Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The idea that todays version of Lutheranism or Orthodoxy has been around since the beginning is an interesting one. Todays Lutheran and Orthodox churches have very little resemblance to the early church as described in Acts. And yet the Lutherans and Orthodox - just like the Catholics - like to perpetuate the misguided idea that their version has been around since the beginning.

It's an interesting perspective to say the least.

---

Please show me how the Catholic Church is different that what was in acts.

Acts speaks of bishops, priests, and deacons which are still present in Church today. Acts 6:1-6 describes the appointment of the first deacons.

In Acts 2:42, we read, They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. This reflects key elements of Catholic life: adherence to apostolic teaching, communal fellowship, the Eucharist, and prayer.

in 155 AD, Justin Martyr describes the elements of the mass that are still performed the same way and in the same order today.

Please show me how the baptist version of service of alter calls and sinner's prayers are listed in Acts.

---

You serious, Clark? This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

• The Catholic Church encourages praying to Mary or the Saints, when there is no scriptural support for the practice..
• The Catholic Church teaches that the clergy and laity are distinct, while Scripture teaches the priesthood of all believers.
• The Catholic Church teaches clergy must remain unmarried and celibate, when scripture teaches nothing of the sort.
• The Catholic Church also teaches that believers receive grace when they receive sacraments, which Scripture doesn't teach.
• The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptismal regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic sacraments. Scripture teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith and that good works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation and the fruit of that new life in Christ.
• In the New Testament baptism is ALWAYS practiced AFTER saving faith in Christ. Baptism is not the means of salvation; it is faith in the Gospel that saves. The Roman Catholic Church teaches baptismal regeneration of infants, a practice never found in Scripture.
• The Roman Catholic Church teaches that unless a believer is hindered, the only way to receive the forgiveness of sins is by confessing them to a priest. Contrary to this, Scripture teaches that confession of sins is to be made to God.

None of the above can be found in Acts, or in any other areas of scripture. You guys have gone so far off teh reservation, it's not even funny.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

WARNING: Related Rant

At church this morning, it was baptism Sunday. During the baptism, the candidate did not speak or share - band blasted over the entire ordinance service.

---

If that is what baptism is like at your church, you might consider attending another. Yikes.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

I will let a Lutheran respond to that part of your question; I do not presume to speak for them.

As far as the Orthodox church goes there are different voices on this topic. Some have expressed a pre-Augustinian view consistent with Ambrose "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God [St. John 3:5]. Surely, He exempts none, not even the infant, not one hindred by any necessity: but although they have a hidden immunity to punishments, I know not how they have the honour of the Kingdom.". While others, particularly those after Augustine, adopted the view that unbaptized infants are lost.

Suffice it to say that since Baptism holds the same position with regards to the new covenant that circumcision did to the old (Col. 2) and even Christ, who had no need of baptism of any form received it at the hands of John (Matt 3), and that this has been the practice of the church since the beginning that we baptize infants "Let it be so; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness."

But you will see that in orthodoxy "this has been the practice of the church since the beginning", because of course that church existed from the beginning. It is a very different mindset preserving the faith once delivered to the saints for 20 centuries than it is to pick up a bible and use proof texts to try and reconstruct what that faith was 20 centuries after the fact.

---

The first part of your answer isn't clear, given that the belief that unbaptized babies are excluded from the kingdom and the belief that they are "lost" are essentially the same view. Those don't appear to be "different voices" on the topic.

Regardless, there is no basis for these beliefs in Scripture. There is nothing in the bible that suggests that the eternal fate of a baby entirely rests on someone else's ability to dunk the baby in water. You are providing the basis for this belief in tradition outside of original apostolic tradition, i.e. Scripture. But we know that Scripture is a divine revelation from God. The question is, then, from where did this belief that unbaptized babies are "lost" originate, and by what divine revelation do we know this tradition to have come from God, since it did not come from Scripture?

---

It's a complete waste of time to try and find any consistency, logic or scriptural support for his position. He has none.

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The idea that todays version of Lutheranism or Orthodoxy has been around since the beginning is an interesting one. Todays Lutheran and Orthodox churches have very little resemblance to the early church as described in Acts. And yet the Lutherans and Orthodox - just like the Catholics - like to perpetuate the misguided idea that their version has been around since the beginning.

It's an interesting perspective to say the least.

---

Please show me how the Catholic Church is different that what was in acts.

Acts speaks of bishops, priests, and deacons which are still present in Church today. Acts 6:1-6 describes the appointment of the first deacons.

In Acts 2:42, we read, They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. This reflects key elements of Catholic life: adherence to apostolic teaching, communal fellowship, the Eucharist, and prayer.

in 155 AD, Justin Martyr describes the elements of the mass that are still performed the same way and in the same order today.

Please show me how the baptist version of service of alter calls and sinner's prayers are listed in Acts.

---

You serious, Clark? This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

• The Catholic Church encourages praying to Mary or the Saints, when there is no scriptural support for the practice..
• The Catholic Church teaches that the clergy and laity are distinct, while Scripture teaches the priesthood of all believers.
• The Catholic Church teaches clergy must remain unmarried and celibate, when scripture teaches nothing of the sort.
• The Catholic Church also teaches that believers receive grace when they receive sacraments, which Scripture doesn't teach.
• The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptismal regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic sacraments. Scripture teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith and that good works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation and the fruit of that new life in Christ.
• In the New Testament baptism is ALWAYS practiced AFTER saving faith in Christ. Baptism is not the means of salvation; it is faith in the Gospel that saves. The Roman Catholic Church teaches baptismal regeneration of infants, a practice never found in Scripture.
• The Roman Catholic Church teaches that unless a believer is hindered, the only way to receive the forgiveness of sins is by confessing them to a priest. Contrary to this, Scripture teaches that confession of sins is to be made to God.

None of the above can be found in Acts, or in any other areas of scripture. You guys have gone so far off teh reservation, it's not even funny.

---

I'm happy to discuss any of these points one at a time; however, I listed some point of how the Catholic Church is still the Church described in Acts. You have still failed to show where your altars calls and sinner's prayers are listed in Acts.

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The idea that todays version of Lutheranism or Orthodoxy has been around since the beginning is an interesting one. Todays Lutheran and Orthodox churches have very little resemblance to the early church as described in Acts. And yet the Lutherans and Orthodox - just like the Catholics - like to perpetuate the misguided idea that their version has been around since the beginning.

It's an interesting perspective to say the least.

---

Please show me how the Catholic Church is different that what was in acts.

Acts speaks of bishops, priests, and deacons which are still present in Church today. Acts 6:1-6 describes the appointment of the first deacons.

In Acts 2:42, we read, They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. This reflects key elements of Catholic life: adherence to apostolic teaching, communal fellowship, the Eucharist, and prayer.

in 155 AD, Justin Martyr describes the elements of the mass that are still performed the same way and in the same order today.

Please show me how the baptist version of service of alter calls and sinner's prayers are listed in Acts.

---

You serious, Clark? This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

• The Catholic Church encourages praying to Mary or the Saints, when there is no scriptural support for the practice..
• The Catholic Church teaches that the clergy and laity are distinct, while Scripture teaches the priesthood of all believers.
• The Catholic Church teaches clergy must remain unmarried and celibate, when scripture teaches nothing of the sort.
• The Catholic Church also teaches that believers receive grace when they receive sacraments, which Scripture doesn't teach.
• The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptismal regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic sacraments. Scripture teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith and that good works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation and the fruit of that new life in Christ.
• In the New Testament baptism is ALWAYS practiced AFTER saving faith in Christ. Baptism is not the means of salvation; it is faith in the Gospel that saves. The Roman Catholic Church teaches baptismal regeneration of infants, a practice never found in Scripture.
• The Roman Catholic Church teaches that unless a believer is hindered, the only way to receive the forgiveness of sins is by confessing them to a priest. Contrary to this, Scripture teaches that confession of sins is to be made to God.

None of the above can be found in Acts, or in any other areas of scripture. You guys have gone so far off teh reservation, it's not even funny.

---

I'm happy to discuss any of these points one at a time; however, I listed some point of how the Catholic Church is still the Church described in Acts. You have still failed to show where your altars calls and sinner's prayers are listed in Acts.

---

My church doesn't do altar calls. That said, I am not sure how an altar call would be antithetical to the church in Acts. We know that the good news was preached by Peter - about sin, Christ, repentance, forgiveness, and salvation - and that thousands responded (see Acts 2). How do you think that came about? How do you think those people got saved? They responded to Peter's message and gave their lives to Christ.

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The idea that todays version of Lutheranism or Orthodoxy has been around since the beginning is an interesting one. Todays Lutheran and Orthodox churches have very little resemblance to the early church as described in Acts. And yet the Lutherans and Orthodox - just like the Catholics - like to perpetuate the misguided idea that their version has been around since the beginning.

It's an interesting perspective to say the least.

---

Please show me how the Catholic Church is different that what was in acts.

Acts speaks of bishops, priests, and deacons which are still present in Church today. Acts 6:1-6 describes the appointment of the first deacons.

In Acts 2:42, we read, They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. This reflects key elements of Catholic life: adherence to apostolic teaching, communal fellowship, the Eucharist, and prayer.

in 155 AD, Justin Martyr describes the elements of the mass that are still performed the same way and in the same order today.

Please show me how the baptist version of service of alter calls and sinner's prayers are listed in Acts.

---

You serious, Clark? This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

• The Catholic Church encourages praying to Mary or the Saints, when there is no scriptural support for the practice..
• The Catholic Church teaches that the clergy and laity are distinct, while Scripture teaches the priesthood of all believers.
• The Catholic Church teaches clergy must remain unmarried and celibate, when scripture teaches nothing of the sort.
• The Catholic Church also teaches that believers receive grace when they receive sacraments, which Scripture doesn't teach.
• The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptismal regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic sacraments. Scripture teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith and that good works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation and the fruit of that new life in Christ.
• In the New Testament baptism is ALWAYS practiced AFTER saving faith in Christ. Baptism is not the means of salvation; it is faith in the Gospel that saves. The Roman Catholic Church teaches baptismal regeneration of infants, a practice never found in Scripture.
• The Roman Catholic Church teaches that unless a believer is hindered, the only way to receive the forgiveness of sins is by confessing them to a priest. Contrary to this, Scripture teaches that confession of sins is to be made to God.

None of the above can be found in Acts, or in any other areas of scripture. You guys have gone so far off teh reservation, it's not even funny.

---

There are many more, like the dogmas of Mary. But you're not going to get them to see it, or at least admit to it. I showed them a Catholic book of prayers to Mary that blatantly elevated her to the level of God and Jesus, calling her "sovereign", "god of this world", "mediator between man and God", and saying they "place their salvation into Mary's hands". They had absolutely no problem with it and even defended it. If you can't even see this ridiculous level of heresy and idolatry when it's literally screaming in your face, then you're NEVER gonna see it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There are many more, like the dogmas of Mary. But you're not going to get them to see it, or at least admit to it. I showed them a Catholic book of prayers to Mary that blatantly elevated her to the level of God and Jesus, calling her "sovereign", "god of this world", "mediator between man and God", and saying they "place their salvation into Mary's hands". They had absolutely no problem with it and even defended it. If you can't even see this ridiculous level of heresy and idolatry when it's literally screaming in your face, then you're NEVER gonna see it.

---

We can discuss this, AGAIN, at another point.

We are currently discussing what the early Church looked like compared to Acts and infant baptism.

I have demonstrated biblically and with extra biblical sources that today's mass is similar to what happened in Acts and documented as early as 155 AD.

Please show me how your altar calls and sinner's prayers are listed in Acts.

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The idea that todays version of Lutheranism or Orthodoxy has been around since the beginning is an interesting one. Todays Lutheran and Orthodox churches have very little resemblance to the early church as described in Acts. And yet the Lutherans and Orthodox - just like the Catholics - like to perpetuate the misguided idea that their version has been around since the beginning.

It's an interesting perspective to say the least.

---

Please show me how the Catholic Church is different that what was in acts.

Acts speaks of bishops, priests, and deacons which are still present in Church today. Acts 6:1-6 describes the appointment of the first deacons.

In Acts 2:42, we read, They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. This reflects key elements of Catholic life: adherence to apostolic teaching, communal fellowship, the Eucharist, and prayer.

in 155 AD, Justin Martyr describes the elements of the mass that are still performed the same way and in the same order today.

Please show me how the baptist version of service of alter calls and sinner's prayers are listed in Acts.

---

You serious, Clark? This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

• The Catholic Church encourages praying to Mary or the Saints, when there is no scriptural support for the practice..
• The Catholic Church teaches that the clergy and laity are distinct, while Scripture teaches the priesthood of all believers.
• The Catholic Church teaches clergy must remain unmarried and celibate, when scripture teaches nothing of the sort.
• The Catholic Church also teaches that believers receive grace when they receive sacraments, which Scripture doesn't teach.
• The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptismal regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic sacraments. Scripture teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith and that good works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation and the fruit of that new life in Christ.
• In the New Testament baptism is ALWAYS practiced AFTER saving faith in Christ. Baptism is not the means of salvation; it is faith in the Gospel that saves. The Roman Catholic Church teaches baptismal regeneration of infants, a practice never found in Scripture.
• The Roman Catholic Church teaches that unless a believer is hindered, the only way to receive the forgiveness of sins is by confessing them to a priest. Contrary to this, Scripture teaches that confession of sins is to be made to God.

None of the above can be found in Acts, or in any other areas of scripture. You guys have gone so far off teh reservation, it's not even funny.

---

I'm happy to discuss any of these points one at a time; however, I listed some point of how the Catholic Church is still the Church described in Acts. You have still failed to show where your altars calls and sinner's prayers are listed in Acts.

---

My church doesn't do altar calls. That said, I am not sure how an altar call would be antithetical to the church in Acts. We know that the good news was preached by Peter - about sin, Christ, repentance, forgiveness, and salvation - and that thousands responded (see Acts 2). How do you think that came about? How do you think those people got saved? They responded to Peter's message and gave their lives to Christ.

---

People are saved by repenting, believing, and being baptized.

Once again, I've demonstrated that your assertion about the Church and Acts is false.

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The idea that todays version of Lutheranism or Orthodoxy has been around since the beginning is an interesting one. Todays Lutheran and Orthodox churches have very little resemblance to the early church as described in Acts. And yet the Lutherans and Orthodox - just like the Catholics - like to perpetuate the misguided idea that their version has been around since the beginning.

It's an interesting perspective to say the least.

---

Please show me how the Catholic Church is different that what was in acts.

Acts speaks of bishops, priests, and deacons which are still present in Church today. Acts 6:1-6 describes the appointment of the first deacons.

In Acts 2:42, we read, They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. This reflects key elements of Catholic life: adherence to apostolic teaching, communal fellowship, the Eucharist, and prayer.

in 155 AD, Justin Martyr describes the elements of the mass that are still performed the same way and in the same order today.

Please show me how the baptist version of service of alter calls and sinner's prayers are listed in Acts.

---

You serious, Clark? This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

• The Catholic Church encourages praying to Mary or the Saints, when there is no scriptural support for the practice..
• The Catholic Church teaches that the clergy and laity are distinct, while Scripture teaches the priesthood of all believers.
• The Catholic Church teaches clergy must remain unmarried and celibate, when scripture teaches nothing of the sort.
• The Catholic Church also teaches that believers receive grace when they receive sacraments, which Scripture doesn't teach.
• The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptismal regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic sacraments. Scripture teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith and that good works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation and the fruit of that new life in Christ.
• In the New Testament baptism is ALWAYS practiced AFTER saving faith in Christ. Baptism is not the means of salvation; it is faith in the Gospel that saves. The Roman Catholic Church teaches baptismal regeneration of infants, a practice never found in Scripture.
• The Roman Catholic Church teaches that unless a believer is hindered, the only way to receive the forgiveness of sins is by confessing them to a priest. Contrary to this, Scripture teaches that confession of sins is to be made to God.

None of the above can be found in Acts, or in any other areas of scripture. You guys have gone so far off teh reservation, it's not even funny.

---

I'm happy to discuss any of these points one at a time; however, I listed some point of how the Catholic Church is still the Church described in Acts. You have still failed to show where your altars calls and sinner's prayers are listed in Acts.

---

My church doesn't do altar calls. That said, I am not sure how an altar call would be antithetical to the church in Acts. We know that the good news was preached by Peter - about sin, Christ, repentance, forgiveness, and salvation - and that thousands responded (see Acts 2). How do you think that came about? How do you think those people got saved? They responded to Peter's message and gave their lives to Christ.

---

Once again, I've demonstrated that your assertion about the Church and Acts is false.

---

LOL. How do you figure? Have you proven that all of the things the Catholic Church believes and the rituals they partake in existed in the Acts church? Where is your scriptural support for that position?

You're living in a fantasy world if you believe you've refuted anything I've said.

Show me even one verse that supports the idea that infants were baptized in Acts. Just one - if you can. I'll hang up and listen.

Mothra said:

---

Todays Lutheran and Orthodox churches have very little resemblance to the early church as described in Acts. And yet the Lutherans and Orthodox - just like the Catholics - like to perpetuate the misguided idea that their version has been around since the beginning.

---

Mothra said:

---

LOL. How do you figure? Have you proven that all of the things the Catholic Church believes and the rituals they partake in existed in the Acts church? Where is your scriptural support for that position?

You're living in a fantasy world if you believe you've refuted anything I've said.

Show me even one verse that supports the idea that infants were baptized in Acts. Just one - if you can. I'll hang up and listen.

---

We are discussing the fact that your statement concerning the " version has been around since the beginning" is false.

The Catholic Church is the very similar to what they did in Acts. It is backed up by Justin Martyr in 155 AD.

I am waiting for you to tell me how your church is the same as Acts. Do you have historical proof.

Also out of curiosity, what specific denomination are you, if you don't mind me asking?

What does baptism do?

The Catholic Church claims that baptism provides for the forgiveness of all sin (including original sin) committed prior to baptism. It also initiates the individual into the Church.

This is backed in scripture in 1 Pet 3:21, Act 22:16, & Acts 2:38-39:

Quote:

---

This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

---

Quote:

---

And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.

---

Quote:

---

Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children"

---

What is original sin? It isn't something you have; it is something that you lack. At birth we are all pagans. We lack sanctifying grace. We have a God-sized hole in our heart. At baptism, we receive sanctifying grace. At baptism, we become adopted sons and daughters of God.

Is infant baptism contra to the bible? No, it never explicitly restricts or forbids it.

Is it supported? Households are baptized in Acts 16:33; 1 Cor. 1:16. The authors NEVER excluded children or infants. It would be reading too much into the bible to state that they were excluded.

Luke 18:1516 tells us that "they were bringing even infants" to Jesus; and he himself related this to the kingdom of God: "Let the children come to me . . . for to such belongs the kingdom of God."

Infant baptism can be traced back to the earliest centuries. Irenaeus - 189 AD, Hippolytus 215 AD, Origen 248 AD, Cyprian of Carthage 253 AD, John Chrysostom 388, Augustine 400 AD, Council of Carthage V 401 AD, & Council of Mileum II 416 AD. Here is a link with the quotes from them.

What the Early Church Believed: Infant Baptism

Infant Baptism

In the old covenant, males were required to wait 8 days until circumcision. It was the outward sign of the eternal covenant between God and the Jewish people.

Colossians 2:11-12 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Baptism is the new circumcision according to Paul. It is meant for all, not just males. It enters us into God's family.

The Council of Cartage in 401 AD stated that we should baptize infants after birth and NOT wait the 8 days like in circumcision.

Infant baptism has been practiced since the beginning of the Church. It is practiced by Eastern Orthodox, Anglican/Episcopal, Lutheran, and Methodist churches.

The first time that infant baptism was rejected was by the Anabaptist in the 16th century.

Why should anyone accept your minority and unhistorical belief?

Mothra said:

---

Every example in scripture is believers' baptism. Every one.

---

That's only based on your assumption that the baptism of households specifically excluded households with children. That's an extrabiblical assumption on your part, particularly given Peter's statement in Acts 2:

"Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children."

You know, just like circumcision.

But if you won't accept the testimony of Orthodox or Roman Catholics on this specific issue, here's a few from the sola scriptura, sola fide Presbyterian side of the house who lay out the case.

https://www.tenth.org/resource-library/articles/how-i-changed-my-mind-about-infant-baptism

https://thirdmill.org/newfiles/den_johnson/TH.Johnson.Baptism.html

Realitybites said:

---

That's only based on your assumption that the baptism of households specifically excluded households with children. That's an extrabiblical assumption on your part,

---

Exactly. He is reading his narrative into the passage.

Mothra said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

WARNING: Related Rant

At church this morning, it was baptism Sunday. During the baptism, the candidate did not speak or share - band blasted over the entire ordinance service.

---

If that is what baptism is like at your church, you might consider attending another. Yikes.

---

It was pretty disappointing. Evangelical Churches have made the worship bands the entire service to the point of idiocracy. Heaven forbid there be a critical ordinance observed with out the band jamming.

We have had a really difficult time finding a church home ... does not help that I was reared Baptist and my wife was reared Catholic. It reads so consumerist, but ...
- One church have basically perfect (for us) worship, but it is a ways a way (don't know anyone), and the people are relatively standoffish if you will ...
- There is no traditional Baptist Church anymore - they have all adopted the "Evangelical Megachurch model"
- The other denominations have basically traded the Gospel for the gays, so that's not an option

So we're left with a Evangelical franchise church that we generally like but we have to put up with this insanity ... not to mention the single-serve, combination "communion" packets. Along those lines ... another rant ... the church makes individual communion available every Sunday after service ... nice sentiment, but I think they missed it's called "communion."

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Todays Lutheran and Orthodox churches have very little resemblance to the early church as described in Acts. And yet the Lutherans and Orthodox - just like the Catholics - like to perpetuate the misguided idea that their version has been around since the beginning.

---

Mothra said:

---

LOL. How do you figure? Have you proven that all of the things the Catholic Church believes and the rituals they partake in existed in the Acts church? Where is your scriptural support for that position?

You're living in a fantasy world if you believe you've refuted anything I've said.

Show me even one verse that supports the idea that infants were baptized in Acts. Just one - if you can. I'll hang up and listen.

---

We are discussing the fact that your statement concerning the " version has been around since the beginning" is false.

The Catholic Church is the very similar to what they did in Acts. It is backed up by Justin Martyr in 155 AD.

I am waiting for you to tell me how your church is the same as Acts. Do you have historical proof.

Also out of curiosity, what specific denomination are you, if you don't mind me asking?

---

We disagree that the Catholic Church as I described above remotely resembles the early church in Acts. You have no evidence to support that position, while I've posted several differences which you have failed to address.

I go to a non-denominational church.

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Every example in scripture is believers' baptism. Every one.

---

That's only based on your assumption that the baptism of households specifically excluded households with children. That's an extrabiblical assumption on your part, particularly given Peter's statement in Acts 2:

"Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children."

You know, just like circumcision.

But if you won't accept the testimony of Orthodox or Roman Catholics on this specific issue, here's a few from the sola scriptura, sola fide Presbyterian side of the house who lay out the case.

https://www.tenth.org/resource-library/articles/how-i-changed-my-mind-about-infant-baptism

https://thirdmill.org/newfiles/den_johnson/TH.Johnson.Baptism.html

---

Going on two full pages now, and you have still failed to disprove my statement above. Do you have any scriptural support - as you sit here today - that any of the people in the household in the verses you reference - including children - did not believe? Do you have any scriptural support of infants being baptized?

If you have something more than articles or extra-scriptural sources, I am all ears. But so far you've been wholly unable to support your position without going to sources outside of scripture.

Again I will ask, are infants saved by baptism in your mind? In your church's mind?

Coke Bear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

That's only based on your assumption that the baptism of households specifically excluded households with children. That's an extrabiblical assumption on your part,

---

Exactly. He is reading his narrative into the passage.

---

I will also invite you to post any scripture supporting your position.

Good luck!

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

WARNING: Related Rant

At church this morning, it was baptism Sunday. During the baptism, the candidate did not speak or share - band blasted over the entire ordinance service.

---

If that is what baptism is like at your church, you might consider attending another. Yikes.

---

It was pretty disappointing. Evangelical Churches have made the worship bands the entire service to the point of idiocracy. Heaven forbid there be a critical ordinance observed with out the band jamming.

We have had a really difficult time finding a church home ... does not help that I was reared Baptist and my wife was reared Catholic. It reads so consumerist, but ...
- One church have basically perfect (for us) worship, but it is a ways a way (don't know anyone), and the people are relatively standoffish if you will ...
- There is no traditional Baptist Church anymore - they have all adopted the "Evangelical Megachurch model"
- The other denominations have basically traded the Gospel for the gays, so that's not an option

So we're left with a Evangelical franchise church that we generally like but we have to put up with this insanity ... not to mention the single-serve, combination "communion" packets. Along those lines ... another rant ... the church makes individual communion available every Sunday after service ... nice sentiment, but I think they missed it's called "communion."

---

I have that complaint about them as well. But as you said, the alternative is even worse.

Us Presbys sprinkle infants, but they all go through classes and confirmation when older.

Mothra said:

---

]We disagree that the Catholic Church as I described above remotely resembles the early church in Acts. You have no evidence to support that position, while I've posted several differences which you have failed to address.

I go to a non-denominational church.

---

We can discuss those items one at a time later.

As I stated earlier how the Church does mirror Acts and the early church as follows ...

Acts speaks of bishops, priests, and deacons which are still present in Church today. Acts 6:1-6 describes the appointment of the first deacons. Acts 15:6, 23 also discusses priests. The office of the bishop is mentioned in Acts 1:20.

They were ordained by the laying on of hands (1 Tm 4:14, 5:22), they preached and taught the flock (1 Tm 5:17).

In Acts 2:42, we read, They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. This reflects key elements of Catholic life: adherence to apostolic teaching, communal fellowship, the Eucharist, and prayer.

At every Sunday mass, the following takes place:

1) We read from the OT, Psalms, and NT epistle.
2) We stand when the priest of deacon will then read from one of the Gospels.
3) The congregation will sit as the priest or deacon give a homily (preach) about the meaning of the Gospels/readings.
4) We recite the creed and offer our prayers as a community.
5) A collection is taken up to serve the church
6) The bread, wine, & offering are brought to the altar
7) The priest will offer the thanksgiving prayer and bread and wine is transubstantiated into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus.
8) We sing or say the Great Amen
9) The Eucharist is then distributed to the people.
10) At the end of mass, the priest will provide the Eucharist to authorized individuals to bring to the sick and the old who could not attend mass.

Justin Martyr wrote the following in 155 AD …
And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and (1&2) the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, (3)when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. (4)Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, (6)bread and wine and water are brought, and the (7)president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, (8)saying Amen; and (9)there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and(10) to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. (5)And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need.

If you are ever in Waco on the weekend (Sat evening or Sun), I would be happy to have you attend mass with me so that I can better explain these elements of the mass.

Please show me how your non-dom church mirrors what the early church did.

Finally, how do you know that your non-dom church is interpreting the bible correctly? What makes it different or better or more-correct than another non-dom down the road?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There are many more, like the dogmas of Mary. But you're not going to get them to see it, or at least admit to it. I showed them a Catholic book of prayers to Mary that blatantly elevated her to the level of God and Jesus, calling her "sovereign", "god of this world", "mediator between man and God", and saying they "place their salvation into Mary's hands". They had absolutely no problem with it and even defended it. If you can't even see this ridiculous level of heresy and idolatry when it's literally screaming in your face, then you're NEVER gonna see it.

---

We can discuss this, AGAIN, at another point.

We are currently discussing what the early Church looked like compared to Acts and infant baptism.

I have demonstrated biblically and with extra biblical sources that today's mass is similar to what happened in Acts and documented as early as 155 AD.

Please show me how your altar calls and sinner's prayers are listed in Acts.

---

How is it not relevant? I'd confidently bet that the worship in the church in Acts looked NOTHING like what's in those prayers to Mary.

Your "gotcha" about altar calls and sinner's prayer not being in Acts just falls flat. There's nothing there that is doctrinally or theologically at odds with the church in Acts. On the other hand, I can virtually guarantee you that the church in Acts would have categorically and emphatically rejected singing and praying to Mary and reciting prayers to "place their salvation into Mary's hands" for the blatant heresy and idolatry that it is.

Porteroso said:

---

It is easy to rag on infant baptism, but we don't live back in the day when it was started, so we don't understand it. Back in the day, child mortality was such a different thing, and very often these parents were simply trying everything they could to have their children blessed by God and saved in the case they died early.

If one is following it as tradition, it is obviously ok. If they are telling their kids they got them all saved up when they were 1, obviously not, but most aren't doing that.

---

That seems consistent with Catholic tradition, followed by reconciliation, communion, and finally confirmation. It is implied that full acceptance into the church as an adult occurs at Confirmation. Up till then it is the parents job to prepare the child to make that decision. Is that the minimum required for salvatiion? No, are we trying to just do the minimum? That is the process for acceptance as an adult into the church.

So, my question is are you talking what is the bare minimum you have to do to be saved? Or what are the steps to prepare someone for acceptance into the church? I would say Baptism is the bare minimum for a child due to original sin, it is parents job to ensure it happens. But the steps be before confirmation prepare the child to make an informed decision on what they believe. Same with pre-cana marriage class, a requirement for marriage in Catholic Church.

Why should we aspire to just the bare minimum???

Quote:

---

not to mention the single-serve, combination "communion" packets.

---

I almost hesitate to ask what a single serve combination communion packet is, but I'm going to do it anyway.

Mothra said:

---

That said, I am not sure how an altar call would be antithetical to the church in Acts. We know that the good news was preached by Peter - about sin, Christ, repentance, forgiveness, and salvation - and that thousands responded (see Acts 2). How do you think that came about? How do you think those people got saved? They responded to Peter's message and gave their lives to Christ.

---

Does Acts specifically say that Peter's preaching in Acts 2 occurred in the course of a church service? If not, clearly there is no room for an altar call in church. At least, using your logic about baptizing children.

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

That said, I am not sure how an altar call would be antithetical to the church in Acts. We know that the good news was preached by Peter - about sin, Christ, repentance, forgiveness, and salvation - and that thousands responded (see Acts 2). How do you think that came about? How do you think those people got saved? They responded to Peter's message and gave their lives to Christ.

---

Does Acts specifically say that Peter's preaching in Acts 2 occurred in the course of a church service? If not, clearly there is no room for an altar call in church. At least, using your logic about baptizing children.

---

The interpretation is a cleric of the Church. But, the Catholic tradition is in emergency anyone can baptize, even non-Catholics. The purpose of the denominations is not to keep people from God. If someone may not live, or you are not sure, a baptism by anyone is as valid as if the Pope did it to the Catholic Church.

Once again, are we discussing the bare minimum and that is all? If you are a member of the SBC or Catholic Church shouldn't you want to follow what your Church asks? Why are we now all about what is the least I have to do? Those extra steps my at not be necessary, but helpful in understanding what you are signing up for.

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

That said, I am not sure how an altar call would be antithetical to the church in Acts. We know that the good news was preached by Peter - about sin, Christ, repentance, forgiveness, and salvation - and that thousands responded (see Acts 2). How do you think that came about? How do you think those people got saved? They responded to Peter's message and gave their lives to Christ.

---

Does Acts specifically say that Peter's preaching in Acts 2 occurred in the course of a church service? If not, clearly there is no room for an altar call in church. At least, using your logic about baptizing children.

---

Preaching the Good News can only occur outside of church?

You know, coming from a Lutheran, why am I not surprised?

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

]We disagree that the Catholic Church as I described above remotely resembles the early church in Acts. You have no evidence to support that position, while I've posted several differences which you have failed to address.

I go to a non-denominational church.

---

We can discuss those items one at a time later.

As I stated earlier how the Church does mirror Acts and the early church as follows ...

Acts speaks of bishops, priests, and deacons which are still present in Church today. Acts 6:1-6 describes the appointment of the first deacons. Acts 15:6, 23 also discusses priests. The office of the bishop is mentioned in Acts 1:20.

They were ordained by the laying on of hands (1 Tm 4:14, 5:22), they preached and taught the flock (1 Tm 5:17).

In Acts 2:42, we read, They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. This reflects key elements of Catholic life: adherence to apostolic teaching, communal fellowship, the Eucharist, and prayer.

At every Sunday mass, the following takes place:

1) We read from the OT, Psalms, and NT epistle.
2) We stand when the priest of deacon will then read from one of the Gospels.
3) The congregation will sit as the priest or deacon give a homily (preach) about the meaning of the Gospels/readings.
4) We recite the creed and offer our prayers as a community.
5) A collection is taken up to serve the church
6) The bread, wine, & offering are brought to the altar
7) The priest will offer the thanksgiving prayer and bread and wine is transubstantiated into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus.
8) We sing or say the Great Amen
9) The Eucharist is then distributed to the people.
10) At the end of mass, the priest will provide the Eucharist to authorized individuals to bring to the sick and the old who could not attend mass.

Justin Martyr wrote the following in 155 AD …
And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and (1&2) the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, (3)when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. (4)Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, (6)bread and wine and water are brought, and the (7)president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, (8)saying Amen; and (9)there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and(10) to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. (5)And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need.

If you are ever in Waco on the weekend (Sat evening or Sun), I would be happy to have you attend mass with me so that I can better explain these elements of the mass.

Please show me how your non-dom church mirrors what the early church did.

Finally, how do you know that your non-dom church is interpreting the bible correctly? What makes it different or better or more-correct than another non-dom down the road?

---

Pointing out a few similarities that are common to most Christian churches, and then claiming Catholic mass "mirrors" the early church in Acts because it contains some of those similarities, does not a good or sound argument make.

BTW, Acts does not speak of priests or bishops. It does speak of deacons or elders of the church, though it does not set them apart from the lay people like the Catholic Church. There is no example in scripture of a Pope, priest, cardinal or bishop - and certainly nothing that looks even remotely similar to the Catholic hierarchy.

Been to plenty of Catholic masses over the years. Grandfather on my mom's side was Catholic.

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

]We disagree that the Catholic Church as I described above remotely resembles the early church in Acts. You have no evidence to support that position, while I've posted several differences which you have failed to address.

I go to a non-denominational church.

---

We can discuss those items one at a time later.

As I stated earlier how the Church does mirror Acts and the early church as follows ...

Acts speaks of bishops, priests, and deacons which are still present in Church today. Acts 6:1-6 describes the appointment of the first deacons. Acts 15:6, 23 also discusses priests. The office of the bishop is mentioned in Acts 1:20.

They were ordained by the laying on of hands (1 Tm 4:14, 5:22), they preached and taught the flock (1 Tm 5:17).

In Acts 2:42, we read, They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. This reflects key elements of Catholic life: adherence to apostolic teaching, communal fellowship, the Eucharist, and prayer.

At every Sunday mass, the following takes place:

1) We read from the OT, Psalms, and NT epistle.
2) We stand when the priest of deacon will then read from one of the Gospels.
3) The congregation will sit as the priest or deacon give a homily (preach) about the meaning of the Gospels/readings.
4) We recite the creed and offer our prayers as a community.
5) A collection is taken up to serve the church
6) The bread, wine, & offering are brought to the altar
7) The priest will offer the thanksgiving prayer and bread and wine is transubstantiated into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus.
8) We sing or say the Great Amen
9) The Eucharist is then distributed to the people.
10) At the end of mass, the priest will provide the Eucharist to authorized individuals to bring to the sick and the old who could not attend mass.

Justin Martyr wrote the following in 155 AD …
And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and (1&2) the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, (3)when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. (4)Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, (6)bread and wine and water are brought, and the (7)president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, (8)saying Amen; and (9)there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and(10) to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. (5)And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need.

If you are ever in Waco on the weekend (Sat evening or Sun), I would be happy to have you attend mass with me so that I can better explain these elements of the mass.

Please show me how your non-dom church mirrors what the early church did.

Finally, how do you know that your non-dom church is interpreting the bible correctly? What makes it different or better or more-correct than another non-dom down the road?

---

Pointing out a few similarities that are common to most Christian churches, and then claiming Catholic mass "mirrors" the early church in Acts because it contains some of those similarities, does not a good or sound argument make.

BTW, Acts does not speak of priests or bishops. It does speak of deacons or elders of the church, though it does not set them apart from the lay people like the Catholic Church. There is no example in scripture of a Pope, priest, cardinal or bishop - and certainly nothing that looks even remotely similar to the Catholic hierarchy.

Been to plenty of Catholic masses over the years. Grandfather on my mom's side was Catholic.

---

if you are going to throw out church hierarchy such as bishops, because it is non-biblical, does Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Polycarp, Ignatius, and others get thrown out with that bath water as well?

Why did those in the early church rely so much on traditions and creeds? Why didn't they just pick up their ESV and follow Christ's teachings?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

]We disagree that the Catholic Church as I described above remotely resembles the early church in Acts. You have no evidence to support that position, while I've posted several differences which you have failed to address.

I go to a non-denominational church.

---

We can discuss those items one at a time later.

As I stated earlier how the Church does mirror Acts and the early church as follows ...

Acts speaks of bishops, priests, and deacons which are still present in Church today. Acts 6:1-6 describes the appointment of the first deacons. Acts 15:6, 23 also discusses priests. The office of the bishop is mentioned in Acts 1:20.

They were ordained by the laying on of hands (1 Tm 4:14, 5:22), they preached and taught the flock (1 Tm 5:17).

In Acts 2:42, we read, They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. This reflects key elements of Catholic life: adherence to apostolic teaching, communal fellowship, the Eucharist, and prayer.

At every Sunday mass, the following takes place:

1) We read from the OT, Psalms, and NT epistle.
2) We stand when the priest of deacon will then read from one of the Gospels.
3) The congregation will sit as the priest or deacon give a homily (preach) about the meaning of the Gospels/readings.
4) We recite the creed and offer our prayers as a community.
5) A collection is taken up to serve the church
6) The bread, wine, & offering are brought to the altar
7) The priest will offer the thanksgiving prayer and bread and wine is transubstantiated into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus.
8) We sing or say the Great Amen
9) The Eucharist is then distributed to the people.
10) At the end of mass, the priest will provide the Eucharist to authorized individuals to bring to the sick and the old who could not attend mass.

Justin Martyr wrote the following in 155 AD …
And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and (1&2) the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, (3)when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. (4)Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, (6)bread and wine and water are brought, and the (7)president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, (8)saying Amen; and (9)there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and(10) to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. (5)And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need.

If you are ever in Waco on the weekend (Sat evening or Sun), I would be happy to have you attend mass with me so that I can better explain these elements of the mass.

Please show me how your non-dom church mirrors what the early church did.

Finally, how do you know that your non-dom church is interpreting the bible correctly? What makes it different or better or more-correct than another non-dom down the road?

---

Pointing out a few similarities that are common to most Christian churches, and then claiming Catholic mass "mirrors" the early church in Acts because it contains some of those similarities, does not a good or sound argument make.

BTW, Acts does not speak of priests or bishops. It does speak of deacons or elders of the church, though it does not set them apart from the lay people like the Catholic Church. There is no example in scripture of a Pope, priest, cardinal or bishop - and certainly nothing that looks even remotely similar to the Catholic hierarchy.

Been to plenty of Catholic masses over the years. Grandfather on my mom's side was Catholic.

---

if you are going to throw out church hierarchy such as bishops, because it is non-biblical, does Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Polycarp, Ignatius, and others get thrown out with that bath water as well?

Why did those in the early church rely so much on traditions and creeds? Why didn't they just pick up their ESV and follow Christ's teachings?

---

Your argument seems to incorrectly presume that the current hierarchy of the Catholic Church at all resembled the hierarchy during the period of the names you mentioned.

Traditions and creeds were relied on because their was no bible. And those traditions and creeds fluctuated greatly as between sects.

Was Sola scriptura part of the early church?

What church is biblical?

Was even the early church biblical?

We worship Christ, not the Bible.

Does tradition or the Bible or both teach us how to worship?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Was Sola scriptura part of the early church?

What church is biblical?

Was even the early church biblical?

We worship Christ, not the Bible.

Does tradition or the Bible or both teach us how to worship?

---

"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter."
2nd Thessalonians 2:15

The problem in the modern church is the proliferation of Opinionanity. Those who seek to overthrow the clear teachings of the Bible seek to undermine its authority and accuracy. Others seek to overthrow the traditions of the apostles that were taught to the early Christians using the Bible and pretending that the above verse is not part of that same Bible.

We have to go back if this faith is going to survive. It has already been effectively extinguished in the UK, Canada, and western europe. NZ, Australia, and the US aren't far behind.That means abandoning evangelicalism. It means abandoning protestantism (at least the Lutherans tried). It means abandoning the schismatic Latin church of 1054 AD. Go back to the first millenium.

Mothra said:

---

Traditions and creeds were relied on because their was no bible. And those traditions and creeds fluctuated greatly as between sects.

---

...the Nicene Creed, the fundamental summary of the faith, was formalized by church council in 325 A.D.

"We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one essence with the Father, through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down and became incarnate, becoming man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended to the heavens, and will come again to judge the living and the dead;

And in the Holy Spirit."

In 381 A.D. it was fleshed out a bit to combat Gnosticism, again in all the churches in council.

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father; by whom all things were made:

Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man;

And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried;

And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures;

And ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father;

And He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke by the Prophets;

And we believe in one, holy, catholic [universal, not Roman Catholic], and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.

We look for the Resurrection of the dead,

And the Life of the age to come. Amen."

It persisted this way for 7 centuries until the papal rebellion of 1054 when the Roman Catholic Church was founded and unilaterally changed the wording concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit. Your assertion of creedal chaos until Gutenberg enabled the widespread distribution of the Bible in the 1500s is simply incorrect.

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Traditions and creeds were relied on because their was no bible. And those traditions and creeds fluctuated greatly as between sects.

---

...the Nicene Creed, the fundamental summary of the faith, was formalized by church council in 325 A.D.

"We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one essence with the Father, through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down and became incarnate, becoming man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended to the heavens, and will come again to judge the living and the dead;

And in the Holy Spirit."

In 381 A.D. it was fleshed out a bit to combat Gnosticism, again in all the churches in council.

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father; by whom all things were made:

Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man;

And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried;

And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures;

And ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father;

And He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke by the Prophets;

And we believe in one, holy, catholic [universal, not Roman Catholic], and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.

We look for the Resurrection of the dead,

And the Life of the age to come. Amen."

It persisted this way for 7 centuries until the papal rebellion of 1054 when the Roman Catholic Church was founded and unilaterally changed the wording concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit. Your assertion of creedal chaos until Gutenberg enabled the widespread distribution of the Bible in the 1500s is simply incorrect.

---

I did not make an assertion of creedal chaos, nor did I suggest that creeds and tradition are not important - especially those that are consistent with scripture - unlike the traditions you have referenced (infant baptism being one).

Try reading closer and without making unwarranted assumptions.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Was Sola scriptura part of the early church?

What church is biblical?

Was even the early church biblical?

We worship Christ, not the Bible.

Does tradition or the Bible or both teach us how to worship?

---

1. Which early church? You're going to have to be more specific. There were a number of them.

2. I'd say a biblical church is one that follows the bible.

3. Again, which one?

4. Indeed, we do worship Christ and not the Bible. Or creeds. Or tradition.

5. Both.

You're making the mistake of assuming I am saying throw out tradition. I am not. I am saying tradition needs to be examined in the context of scripture, and where there is a divergence or contradiction, we need to seriously look at whether that tradition might be error.

And of course, that's what you're unwilling to do with the traditions you adhere to.

Mothra said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Was Sola scriptura part of the early church?

What church is biblical?

Was even the early church biblical?

We worship Christ, not the Bible.

Does tradition or the Bible or both teach us how to worship?

---

1. Which early church? You're going to have to be more specific. There were a number of them.

2. I'd say a biblical church is one that follows the bible.

3. Again, which one?

4. Indeed, we do worship Christ and not the Bible. Or creeds. Or tradition.

5. Both.

You're making the mistake of assuming I am saying throw out tradition. I am not. I am saying tradition needs to be examined in the context of scripture, and where there is a divergence or contradiction, we need to seriously look at whether that tradition might be error.

And of course, that's what you're unwilling to do with the traditions you adhere to.

---

You were doing great right up until the last paragraph. The only tradition my faith really adheres to is the pot-luck on the fifth Sunday in a month in fellowship hall. Probably the same as your church unless it's greater than 500 people.