Yep...that's pretty much summed up 1 Peter 3:21. It's not the physical washing that "saves" (as if it was a human work), but an act of faith ("answer to God" or "appeal to God" depending on the translation) in the God who can save us in Baptism by the Resurrection of His Son.
Was the early Church 'Baptist'/Evangelical?
Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Jude, Jul 27, 2004.
Page 3 of 6
-
-
As I said, a person can receive any teaching by either spoken word, or by written word (or both), and they would be the same teachings. However one received them, they were authoritative. Not some teachings were written, and others were oral only. That there is no proof for. -
The term FAITH ALONE is misunderstood by so many. Historically no Protestants be they Lutheran, Calvinist, or Armianian have viewed works as unecessary. The term FAITH ALONE does not contradict the Church Fathers. True Saving Faith has works just as the roots of a oak tree produces a oak tree. It could be argued that both Ambrose and Augustine taught this long before Luther. The Reformers believed works were a necessary part of Salvation but not that Works merited salvation as Rome taught. Let the Reformers speak for themselves
-
Also it doesn't follow that if oral teachings weren't written down in letters that they must necessarily have been "secret". For as the same tradition was handed down for along time in churches which were not the original recipients of specific letters, so could it have been after the letters were gradually circulated and finally collected. Also, most of the Apostles didn't even pen Scripture--are we to suppose that they were only preaching the gospel "secretly" until Paul's (or Peter's or John's) letters arrived to the locales of their preaching? Was all of their teaching limited to and exactly identical to what was written down in the Canon?
The Tradition was available to all Christians because it came from the Apostles orally in the Church. Some of what was preached--indeed, the normative "core"--was written down in gospels and letters, was gradually collected and became the NT Canon by the late 300s/early 400s AD. There was no printing press in those days and so not all churches (let alone each individual Christian!) had complete copies of Scriptures for a long time, but they were able to abide in the Truth since the Apostolic Tradition was faithfully transmitted orally (with the exception of heretics who split off from the church) in the Church. That's why despite the disparity in the availiblity of the Scriptures in various parts of the world, (and despite variations due to local custom) there was a uniform practice and belief through out "Christendom"--from Spain, to Africa, to Italy, to Greece, to Asia Minor, to Egypt, to Syria, and Persia. All (except the heretics) worshipped and glorified Christ and the Holy Spirit with the Father; all believed (except the Docetists and Arians and variations thereof) that Christ was both Divine and human; all believed He died on the Cross and rose again for us; all acknowledged one baptism for the remission of sins, and all believed that they were truly having Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist; all believed that one had to endure to the end to be finally saved; and all believed Christ was coming again to judge the quick and the dead. This was the Apostolic and catholic (little "c") Tradition which was handed down and was the authoritative way of interpreting Scriptures as opposed to that of the Heretics who would appeal to the same Scriptures to "support" their false doctrines.
Enough rambling for now. If you want to read a good book from a Baptist, check out D.H.Williams Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism. It's a step in the right direction. -
Problem is, "proved" is not what James says.
James 2.22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was BROUGHT TO COMPLETION by the works.
'Faith alone' cannot save. That's what James ALSO says...
James 2.14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
We are called to...
Phil. 2.12 ...my dear friends, as you have always obeyed — not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence — continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling...
Why have 'fear', why have 'trembling', if your salvation is already 'secure'???
Jesus says...
Mark 13.13 All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.
Rev. 2.26 To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations... -
You suggest the universality of a teaching ver a broad area was evidence of the "catholic" teaching, but that could also be a false teaching that took hold early, before the Church spread. False teachers were coming in right as the apostles wrote, and the biggest heresy of the time were the gnostic family of doctrines, which among other things, overspiritualized divine truths, and read secret meanings into everything. So when we see interpretations of baptism, communion, salvation and Mary that are essentially pagan and contradict the simplicity of the Gospel develop outside the apostles teaching, then we know that they id begin to take hold, as they had warned. (i.e. we make the same mistake as the carnal Jews who were offended at the metaphor or "eating Christ's flesh/blood", thinking it is literal, and not realizing it is spiritual; and likewise, we misunderstand baptism by the spirit into the body, with water immersion as an outward sign, and instead make the immersion itself as the whole means of salvation; the Bible says we are not saved by works, because we still have an imperfect nature and can't live up to God's perfect standard; but that means nothing, because this other passage contradicts it, and we fail to see how they harmonize, but instead defend works-righteousness because the "catholic" tradition said so; and then many go on and raise up "co-redeemers", whether we call it that or not, just because Christ told his disciples to take care of Mary as a mother)
All of this is why this "oral tradition" concept is wrong. And remember, the Jews claim the same thing regarding Moses, and their reading of scripture through this "tradition" leads them to reject Christ.
When you understand what the essentials of the Gospel are, then once again, what else could be "left out"? Perhaps a given situation. Like there are no direct statments saying "Jesus is God", or "You can now eat unclean meats". Thus heretics can try to argue against these things with the scriptures, and claim we cannot find a clear example of our position. But principles and indirect statments elsewhere that are written support it. (e.g. The Word was God...the Word was manifest in the flesh [Jesus], etc). So yes, perhaps there was some instance where apostles did make those more explicit statements that were never written. But they can still be backed up with the rest of scripture, rather than reading scripture in light of them/reading them into scripture, as is necessary with many of these "catholic" doctrines.
Some of these more radical teachings/interpretations that seem to go against the grain of everything else that had been revealed would have at least made it to print sometimes. But it seems they all categorically are left out. So they are "Secret", ad this is appealed to whenever there is absolutely no scriptural justification for it, and how can this possibly be challenged, if one accepts the idea of "oral tradition"? This supplements scripture, not compliments it, as your view would insist.
Just in doing a quick search of "scriture" in the concordance; I can see how great an emphasis is placed on it as our authority, more than tradition. Tradition, as authoritative, is just something that is well known, and goes along with the scriptures. It can also be contrary to the scriptures as well (Mark 7:7-9). It is just a "transmission" (paradosis) from generation to generation. It carries no authority in its own apart from the Written word, which is God's main vehicle of communication to us.
[ August 04, 2004, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: Eric B ] -
To understand then what all of these scriptures speaking "enduring to the end" and "perseverance" to be saved were addressing, we must remember that many people in the New Testament, beginning with the ministry of Jesus Himself while still here, were hastily accepting Christ, but they did not understand what the purpose of His mission was. So they "believed" (John 8:31), but eventually their true fruits surfaced (v.37ff). Most others of this class, while not disputing Jesus to His face would show their true colors when persecution would come and they quickly abandoned Him. It's in this context that we have all the scriptures on perseverance until the end. Like the others, these people "believed" and followed for the wrong reasons. Remember, Israel was looking for a Messiah for mostly political reasons, so many really did not understand His Gospel message—that they needed to be saved from sin; not the sin of the pagans, but their own sin. They still thought of themselves as the "good guys" waiting for God to put down the "bad guys", yet they were just as sinful as the ruthless pagans. There is no thought of them thinking they had "faith" in Christ. They had their agenda (which is what they had faith in), and Jesus showed that they were not really following Him, though they professed. As soon as He began speaking of dying, it knocked their whole agenda for a loop, and even the disciples were ready to deny Him and run and hide. Why believe in Him if He's only going to die and not rise up and crush the Romans and restore the kingdom to Israel right now? Many gentiles had also fallen into a similar misunderstanding or misuse as well. (Such as those described who would rise up and apostasize, drawing away their own following, thus using the Church for control). Yet if people "persevered" in faith, then it would have shown that they truly understood Christ's purpose (i.e. the true Gospel). Today we have many cults, liberals, etc. who "believe" in Christ, but knowingly twist or reject parts of the Bible; in effect creating a whole different concept of Christ (as different as the political Messiah of Israel), and most do not even speak of thinking they are "saved", or if they do, they make up their own idea of how to be saved (being good, keeping certain works, being baptized into their group, etc.). All of these are the people who "believed in vain", not someone who really has faith, but falls into sin.
-
EricB,
I think it's incredible (and ahistorical) to suggest that everyone got it wrong about Baptism and the Eucharist immediately after the apostles died, especially when Christ said the Holy Spirit would guide the Apostles into all truth and that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. Paul stated in 1 Timothty 3:15 that the Church was the "ground and pillar of the truth". What you're suggesting is that everybody in the Church misinterpreted Baptism and the Lord's supper until the time of the Reformation--ie, the Church had been in error on those two issues for 1500 years despite the fact they had straighforward Scriptures to back up their views.
Sure there were false teachers that did indeed come into the church, but the ones who fought (wrote and spoke against) the false teachers were the ones teaching the real presence in the Eucharist and that water baptism was in fact for new birth and the remission of sins. All you need to do is read the Apostolic Fathers to know this. Many of these same men--particularly Ignatius and Polycarp--were spiritual children of the apostles and were martyred for their faith and had views on these two "ordinances" that can hardly be considered "Baptistic". Are you saying they got it all wrong? Where is the documentation from that time period that any of those who were otherwise "orthodox" in their theology (and who wrote against heretics such as the Docetists and gnostics) held views on Baptism and Communion that would be considered symbolic-only? I know of none. I noticed that you made reference to Early Christian Doctrines (I presume the book by J.N.D. Kelley) in another thread. You might want to read again the section regarding the early views of Baptism and the Lord Supper. It's hard to ignore the consensus of early Christian belief when such existed, and doing so belies the notion of the adequacy of Scripture alone, especially when the intepretation of Scripture in question is out of phase with what the Church always taught. On the other hand, we can have confidence in early tradition to help complement (especially guide our Scriptural interptretation) Scripture since the same Holy Spirit that inspired Scripture and guided the Church to finalize the Canon, is the same Spirit who would guide the Church into all of Truth. Amen. -
The traditions of the church support 'Sola Scriptura' and 'Sola Scriptura' supports the traditions of the church as many bible verses teach. However, over time, many new teachings crept into the papist church that were contrary to scripture and the traditions of the church. The doctrine of 'Graced Works' was substituted for 'Sola Fide' so that the flow of money from penances, indulgences, masses, etc., would not be interrupted. -
Hi Jude,
Thanks for the reply
[OUOTE] Problem is, "proved" is not what James says.
James 2.22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was BROUGHT TO COMPLETION by the works.[/QUOTE]
Sometimes I think this is a battle over word semantics. I do not disagree with the fact that faith was active along with his works, and faith was BROUGHT TO COMPLETION by the works BUT those WORKS proceed From FAITH. Actually the text is saying that one's faith is proved by Works. Note what the more literal Translation of the Amplified Bible states,
James 2
22You see that [his] faith was cooperating with his works, and [his] faith was completed and reached its supreme expression [when he implemented it] by [good] works. (Amplified Bible)
Your own Church agrees with me. The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, Article XII
Of Good Works
Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith; insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.
Those Works however are the Fruit of Justifying Faith and as James states one's faith was made completeby these Works.
-
Plus, as your church, nor the RCC, even holds what the Early Fathers held; the Church continued ADDING doctrines, and then trying to project them back into the apostolic tradition. So even appealing to the apostolic fathers is no excuse for your denominational traditions that developed later. Baptism, and Communion wer emisunderstood early on, but the Bible was always there,and always meant what it meant, regardless of whether all of man turns from it. Else, the agnostics are right that our faith is all man made, and therefore, we should continuously update it to be more relevant to the age (i.e. accept homosexuality and the rst of the sins). -
Eric,
Again, it's ahistorical to suggest that everyone in the Early Church got baptism and the Eucharist wrong but somehow the Baptists, 1500 some years later, got it right. You say "It's in the Bible", but it's your novel, ahistorical interpretation of the Bible that's in question.
In regards to Ignatius, scholars agree that he believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. In his letter to the Smyrneans he's emphatic: "They [the Docetists] abstain from the Eucharist and prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, Who suffered for our sins, whom the Father raised up by His goodness." To suggest he is speaking metaphorically is to read your Zwinglian view back into the first (or very early second) century and is to disagree with the consensus of scholarship. Lest there be any doubt, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus both wrote about a half century later how the bread and wine, when consecrated, were changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. (I could go on..) Now, given that the Church was conservative, and usually only further defined doctrine and dogma in response to heresy, it is indeed incredible that no one condemned the belief of the Real Presense during the first millenium of the Church. On the contrary, this was the consistent view from the beginning and there is no evidence of there "always [being] small groups who protested many of these doctrines" until the Reformation. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that baptism and the Eucharist were universally misundertood when the consensus of the Church was that baptism was new birth in Christ (and for the remission of sins) and the Eucharist was truly the Communion of His Body and Blood according to rather straightforward readings of Scripture (If anyone one is trying to read back into the early fathers--and Scripture--their beliefs, its those who hold views like yours which are novel denominational traditions of men.)
Also, the "pillar and ground of truth" does refer back to the "church of the living God"--there is no "who" in the verse preceding the clause "pillar and ground of truth". You are predictably setting up a false dichotomy between God and His Church, when the Church is in fact "His Body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all" (Eph 1:22-23).
Yes, we are to test the "spirits", especially in this age when Christian denominations are multiplied with each claiming that the "Holy Spirit" guides them to the correct interpretation among the many mutually contradictory interpretations of Scripture. -
The early fathers taught the "Real Presence" but they did not teach the "Sacrifice of the Mass" whereby priests offer up Christ to God the Father for the sins of the living and the dead. The Abomination of the Mass was a perversion of both scripture and the traditions of the church invented by the papists. The Reformers, again, appeal to the fathers:
And the Fathers, indeed, speak of a two-fold effect, of the comfort of consciences, and of thanksgiving, or praise. The former of these effects pertains to the nature [the right use] of the Sacrament; the latter pertains to the sacrifice. Of consolation Ambrose says: Go to Him and be absolved, because He is the remission of sins. Do you ask who He is? Hear Him when He says, John 6, 35: I am the Bread of life; he that cometh to Me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on He shall never thirst. This passage testifies that in the Sacrament the remission of sins is offered; it also testifies that this ought to be received by faith. Infinite testimonies to this effect are found in the Fathers, all of which the adversaries pervert to the opus operatum, and to a work to be applied on behalf of others; although the Fathers clearly require faith, and speak of the consolation belonging to every one, and not of the application.
Besides these, expressions are also found concerning thanksgiving, such as that most beautifully said by Cyprian concerning those communing in a godly way. Piety, says he, in thanking the Bestower of such abundant blessing, makes a distinction between what has been given and what has been forgiven, i.e., piety regards both what has been given and what has been forgiven, i.e., it compares the greatness of God's blessings and the greatness of our evils, sin and death, with each other, and gives thanks, etc. And hence the term eucharist arose in the Church. Nor indeed is the ceremony itself, the giving of thanks ex opere operato, to be applied on behalf of others, in order to merit for them the remission of sins, etc., in order to liberate the souls of the dead. These things conflict with the righteousness of faith; as though, without faith, a ceremony can profit either the one performing it or others.
Apology to the Augsburg Confession, Of the Mass -
I guess I have written all I am going to on the matter for a while. As a life-long baptist, reading what the early Christians believed on theses two "ordinances" has been a tough pill to swallow, especially when I could "explain away" difficult Bible passages (re:Baptism/Communion) with the best of them. However, on at least these two beliefs the early church was unanimous and their beliefs were not "baptistic". Perhaps, if I have time next week (when my wife and son are out of town) I'll provide further documentation on the matter in separate threads. In the mean time, if someone wants to prove me wrong and post historical documentation which demonstrates that some in the early Church believed as modern Baptists do on the Lord Supper and Baptism without: (1)begging the question with interpreting the Bible in accordance with Baptist tradition, or (2)falling into the usual, ahistorical "they all fell into heresy or apostasy" arguement, I'd be happy to entertain such possibly contrary evidence.
-
If this happened to them, then it is not hard to believe that it could happen to the later church leaders, especially as many brought pagan philosophy in with them. And it is not hard to believe that Ignatious likewise meant it parabolically. But they you mention fathers a half century later. But notice that little word changed. Jesus never said that, neither did any biblical writer, nor even Ignatius. But that word "changed" changes everything. Now it IS definitely being made into some mystic transubstantiation. Before it wasn't. I can accept a "spiritual presence" in the sense that "whererever two or three are gathered in His name, [He is] there", spiritually, and it did seem to center on the supper. This I believe would be how "spiritual presense" would have been understood. But now it is definitely being turned into something else we do not see anywhere in scripture. So we see how a metaphor can turn into a literal transmutation as people pass it down, and then add little words or other ways of trying to express it. This is why tradition alone is unstable.
Also forgot to mention; yes, these fathers may have led the fought against "heresy", but that does not mean their doctrine was pure. A JW would fight against many of those doctrines, but that does not mean that are right about everything else. There was subtle error, which crept in, and there was more blatant error, which they did challenge.
[Church] of God[Ground and pillar of the truth]
or Church of [God][Ground and pillar of truth]. It is the latter, because JESUS (God the Son) is the only one said to be "The Way, the Truth and the Life", as well as "the Rock". Saying either is the Church is to diminish Christ, and then at that, a church that constantly changed doctrine, and brought in error. We are His body, but still do not share all of His attributes. We are not God the Son (unless you are in Armstrongism or Mormonism). The comparison is to a man and bride (who become one flesh), but the man still has more authority. Of course, if the Church really has usurped all of Christ's titles, then I guess it is all justified, and they can create "truth" by fiat. :rolleyes: -
The conservative Reformers acknowledged that the early Church was correct on Sola Fide, Baptism, and the Lord's Supper:
-
-
John Henry Newman on the 'faith alone' aspect of the 39 Articles...
"Next we have to inquire in what sense Faith only does justify. In a number of ways, of which here two only shall be mentioned.
First, it is the pleading or impetrating principle, or constitutes our title to justification; being analogous among the graces to Moses’ lifting up his hands on the Mount, or the Israelites eyeing the Brazen Serpent,--actions which did not merit GOD’S mercy, but asked for it. A number of means go to effect our justification. We are justified by CHRIST alone, in that He has purchased the gift; by Faith alone, in that Faith asks for it; by Baptism alone, for Baptism conveys it; and by newness of heart alone, for newness of heart is the life of it.
And, secondly, Faith, as being the beginning or perfect or justifying righteousness, is taken for what it tends towards, or ultimately will be. It is said by anticipation to be that which it promises; just as one might pay a labourer his hire before he began his work. Faith working by love is the seed of divine graces, which in due time will be brought forth and flourish—partly in this world, fully in the next." -
The Jews indeed understood Jesus to be talking literally, but not in the sense they thought. During the discourse, Christ actually spoke more and more literally as he used a different Greek word in v.54 meaning to "crunch" or "chew" and not simply to "eat" ("trogo" vs. "phago") as he did earlier. If they would have stuck around like the faithful disciples, those perplexed souls would have learned what He meant at the Last Supper when He pointed to the bread and wine, and said "This is my body and blood". Christ was to give Himself in the bread and wine, not in repeated acts of cannibalism. They would have learned as Paul did that the Lord's Supper was the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ. Instead, those who left couldn't trust Christ despite the fact that He had just multiplied the bread to feed the five thousand.
(Speaking of metaphors, there are many today who would reduce the Incarnation and Resurrection of Christ--and indeed all Biblical miracles--to mere metaphors. Afterall, we are wiser today, aren't we?)
-
And there is documentation on the drastic change from the last apostles to the early fathers, in a eriod over which a "curtain" of "obscurity" hangs, as they put it; in which we have little writing. There may have been outcries then, but as 3 John says, the false teachers were getting the upper hand and expelling the true Christians and the writings of this period were lost.
Page 3 of 6