Posted on 10/15/2004 1:04:27 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
No. The key word is "established". After Pentecost the Apostles "established" Christ's Church on earth and ensured its continuation and existence through the guiding vehicle of Apostolic succession.
Not everyone is orthodox. When you say established, it sounds like this should apply to everyone, I don't think that is true. As you said, we're talking about beliefs, not facts.
The established Christian Church claims univeralisim, "Catholic" in Greek.
OK
PS: I am approachig this from a historical context - I am not a Roman Rite Catholic.
I'm only interested, because I haven't actually heard anyone called a heretic before. I didn't realise that term was still in use.
I don't believe there is a need to be saved post 327
I believe we MUST be saved by faith.
If, for example, you can believe that someone came back from the dead, or virgin birth, or the concept of the Trinity, or Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being one...why can't we both be right, or wrong for that matter? Perhaps, everything is done by God on an individual basis.
I'll stand by the 1689 confession:
Those whom God hath predestinated unto Life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call by his word, and Spirit, out of that state of sin, and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and Salvation by Jesus Christ; inlightning their minds, spiritually, and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his Almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his Grace.
Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
There is no such thing as Christian religions meeting - one faith met with a gathering of the major Apostolic succession designated Bishops. I rather not follow a Johnny come lately creed only codified in 1689 through a misreading of the Greek original text.
PS: Also in 1689 they were burning witches as well. So not the height of scholarship. The West was in barabarisim and heresy.
Evils of infant baptism
http://www.reformedreader.org/history/howell/evilsofinfantbaptismtoc.htm
I cannot comprehend what it would be, to be God. But I believe that anything is possible with God...even what we, as humans, perceive as illogical or contradictory.
Is it not contradictory or illogical to all we know, that the dead can come back to life?
proorizo (Strong's 4309):
Act 4:28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before 4309 to be done.
Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow , he also did predestinate 4309 [to be] conformed to the image of his Son that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate 4309, them he also called : and whom he called , them he also justified : and whom he justified , them he also glorified.
1Cr 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained 4309 before the world unto our glory:
Eph 1:5 Having predestinated 4309 us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated 4309 according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
BTW, Which Council called us (me, other Calvinists) heretics?
me neither
But I believe that anything is possible with God...
anything that is possible, is possible with God. He couldn't un-exist; He's a necessary being. It's not possible for Him to NOT exist.
even what we, as humans, perceive as illogical or contradictory.
God isn't logical? God can contradict Himself?
Is it not contradictory or illogical to all we know, that the dead can come back to life?
You assume the we know that the dead can't come back to life. Doctors play God all the time.
They were way too literal; maybe? Or, have we lost something since then?
Ex 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
The first time the Gospel was ever proclaimed was on the day of Pentecost by the Apostle Peter. In his Spirit-inspired sermon he made it clear that the blessing and promise of salvation was not just for adults, but for children as well.
"And Peter said to them, 'Repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself " (Acts 2:38,39).
It is also interesting to note that this quote from Peter's Pentecostal sermon does not merely state "... the promise is for you and children," but "for you and your children," which makes it clear that the children mentioned here were young enough to still be considered under the protection and authority of their parents. This is underscored when one understands that it was common for women and men to marry at the very young ages of twelve and thirteen, respectively. From this it becomes reasonable to assume that these children to whom Peter refers were young juveniles or, at the very least, in their preadolescence.
The Baptism of Households
Although this is only indirect Scriptural evidence, the fact that the Bible mentions that entire "households" were baptized does make it seem probable that children and infants were included. "Now I did baptize the household of Stephanas . . . " (1 Corinthians 1:16) (An angel spoke to Cornelius saying) "Send to Joppa, and have Simon, who is called Peter, brought here; and he shall speak words to you by which you will be saved, and all your household " (Later, when Peter arrived at (Cornelius' household) "... he ordered them to be baptized."(Acts 11:13b, 14; Acts 10:48a) "And when she (Lydia of Thyatira) and her household had been baptized . . . " (Acts 16:15a) "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household . . . and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. " (Acts 16:31, 33b) We know that the Greek word oikos, translated "house" or "household," has traditionally included infants and children in its meaning for several reasons. There is no evidence of this word being used either in secular Greek, Biblical Greek,or in the writing of Hellenistic Judaism in a way which would restrict its meaning only to adults. The Old Testament parallel for "house" carries the sense of the entire family. The Greek translation of the original Hebrew manuscripts (completed in 250 B.C.) uses this word when translating the Hebrew word meaning the complete family (men, women, children, infants). Similarly, we know that the phrase "he and his house" refers to the total family; the Old Testament use of this phrase clearly demonstrates this by specifically mentioning the presence of children and infants at times.
No Baptism of Older Children of Christian Parents Recorded If the baptism of infants was not acceptable during New Testament times, then when does Scripture mention the alternative - the baptism of the children of Christian parents once they have matured out of infancy? The Bible never gives one example of the baptism of a Christian child as an adult. It is important that Scripture also does not speak of an "age of accountability or reason" (which many pinpoint at 13 years) when a child's capacity to believe the Gospel is developed enough so that he can receive baptism. Neither does the Bible state that every child is in a "suspended state of salvation" until they have reached this age, which one would have to believe if he held to the "age of accountability" theory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.