What the Christian believes.

[MrWill]

Originally posted by voltaire007

He taught soooo much more than that. He taught about how to treat others and yourself. He taught about love and understanding. There are literally thousands lesson that Christ himself passed on to his Apostles and followers.

And, I would guess that a man like that wasn't proud, and ego driven. That maybe he would have wanted you to remember his deeds ('but by me') and that he was someone who could PROVE to others that there IS a God, rather than asking you to hang by any of the other 'stuff' embedded in the pages of a book that worships him as God.

[Stu]

Originally posted by twa

I have enjoyed these posts and hope to get some opinions about"one baptism for the forgiveneses of sin" I believe and my church teaches that baptism is not a requirement for the forgiveness of sin,It is instead a public testimoney or acknowledgement of your being forgiven. IE a pictorial ordinance showing the death burial and resurection of Jesus ,Showing the washing away of sins and the start of a new life. I would like to hear your beliefs in reguard to this.

I too have enjoyed them and that is a great question. As the Creed states and the Church teaches, I believe that Baptism is necessary in a normative sense but not in an absolute sense. That is, God created the Sacraments and meant for us to partake of them (Baptism being required) but He of course is not limited by them (He is God, nuff said).

Furthermore, I believe that when baptized we are forgiven of our sins (both Original and those incurred) through the actions of Christ on the Cross. As Acts 2:38 states: Peter (said) to them, "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." It is at this time that one is "Born Again" into the family of God as John 3: 1-7 states: Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. He came to Jesus at night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God, for no one can do these signs that you are doing unless God is with him." Jesus answered and said to him, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born 3 from above." Nicodemus said to him, "How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother's womb and be born again, can he?" Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I told you, 'You must be born from above.'

It is out of these verses, and a few others that the early Church fathers codified this belief in the Creed.

[mardi gras skin]

Originally posted by twa

I have enjoyed these posts and hope to get some opinions about"one baptism for the forgiveneses of sin" I believe and my church teaches that baptism is not a requirement for the forgiveness of sin,It is instead a public testimoney or acknowledgement of your being forgiven. IE a pictorial ordinance showing the death burial and resurection of Jesus ,Showing the washing away of sins and the start of a new life. I would like to hear your beliefs in reguard to this.

My beliefs:

The focus of this phrase is on unity, identity, and a theological affirmation of the Trinity.

In the Nicene Creed, there is a strong emphasis on unity. The word "one" is just as significant as the rest of the phrase. We are all baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All Christians affirm that there is no other name--no other God--by which we are baptized.

This phrase shouldn't be separated from the rest of the document. This baptism is an affirmation of the Trinity described earlier in the Nicene Creed. This is the focus. The three persons of the trinity gave the early church fits. By affirming ONE baptism and one baptism only--the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--the Church was affirming the trinity. This affirmation rejects Arianism, Pneumatomachian, Marcianism, and any number of the heretical teachings that rose up.

So all Christians affirm ONE baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

When some Christians say "Baptism isn't necessary" they are talking about water only. All Christians, by definition, affirm an identity with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as identified in the Nicene Creed. John baptized with water for the forgiveness of sins, but he said "I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." We all affirm this Baptism.

The mode of baptism wasn't universal among the Ancient Church. Sprinkled, Immersed, Poured, whatever. The Didache gives at least one region of the Churches instruction on how to baptize, but its clear that not all churches did it the same way. It was obviously not important enough to the writers of the Nicene Creed to describe the mode of Baptism and so I would think the mode of Baptism isn't important.

All Christians affirm, publicly and personally, a full identity with God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We all affirm the Nicene Creed. We all affirm this ONE baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

[twa]

These are good answers,yet I believe act 2:38 should have been translated "because of" or "as a result of".While I feel baptism is important,it to me is only a public signal of salvation.:2cents:

[SouthernStar]

Originally posted by Zero Cool

The big three religious questions:

Where did we come from?

Why are we here?

Where are we going?

We are "star-stuff" (Carl Sagen)

To help each other grow. Physically, mentally, spiritually.

To HELL in a handbasket.

[mardi gras skin]

Originally posted by twa

These are good answers,yet I believe act 2:38 should have been translated "because of" or "as a result of".While I feel baptism is important,it to me is only a public signal of salvation.:2cents:

That's valid. Elsewhere, ein is translated "into," "unto," "to, "towards," "for," and "among".

Here's another explanation similar to the one you gave, twa:

"For" (as used in Acts 2:38 "for the forgiveness...") could have two meanings. If you saw a poster saying "Jesse James wanted for robbery", "for" could mean Jesse is wanted so he can commit a robbery, or is wanted because he has committed a robbery. The later sense is the correct one. So too in this passage, the word "for" signifies an action in the past. Otherwise, it would violate the entire tenor of the NT teaching on salvation by grace and not by works.

Agree with that explanation or not, we're all able to affirm this text in Acts and we're able to affirm the Nicene Creed.

[twa]

It is great to celebrate our common beliefs instead of trying to discredit different denominations:)

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by codeorama

Belief in Jesus' teachings or that he was the literal son of God?

Both. They are one in the same.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his <u>only</u> <u>begotten</u> <u>Son</u>, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." -Jesus (John 3:16)

"I and my Father are one." -Jesus (John 10:30)

"And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, <u>Truly this man was the Son of God</u>." -Mark 15:39

[twa]

Originally posted by SouthernStar

We are "star-stuff" (Carl Sagen)

To help each other grow. Physically, mentally, spiritually.

To HELL in a handbasket.

As I believe we were formed from the dust of the earth ,maybe there is some star stuff in there:) To help each other would be a good choice. If we depend only on our abilities ,I would have to agree that the world will not just get better by our reliance on our own abilities.

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by stevenaa

In reading some of the current religion threads, it seems like a lot of people have some misconceptions on Christianity. So, here are some of the things that I and the Christians I have known believe.

1) There is one God. The God of the bible

2) Belief in Jesus is the only way to heaven

3) I have no responsibility to convert anyone to Christianity. Only God can do that. My only responsibility is to give the info.

4) We have free will. We can choose to believe or not to believe. This choice has consequences and we will be held accountable.

5) If you are not a Christian, we can still be friends and I don't have to beat you down with dogma. My actions should speak louder than any words I could speak.

Christianity is not about a religion such as Catholicism. Not all Catholics are Christians. (no intention to single out Catholics. Just an example) The term to me gets wore out. Followers of Christ is probably better terminology.

I posted this just as a point of reference. No intentions to start any debate or even elicit a response.

I was raised with no religion in the household. My father always refused to discuss religion, wanting us to make up our own mind. However, I've always known he was an athiest. I guess I was agnostic untill about 23, when I became a believer. No big trauma occurred. I started going to church, examined the evidence and made my decision. Funny thing is, my two brothers and my sister became believers through their own paths.

Good definition, Steven. I agree w/it totally, and I also was raised in a no-religion household.

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by Stu

Being the "original" christians so to speak, I am not sure what you mean with the first statement. The term Catholic means universal to include both Jew and Gentile.

This is true, Stu, but I don't think he wasn't referring to the term "catholic," as much as he was referencing <i>Roman</i> Catholicism. At least that's how I read his statement.

I will add, that not all "Christians" are Christians. I've seen some "saved" people do the darndest things.

Unfortunately, it is true. Salvation does not shut up a person's free will. God would not have it so. We still choose to love Him or reject Him every day: saved or lost.

I'll go instead with the Nicene Creed to describe Christianity.

I prefer to stick with the Bible, as it pre-dates the Nicene Creed. I'm just curious, how do you answer people that ask you where Catholicism was before the Roman Emperor Constantine directed the crafting of the Nicene Creed in the 4th century?

[mardi gras skin]

Originally posted by skinsfan51

I prefer to stick with the Bible, as it pre-dates the Nicene Creed.

But 51, when someone asks you what you believe you don't recite the entire Bible to them do you?

The Nicene Creed is a succinct statement of faith.

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by mardi gras skin

But 51, when someone asks you what you believe you don't recite the entire Bible to them do you?

The Nicene Creed is a succinct statement of faith.

No, of course not. But I can pretty much sum up my beliefs from the Bible using various important Scriptures.

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by mardi gras skin

But 51, when someone asks you what you believe you don't recite the entire Bible to them do you?

The Nicene Creed is a succinct statement of faith.

BTW, here is a copy that I just pulled from the web:

We believe (I 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 only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to 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 Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm

I believe all of it with maybe the exception of two statements which I would need defined with Scripture before I would believe them. They are:

1. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Now, I think I know what is meant by the Creed. The word catholic is all lowercase, which tells me that it simply means "universal," and not necessarily the <i>Roman</i> Catholic church, which wasn't really in existence at that point (325 AD). If that is the case, then I agree with it. It is not a reference to Romanism.

2. We confess one baptism for the remission of sins. I would have to ask what they mean by "baptism," before I believed that. If they mean water baptism, that is unscriptural. If they mean baptized in the Holy Spirit, then that would be Scriptural.

The rest is right and worded pretty clearly.

[Stu]

Originally posted by skinsfan51 This is true, Stu, but I don't think he wasn't referring to the term "catholic," as much as he was referencing <i>Roman</i> Catholicism. At least that's how I read his statement.

Unfortunately, it is true. Salvation does not shut up a person's free will. God would not have it so. We still choose to love Him or reject Him every day: saved or lost.

I prefer to stick with the Bible, as it pre-dates the Nicene Creed. I'm just curious, how do you answer people that ask you where Catholicism was before the Roman Emperor Constantine directed the crafting of the Nicene Creed in the 4th century?

I'm pretty confident you know what my answer will be but I will be happy to continue the discussion.

While Constantine allowed Christianity to be openly practiced in the open following his conversion, that in no way is the beginning of the Catholic (big "C") church.

The first council of Nicaea ended on August 25, 325 A.D and was attended by 318 Church Fathers. From that Council the first version of the Nicene Creed was adopted to combat the Arian heresy which denied the Trinity, something I think we have agreement upon. Yes Constantine had some influence here but so did Saint Athanasius. But in the end, they were combating what I believe you would call a heresy. And even if we want to question the motivations and sincerity of Constantine, I believe that does not matter. Scripture is replete with sinners acting as the instrument of God. (David and Solomon come to mind)

Constantine dies in 337 A.D.

In 381 at the Council of Constantinople, the Creed was revised to its current form to answer new forms of arianism.

In 382 the Council of Rome decrees an early canon of scripture. In 393, the Council of Hippo created the list of the Old/New Testament books whiich is the same as the Roman Catholic list today. This list was reaffirmed at the Council of Carthage in 397. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books. While many of these books were around by 100 A.D., there was no definitve organized Bible. There were certainly conflicting view on what that authoritative list was, but it wasn't until 393 that the list of books that make up the Bible as we know it today (sans our almost assured disagreement on some Old Testament text) was agreed upon (by Divine inspiration of course). Therefore, in my mind the "Bible" comes after the Nicene Creed although the two are absolutely intertwined since the Creed used existing scripture in its creation and the Bible used the Creed in its compilation.

Quite simply for me, when in doubt I not only go to the Bible but also the early Church fathers who predate the Canon and offer some great insight into the belief of the early Catholic church when the Apostles still walked the earth. I find their statements to not only bolster my understanding of the Faith, but they are the same teachings (on Faith) that the Catholic Church teaches to this day (Baptism included.)

But in the end, this is one of the differences between Catholics and protestants. Catholics value traditions and scripture equally as we see scripture coming from the traditions while protestants are usually scripture limited.

[Stu]

Originally posted by skinsfan51 :

1. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Now, I think I know what is meant by the Creed. The word catholic is all lowercase, which tells me that it simply means "universal," and not necessarily the <i>Roman</i> Catholic church, which wasn't really in existence at that point (325 AD). If that is the case, then I agree with it. It is not a reference to Romanism.

2. We confess one baptism for the remission of sins. I would have to ask what they mean by "baptism," before I believed that. If they mean water baptism, that is unscriptural. If they mean baptized in the Holy Spirit, then that would be Scriptural.

The rest is right and worded pretty clearly.

Yes on 1 with regard to the little "c". That is why you will find it said word for word in many different protestant churches. It is also a little "c" in the Catholic faith as well. I dispute the notion that the Catholic church had it's beginnings in 325 and what's with the use of the word "Romanism"? Thats what I called Catholics when I was a vehemently anti-Catholic protestant stuck on reading Jack Chick propaganda.

2. I believe that is not what the early Christians believed not one of the accepted Father's of the Reformation, Luther.

[Stu]

One other thing as we go down this road of discussing religion. I love having these discussion and will of course defend my position. And though I believe I know the plan for salvation according to the Gospel, I will never tell anyone they "are" or "are not" going to Hell. Quite frankly its not my call and belongs only to Him and I hope somehow we ALL go to Heaven. But I am confident that whatever He does it will be fair. I want to state up front that I will be happy to discuss all opinions as long as they are offered in a friendly and charitable manner free from sophistry and one upsmanship. The point of the debate is to seek truth vice win. I think Mardi Gras and I are on the same sheet here. I love the fact that we agree on so much, but it is understanding and reconciling our differences that will lead to the Church coming back together as I am sure the Lord wants it.

Slave to Christ,

Stu

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by Stu

But in the end, this is one of the differences between Catholics and protestants. Catholics value traditions and scripture equally as we see scripture coming from the traditions while protestants are usually scripture limited.

Protestants value traditions, also, but we recognize that they are not equal to Scripture. Scripture is inspired; traditions are not. They are just traditions. So when the two conflict the Scripture has to be the authority.

"The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple." Psalm 19

Traditions can't be perfect, but Law of the LORD is, and praise God for it. It's the only truly perfect thing on this earth.

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by Stu

Yes on 1 with regard to the little "c". That is why you will find it said word for word in many different protestant churches. It is also a little "c" in the Catholic faith as well. I dispute the notion that the Catholic church had it's beginnings in 325 and what's with the use of the word "Romanism"? Thats what I called Catholics when I was a vehemently anti-Catholic protestant stuck on reading Jack Chick propaganda.

LOL. Sorry. I sell old Christian books for a living. "Romanism" is in a lot of them and is just a reference to the Roman Catholic Church. I don't mean anything bad by it. It's just easier to type.

2. I believe that is not what the early Christians believed not one of the accepted Father's of the Reformation, Luther.

Explain, please. I kind of lost you in the thread. Are you saying that baptism does wash away sins, or it doesn't? If it does, what Scriptures clearly teach this? If not, please explain. Thanks.

[mardi gras skin]

Originally posted by Stu

But in the end, this is one of the differences between Catholics and protestants. Catholics value traditions and scripture equally as we see scripture coming from the traditions while protestants are usually scripture limited.

Well...

A protestant might argue that sola Scriptura is the restoration of the tradition of the apostolic church. Scripture is the oral tradition of the church handed down from the apostles. So in effect, to affirm scripture is to affirm tradition. Just as Orthodox and Roman Catholics affirm similar yet different traditions, Protestants also affirm tradition though they don't like the sound of that.

Let me quote one of the great hero's of the Protestant churches:

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."

Ahhh, that great protestant Irenaeus.

[skinsfan51]

Originally posted by mardi gras skin

Let me quote one of the great hero's of the Protestant churches:

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."

Ahhh, that great protestant Irenaeus.

Yeah, but it seems to me that all Irenaeus is saying is that what they heard by word of mouth first, and believed, was confirmed later by Scripture. That's a good thing. It just means that what he heard "proclaimed in public" lined up with the Scriptures.

Paul said: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed" Gal. 1:8.

Whatever Irenaeus heard had to line up with the same Gospel Paul preched, or it would have been accursed also.

[Stu]

Originally posted by skinsfan51

Originally posted by mardi gras skin

Let me quote one of the great hero's of the Protestant churches:

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."

Ahhh, that great protestant Irenaeus.

Yeah, but it seems to me that all Irenaeus is saying is that what they heard by word of mouth first, and believed, was confirmed later by Scripture. That's a good thing. It just means that what he heard "proclaimed in public" lined up with the Scriptures.

Paul said: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed" Gal. 1:8.

Whatever Irenaeus heard had to line up with the same Gospel Paul preched, or it would have been accursed also.

Nice quote MG and I understand you point. But from my point of view it was the traditions (both practices such as communion and oral versions of scripture) that were handed down from the Apostles that eventually led to the Bible. So for me the fruit cannot be greater than the tree. I don't expect you to agree, but at least understand the train of thought which it sounds like you do. Your Catholic friend must have explained his position well. So as Paul even says in Corinthians, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6). I guess you would say that the traditions became unnecessary after the Bible codified everything. Let's look a bit more at what Saint Irenaeus (Saints is what we Catholics call heros ) , Father of the Church (which is an honorary title), says about the Church:

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

"With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Adversus Haereses [A.D. 189]).

On the Baptism question (apologize for the bad grammar of the previous post as I didn't proof my work.) my point was that the early Church Fathers saw Baptism the same way that the Catholic church of today does. Here is but one example for our friend Saint Irenaeus:

"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

Additionally, Martin Luther even after the Reformation maintained these views.

Cheers,

Stu

[fwo40]

Originally posted by stevenaa

[b

Christianity is not about a religion such as Catholicism. Not all Catholics are Christians. (no intention to single out Catholics. Just an example) The term to me gets wore out. Followers of Christ is probably better terminology.

. [/b]

Actually on a purely classification level, shouldn't it be "not all Christians are Catholics?" Kinda tough to be a Catholic and not believe in Christ, since Catholics were the among the first Christian sects, and clearly became the first predominant one.

[twa]

Originally posted by fwo40

Actually on a purely classification level, shouldn't it be "not all Christians are Catholics?" Kinda tough to be a Catholic and not believe in Christ, since Catholics were the among the first Christian sects, and clearly became the first predominant one.

IMO this and the point stu made above are adressed in 1corinthians ,We need as christians not to place our emphasis on who or when we were baptized and which church,But rather on the teachings delivered to us by Jesus and the apostles.Too many times we get caught up in which is superior,much like the corinthians saying I am of paul or I am of appollos.To be a christian we must follow Christ not his messengers.

[mardi gras skin]

Originally posted by Stu

Let's look a bit more at what Saint Irenaeus (Saints is what we Catholics call heros ) , Father of the Church (which is an honorary title), says about the Church:

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

"With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Adversus Haereses [A.D. 189]).

Irenaeus was correct. With Paul and Peter's influence, Rome was a rich depository of apostolic teaching. Add Irenaeus' own authority as the student of John through Polycarp and he was the perfect man to confront these heresies. He was right to flash those credentials when countering heresy. The heretics appealed to hidden knowledge (Gnosticism) or hidden Spirit (Montanism). Irenaeus countered by appealing to the clearest succession of apostolic teaching.

Brilliant.

Now, was Irenaeus saying that all churches must agree with Rome for all time? Or was he saying that the teachings of the Church of Rome carried the most weight in establishing Orthodoxy at THAT time and in response to those heresies?

That's open for debate. We do know that the great churches of Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria didn't adhere to the authority of Rome and did not agree with Rome on all issues.

Another example of Protestants practicing the tradition of the early church.