 5th century and the 16th century you have this "accursed" gospel as the FUNDEMENTAL DOCTRINE of your PROGRESSIVELY CHANGING CHURCH. Indeed, it can be shown it began back in the Ante-Nicene Fathers.

What you fail to see is that the early Judaizers believed the same thing about circumcision. To them it was not merely an external rite/sign but in circumcision real salvation was imparted or circumcision of the heart so without it no one could be saved (Acts 15:2; Col. 2:11-13) and yet Paul regarded this view as justification BY WORKS and "another gospel" and all who preached it to be regarded as "accursed" (Gal. 1:6-9). Circumcision had been DIVINELY INSTITUTED by God Himself and NEVER had been essential to salvation as Paul clearly demonstrates that Abraham was JUSTIFIED BY FAITH 14 years before he was circumcised and that it was merely a confirming sign/seal of the justification he already had (Rom. 4:9-12).

Yet, beginning with Ant-Nicene Fathers we see this adoption of baptism exactly as the Judaizers viewed and embraced circumcision. In the Nicene and Post-nicene this view is FULLY embraced and thus the very essence of the gospel and justification by faith without works is perverted by your PROGRESSIVELY CHANGING CHURCH. So you are in a dilemma as your Post-Nicene church over hundreds of years FULLY EMBRACED "another gospel" as the COMMON practice and belief.

You are forced to reject the gospel of Jesus Christ as an unchanging essential because it is not the doctrine of your progressive church THEORY over hundreds of years. No kind of church can be regarded as a "true" church that preaches "another gospel" and that is the doctrine of YOUR CHURCH THEORY for hundreds of years.

 

From the historical records preserved by Rome there is plenty of evidence that antipedobaptists, antiscramentalists, antipapal and antiCatholics are found OUTSIDE Rome in opposition to Rome. The inquisitional records demonstrate it. The scriptures provide only two contrasts - justificaiton by faith versus justification by works. These people denied the very essentials that justification by works consists.

I challenge you to read Armitage or any of the dozens of historians like him and see from whence they draw their historical sources. I challenge you to deny they draw their sources from the admissions of the Romanist themselves. There is a THIRD OPTION and even the Romanist provide the historical basis for it.

 

First of all there is no evidence of antipedobaptists. Never has been. As far as the rest they are catagorized as Nag Hammabi gnostics. Read their writings and see if you agree with them. Note the Roman inquisition did not start until 1200 AD or CE. over a millenia from the time we are discussing. And the No one provides your antipedobaptist view of the early church save those who hold successionism.

 

The Paulicians were antipaedobaptists and are on record that they denied the charges of Manichaeism. You talk about what Rome calls formal inquisitions but what about the murder of 200,000 Paulicians during the time of Theodosius????? Have you studied the extent of this movement and into what countries they travelled trying to get away from Rome's persecutors??

In 1660 Thieleman J. van Braught recorded over 1140 pages of Antipaedobaptist history in his book Martyrs Mirror. You quote Alberty Newman and he wrote "The history of Antipaedobaptists." Have you read the sources noted in these books?

You are condemning what you have never read or researched! I have read these books and many more like them by many authors for years. You are the typical Roman Catholoic sterotype who simply believes everything Rome says as truth when there is abundant evidence to the contrary.

 

I repeat the following post as you have simply weaseled out of answering the comparison between the Galatian problem with your PROGRESSIVE CHURCH baptismal regeneration problem which CHARACTERIZED both the practice and belief of your PROGRESSIVE CHURCH from Augustine to Luther.


.....you are in a dilemma because it can be easily shown that throughout the periods of the Nicene, Post-nicene that the doctrine of justification by faith without works has been totally reinterpreted to include works by the very undeniable fact that baptism is regarded just as essential to salvation as the judiazers beleived circumcision was essential to salvation (Acts 15:2) for which they were charged as preaching "another gospel" and considered "accursed." YOU CANNOT CLAIM THE NICENE AND POST NICENE CAN DO THE VERY SAME WITH BAPTISM AND ESCAPE THE VERY SAME BIBLICAL CONDEMNATION!!!!!!!!! Hence, between the 5th century and the 16th century you have this "accursed" gospel as the FUNDEMENTAL DOCTRINE of your PROGRESSIVELY CHANGING CHURCH. Indeed, it can be shown it began back in the Ante-Nicene Fathers.

What you fail to see is that the early Judaizers believed the same thing about circumcision. To them it was not merely an external rite/sign but in circumcision real salvation was imparted or circumcision of the heart so without it no one could be saved (Acts 15:2; Col. 2:11-13) and yet Paul regarded this view as justification BY WORKS and "another gospel" and all who preached it to be regarded as "accursed" (Gal. 1:6-9). Circumcision had been DIVINELY INSTITUTED by God Himself and NEVER had been essential to salvation as Paul clearly demonstrates that Abraham was JUSTIFIED BY FAITH 14 years before he was circumcised and that it was merely a confirming sign/seal of the justification he already had (Rom. 4:9-12).

Yet, beginning with Ant-Nicene Fathers we see this adoption of baptism exactly as the Judaizers viewed and embraced circumcision. In the Nicene and Post-nicene this view is FULLY embraced and thus the very essence of the gospel and justification by faith without works is perverted by your PROGRESSIVELY CHANGING CHURCH. So you are in a dilemma as your Post-Nicene church over hundreds of years FULLY EMBRACED "another gospel" as the COMMON practice and belief.

You are forced to reject the gospel of Jesus Christ as an unchanging essential because it is not the doctrine of your progressive church THEORY over hundreds of years. No kind of church can be regarded as a "true" church that preaches "another gospel" and that is the doctrine of YOUR CHURCH THEORY for hundreds of years.

 

First of all the founder of the Paulicans was an armenian to begin with. We have documents from 1829 listing what they believe because a community of them was found in Turkey. They were adoptionist (not a baptist belief), they rejected the Tanakh, And they canonized the leter to the laodeceans. They were accused of being Quasi Manachian which you can get if you are an adoptionist. So you are of. Theodocius was not a Pope. He was a Roman emperor and thus it was not an inquisition but the Roman emperor who lived not in Rome(at this time because at this point it was a second rate city and milan was more important) but Constantanople. Thus it was not the Church but an eastern emperor who killed them.

Have you read Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare? He wrote extensively on the find.

 

What Galatian problem? I haven't ducked anything just pointed out history. Its you with the problem. You can't even connect the paulican to premature baptist. The Church did change alot between Augustine and Luther. Even how things were practiced. That is also fact.

Which you haven't shown btw.

Heck the Presbyterians believe that and you don't have to be Catholic to believe that. It can be assumed that they believed that the ante nicean fathers made Jesus command to be baptised very seriously. Though to the extent you've taken it I'm not sure they would agree with you.

There is no condemnation in scriptures about baptism. Thats just you.

Your blood presure is up you may want to revisit what the early church thought and believed. Rather than imposing your view.

What you fail to realize is the reason that the judaizers belief about circumsision is connected with the need to still fulflill the entire law to be saved which is impossible. Circumcision didn't save you of itself in their view but being Jewish in adhering to the original covenant.

It certainly distinguished the Christian from the Jew.

I rather doubt you know what was fully embrased especially if you claim another gospel. You still haven't made a good case that baptist were paulicans.

And it sounds like your own arguments leave you in the quandry. You either make up a proto baptist group of succession all the way to the present or you become catholic. I don't have that delemma. You by your insistance against history only leaves you with two choices. One you can't countenance the other a machination of your mind.

 

Did I say that Theodosius was a Pope?????? I don't recall saying that??? Do you honestly believe that Rome did not persecute under the secular arm of government?????? You are actually interpreting Paulicianists in the middle ages by 1829 Paulicianists?????????? There are several studies out on the Paulicianists.

However, you are still running from the dilemma I have placed in front of you again for the second time.

 

You are a very dishonest individual. It does not take a genius to read the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers to see clearly they rejected justification by faith without ordinances. Your wrong and you know it but are too proud to admit that your progressive church for over 1000 years repudiated the gospel of Jesus Christ by including ordinances as essential to justification. Paul clearly denied this is part of justification by faith (Rom. 4:9-12) and categorized those who included ordinances, good works, etc. as "accursed." Your Progressive doctrine of the church is an ACCURSED doctrine and you are just too proud to be honest. This kind of wrangling over obvious error further demonstrates that you are just a Catholic in a Baptist church that has crept in to destroy and confuse (Acts 20:29-30).

 

I have been consistent. There were no proto baptist in the first 1200 years of Christianity. None that hold the distinctive nature of baptist. I have not changed on that. There is no evidence either writen or archeological find that proves there was a group of underground proto baptist. None. Nada. Void. The only other explination with out consenting to the Positions of Classic Christianity which is inclusive of the orthodox, catholic or copts. Is the one most christianity (save a very small minority) of a dynamic living church that has matured through the ages. You've failed to mention the ante nicean fathers did not always agree with each other and they played with speculative theology trying to figure out how things worked out that were not broached by the apostles or the sayings of Jesus. You would aline yourself with people who held to the gospel of Peter or Mary Magdilane. I put your view next to those of Dan Brown who doesn't believe in a singular faith at all but competing christianities each as authoritative as the other. When gnosticism is studied however we see that there is in deed and orthodoxy. Christianity has changed over the 2,000 years of it existance. but the base truth never has and those I've already mentioned. If baptim to you is a symbol then what do you care if they felt in necissary in the early church? During that period of time people believed the symbol that represented the thing was the thing itself. You would understand that if you studied ancient history. The Jews had this belief as well. either way what does it matter? Did they work for their salvation? No because though they believed baptism did what it symbolizes they still trained novitiates for 3 years before they baptised them? that means they believed the novitiates still could attain heaven with out baptism! Else they would baptise them before training them in the faith. So do you really understand what it is they are saying. I rather doubt it.

 

Current Roman Catholic Church

QUESTIONS FOR THINKINGSTUFF (wrong stuff)

A. Will you deny that the current Roman Catholic Church dogma of salvation is "accursed" by Paul and "another gospel"?

B. When did Rome change its PRACTICAL teaching on salvation between Augustine and Luther?

C. How long between A and B did Rome teach its current salvation doctrine?

 

what are you 12 yrs old, doctor?

In XC
-

 

A. Paul never said anything about the Roman Catholic Church or its dogma or anything relating to them. Paul said specifically in Galatians

2 points are noted from this discourse 1) what "other gospel" were they preaching? Its stated clearly here

Observing the law was the other gospel. That means following Jewish Law as specified in Torah and Talmudic interpretations following a specified haggadah. It means nothing regarding something representing what it symbolizes. 2) what gospel was preached again its listed above

Christ against the jewish law. Christ completed the law fulfilled it in his body. Its accomplished. Thus its clearly against law it has nothing to do with baptism.
B)It changed its application between Augustine and Luther very much so. In fact both Calvin and Luther liked Augustine. Which changed the understanding inthe mind of the commoner. Read how things were done during Augustine's time and Luther's time. In fact, Cathedral's, I have been made aware of were common places and the liturgy would be said while people traded their livestock and otherthings during the service. A lot of issues in practice. Sales of indulgences were another change.
C) Its clear by the question you don't know what you are talking about.