markomalley

Ex10, I sympathize. As one of the few token Catholics on this board, I'm up for daily crucifixion, as well.

Howard, The issue here is whether baptism is a sacrament or not. A sacrament is defined as an outward sign of inward grace, instituted by Christ for our sanctification. In other words, a mechanism instituted by Christ to impart God's grace. (Whether you agree or not, that is the definition) Is baptism a sacrament? According to most denominations, it is. There are some denominations who do not believe that baptism does anything in of itself, but they practice it out of obedience, a public confession of faith (in those cases, I am not sure that it would be considered a sacrament). Is trinitarian baptism a necessity? According to Matthew 28:19 it is. According to the Didache (written somewhere between 55 AD and 110 AD), that's how it was done in the "first century church." According to the remainder of the documents written by the Church Fathers, that's how it was done (see, for example, works of Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, etc.) Is it essential? First of all, if you don't subscribe to a sacramental nature of baptism, then it really doesn't matter (so you can stop reading if you'd like). But if you do subscribe to the concept of baptism being a sacrament, then I would submit that it needs to be done in the way in which it was instituted. So is a non-Trinitarian baptism valid? I don't think it is. Having said that, though, if somebody did so out of ignorance with the intent being to do the right thing, I would certainly hope that God's grace would be big enough to cover an error in form with the proper attitude in heart. (Now if a person is baptized in a non-trinitarian fashion with full knowledge that a trinitarian baptism is prescribed, intentionally rejecting that prescription, that would be a different case IMO) We back on topic yet?

Danny, Good luck with your continuing efforts on reconstructing a Marconite Bible. Of course you and I have our differences on that subject, but I wish you well in you endeavors, anyway. And you are absolutely right about the traditions of men. It is well documented in scripture, as well as elsewhere, the evils of overemphasis on that "little 't'" tradition, especially when that takes a front seat to everything else. Little "t" tradition can provide severe impediments to peoples' salvation, IMHO. If one understands what is contained in "Big 'T' tradition," it helps one understand what is generally important and what is just practice. Examples: - What does one wear to church services. Other than to dress modestly, there really isn't much that is part of Tradition (big 'T'). But if you talk to a lot of old-timers, they will get HIGHLY upset when they see somebody not wearing a suit/dress. - In the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church (I say this because this controversy does not exist in the Eastern Rites), there is a controversy about the Tridentine Mass (from the middle ages) vice the Novus Ordo Mass (from the 1960s). Both liturgies contain the essential elements of the Mass, but they have a different look and feel. So much so that many of the country's bishops will not allow the Tridentine Mass to be said in their dioceses, believing that the Vatican has decreed thusly (it hasn't). And so much so that there is a group of people who believe that the Novus Ordo is not a valid Mass (it is). The fact that certain things have to be said for it to be a valid Mass is a Big "T" Tradition. Over-attachment to a specific liturgy to the exclusion of others is a Little "t" tradition. (Frankly, if we were to be literalists on the subject, we'd all be saying the Liturgy of James, Mark, or whatever...in other words, we'd all be Byzantines) - And if you think the above is unique to the Catholics, its not. My Father-in-Law (a massive KJV Sola Scriptura guy) told me about one time when they hired a new preacher. This guy had the audacity of wanting to make the services a bit more modern and youth-oriented. The deacons and elders had a fit. He told me, "We fired that SOB for trying to change our church." And his church is definitely not Catholic in any fashion.

CM, "Church Fathers" is merely an expression that it was these people who originally documented the theology of Christianity. If one wants to consider them elder brothers, teachers, or whatever, it doesn't matter. The bottom-line thrust of what I'm saying here is that if somebody wants to take you through a bunch of mental gymnastics to come up with some hidden knowledge of what the scriptures are really saying and what was done in the first century Church, it would be very wise to study these writings from the early Church in order to see what they saw about the subject. Frankly, I'd find this to be just as valid as consulting with somebody from modern India, if not more valid (keeping in mind that Indian culture is not Palestinian culture). I'd also find this to be just as valid as consulting a book on "orientalisms." Both are very handy, but both are valid. But I wouldn't get hung up on the terms used to identify this group of writings.

i've never really understood this phrase still don't get why it's worded like this i'm sure it's meant to mean something about the first century people though Fair enough. The Church Fathers are the principal leaders of the Christian Church through the 6th Century. (the last "church father" lived in the 8th Century) They are grouped, basically, in three categories: the Apostolic Fathers, the ante-Nicene Fathers and the post-Nicene Fathers. The Apostolic Father period began when the apostles were alive and went through about 200 AD. The ante-Nicene period was from 200 through 325 (the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea). The post-Nicene period was afterwards. Why should you care about this? 1 Cor 11:2 -- Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances (traditions), as I delivered [them] to you. 1 Thes 2:15 -- Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. 2 Thes 3:6 -- Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. Jesus walked among men for a long time. Doesn't the Bible say that all of his words and deeds couldn't be documented. The apostles travelled for years in their ministries, yet not all of those things could be documented. Its a complete violation of common sense to think that all of what Paul, Peter, James, or John taught were contained in those few pages? What about the rest of the apostles? And remember that there was NO Bible until the 5th Century. Yes, there were individual letters passed around, copied, duplicated, and so on. But what about he oral tradition? (See 1 Thes 2:15, above) The Church Fathers were either taught by the apostles or received this oral tradition through other Fathers. And they wrote letters, instructions, and other documents during their lives. Look, even if you are a completely "sola scriptura" (the Sciptures, only) Christian, you should still care about their writings. Why? Because through reading them, you can see what they thought about various issues of doctrine, such as baptism, "are the dead alive now," the trinity, Mary, and so on. Let me give you an example. If you found that the first or second century church practiced water baptism, rather than merely considering spiritual baptism, wouldn't it make you consider the possibility that "the first century church" practiced water baptism? If somebody modern made a statement that the "first century church" didn't really practice water baptism, but you'd seen documents from the first century church, the second century church, and so on, which clearly showed that water baptism was practiced, wouldn't you call into question the veracity of that modern teacher? Oh, btw, here is the text pertaining to the example I cited: (living water here means moving water)This is from a document dated in AD 70 (i.e., the "first century church") Hope that gives some information. Catholic Encyclopedia Article Christian Classics Etheral Library (Calvinist) Collection of Early Church Fathers Those links provide you some more info.

The "Gospel of Barnabas" is an interesting account. Its rather amusing when one googles the document; the only hits that have positive information are Islamic sites; the remainder of the hits rightfully call it a clumsy forgery from the middle ages. In fact, one could open up the "Epistle of Barnabas" alongside the "Gospel of Barnabas" and clearly, and the difference becomes blatant. But the one bit of usefulness that comes from this document is another clear example of why it is important to understand, or at least to be somewhat familiar with, the writings of the Church Fathers.

Excathedra, Nice to see you again. I saw that paper for the first time several years ago. It was interesting; don't know that I agree with all of its conclusions, but its worthy of consideration. Keep in mind that the author was writing this for a Masters degree in theology from a college affiliated with the Evangelical Free Church of America. That will color all the conclusions he reaches. Had the person who wrote the paper been completing requirements in a Masters in Theology from Catholic University of America or Liberty University (Jerry Falwell's college), he would have likely come up with different conclusions. I'm not saying that accusing him of an integrity violation, its just that his classes and outlook would naturally cause him to form different conclusions from each of the three religious colleges mentioned. FWIW So I would keep that in mind as reading the document. Read it with a critical eye.

BTW, Oldies, Your recent few posts on this thread have been remarkably humble. My compliments.

Oldies, if you believe in any form of unitarianism, whether it be Arianism, Adoptionism, Socinianism, or whatever, then it would be blasphemous to worship Jesus. If you believe in the traditional doctrine of Trinitarianism, then worship of Jesus is necessary. BTW, I would refer you to Rev 4:1 through 5:14 for some other thoughts on the worship of Christ.

Nothing for or against either of those two subjects implied here, but if I heard those two subjects discussed back-to-back ANYPLACE, I would RUN, not walk away from that place!

Danny, there are some who question whether Paul was the author of Colossians, as well. But this brings up a point which, to many of us, is obvious, but should be restated nevertheless: The Canon of scripture was not fixed until the late 4th Century (the Councils of Hippo and Carthage). When the documents that make up the New Testament were originally transmitted, they were stand-alone documents. Although there are some who might try to allege that Paul personally penned all of the documents attributed to him, its irrefutable that each of these documents stood alone until the Church codified the Canon of the New Testament several centuries later. (btw, although I agree with the statements that many of the documents could not have been written by the Apostle Paul, that does not mean that I call into doubt the inspiration of those documents that make up the Bible...) So until there was a canonical index, what did the Church have? They had Sacred Tradition. That Sacred Tradition had a critical role in determining what books were considered canonical, what books would be considered apocryphal, and what books would be considered pseudographic. As one could easily see from such sites as "Early Christian Writings," there were a number of documents which were attributed to any number of apostles; therefore, a claim of apostolic origin could not have been the sole criterion for the decision. So, in addition to claimed authorship, there must have been something else. I'm sure that Sola Scriptura folks would claim it was divine inspiration of some variety. But they should consider this: the attendees at these conferences were members of the Catholic hierarchy. A post-Constantinian Catholic hierarchy (i.e., a century after Constantine had his opportunity to "subvert" and "paganize" the Christian church--thus forming the "whore of Babylon"). So how could these people have received any authentic inspiration (since they would have already been subverted)? A much more believable option, in my humble (ahem) opinion, is that the attendees at these councils made a determination based upon Tradition (with a capital "T"). OK, so what? Consider the remainder of the documents that make up the repository of the Church Fathers. These documents provide a unique and invaluable insight into the mind of those people who made the determination of which components make up the Canon of the New Testament. Shouldn't those documents be studied to see how and what was actually believed in the early Church (rather than solely relying upon some modern person's opinion on what the Bible says)? Shouldn't we look to those documents to see areas that may not be crystal clear in the canocical writings? Wouldn't it be easier, simpler, and more accurate to see what was believed by the Church Fathers (who either were at the councils or taught those who were in attendence)? Protestant churches claim to try to return to a more "pure" form of Christianity...yet many of them (and I'm not saying anywhere near all of them) completely disregard this treasure we have available to us. If we want to know what the "first century" church believed, wouldn't it make sense to look toward all of the writings from that period...particularly considering that the Tradition that the attendees at Hippo and Carthage depended upon is contained in the whole repository of writings, not simply those writings deemed canonical? Danny, I realize that you are well read on the Church Fathers. But I believe firmly that this is something that EVERYBODY should consider in their studies...

And we need the rain...

Actually, that's what I'd suggest to you ss a good spot to visit that hasn't been spoiled. That or an Amazon cruise.

Consider that we know very little of his life prior to his baptism, anything that we conclude here would be pure speculation.

"Why not?" Let your voice be heard. Danny Gee, Dan, thanks.The bottom line is that when I start hearing the "Christianity was really Protestant/TWI/whatever in nature until Constantine came around and corrupted it," I realize that I will have an uphill battle and one that it's just not worth engaging in. Dan, have you ever heard of a document called the Donation of Constantine? Do you know its history at all? Its interesting that the statements made in this 7th century document (known conclusively as a forgery for the past 500 years) still show up in one way or another as talking points in modern documents, from Jack Chick to "Constantine's Sword." So I figure why bother even going there. Thus, the "Why Bother" comment. But thanks for asking!

Newbie alert here!!!Taylor, First, welcome to greasespot. Second, I have a very dry sense of humor. You probably won't get used to it, but just in case, you've been warned. Third, I am known by the socialists here as a wingnut. Thanks for the joke. "Bush-hater!!!" sounds good to me!!! Here that Mark S., I'm officially a Bush Hater!!! ROTFLMAO!!!

I would avoid all of those locations with the possible exception of Gettysburg until after Bush is out of office. Americans are not very popular over there right now.

I would avoid all of them except Beijing until after Bush is out of office. Until that time, Americans are not welcome in any of those places.

You know, I was going to do up a post refuting some of the allegations, but, then I thought, why bother?

Penguin, I think Ron has a great point there. How do the churches (and associated denominations where applicable) put the Gospel in practice? That, in a big way, shows their true character and is a sign of "fruit," as much as anything. Something else good to consider...

Belle, Thanks for sharing those -- people should get the idea that folks are surviving some and how recovery should work. The quantity of stories you shared show that the one from me was not an isolated incident. Prayers to all affected...

By the way, more on the Edict of Milan: Wikipedia article Interestingly, if you actually look at the FACTS of the situation, you'll find that there was "tolerance" of Christianity under Constantine. Domination of Christianity and supression/persecution of other beliefs (particularly paganism) didn't start until Theodosius (even though we learned through TWI that it was Constantine to blame). See here (again, from the Medievel Sourcebook) for more.

Now that just has little or nothing to do with the doctrine of the Trinity. Theophilus, Novatian, Tertullian, and Origen (all of whom explicitly used the word "trinity" in their writings) lived long before Constantine converted to Christianity and published the Edict of Milan in 313.

Harrison County (a little inland from the Back Bay). And no, nobody here knows him...just somebody that does some work for my company.

We've heard so much about the woes in Louisiana, I thought folks would enjoy hearing some news from another area struck by Katrina. I am posting this here, rather than in 'tacks, because his comments are not really political, just a situation report. People's reaction to his comments may cause this thread to be banished to 'tacks, however: