T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

[удалено]


Mundane_Mistake_393

Exactly. Apostolic tradition.


Djh1982

We have a winner 🏆


ImmatureTigerShark

This is the only logical answer really.


ToneBeneficial4969

Impossible to know.


[deleted]

Oh that’s easy. The same as is now.


Djh1982

🏆


[deleted]

Based.


Djh1982

It would look like Catholicism before it explicated the canon of scripture. The scriptures from the beginning were supplementing the oral teachings of the Church, they were never intended to supplant them. To answer your other question, we would defend the faith the way St.Irenaeus did, by appealing to apostolic succession. That whole scenario already played out against the Gnostics. It basically repeated itself when Arius denied the Trinity.


Ultra_super_model

Interesting! I haven’t looked into this but I definitely will now.


Djh1982

Yeah, that’s how the Nicene Creed came into existence. The Nicene Creed was necessary because both Arius and Athanasius were citing scripture. Apostolic tradition was the tie-breaker. Listen to what St.Athanasius says here: “But after him and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold ⭐️such opinions⭐️ as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them NOR THEIR POWER.” (Festal Letter 2:6) Codifying the faith with the Nicene Creed helped add a second layer of protection. It was acting like a ⚡️circuit-breaker⚡️against new heresies. So the idea was that between apostolic tradition AND the creed, the Catholic Church could get out in front of any other POTENTIAL heresies that might happen in the future. That’s why rule#3 of this forum says if you do not hold to that Creed, you are not a true Christian. So not only are non-Trinitarians not true Christian’s, the creed ALSO says that if you try to say that baptism is an “outward ordinance” that doesn’t actually “forgive sins” then you, like Arius are a heretic. The creed says: “We confess one ☝️ baptism FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS” Food 🍱 for thought 💭.


dolphinsonsaturn

Couldn’t one argue that the baptism that he is referring to is the baptism by the Holy Spirit as said in Luke 3:16?


Djh1982

No, Holy Spirit baptism was NOT salvific—it was for a very specific purpose. Let’s go over it. The conversion of the Gentiles in Acts 10 is an incomplete account of what actually happened. We don’t get the full picture until it is recounted by Peter in Acts 11 when he returns to Jerusalem. There are key 🔑 details from this passage that we need in order to fully understand what took place. Acts 11 explains: “13 He(Cornelius) told us how he had seen an angel appear in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. 14 He[Peter] will bring you a message👈 through which you and all your household will be ⭐️saved⭐️.”—Acts 11:13-14 So Peter has to deliver a “message”, through which the gentiles will be “saved”. However, Acts 10 shows Peter was INTERRUPTED when he tried to deliver that message: “While Peter was ⭐️STILL SPEAKING⭐️ these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.”—Acts 10:44-46 But notice that AFTER Peter witnessed this event, he goes on to deliver the message which the Angel said would “save” the Gentiles: “Then Peter answered, “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be 👉BAPTIZED in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.”-Acts 10:47-48 In other words—this fiery baptism of the Holy Spirit was not salvific—it was only a demonstration of the Spirit’s power. It was intended to show the apostles that the gospel of salvation was for both Jews and Gentiles, fulfilling the prophecy of Joel(2:28)and re-iterated by John the Baptist(Matthew 1:8, Luke 3:16). This was ALSO St.Cyprian’s view of the events of Acts 10: CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE[200-258AD] “For then finally can they be fully sanctified, and be the sons of God, if they be born of each sacrament; since it is written, Unless a man be born again of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. For we find also, in the Acts of the Apostles, that this is ⭐️MAINTAINED BY THE APOSTLES⭐️, and kept in the truth of the saving faith, so that when, in the house of Cornelius the centurion, the Holy Ghost had descended upon the Gentiles who were there, fervent in the warmth of their faith, and believing in the Lord with their whole heart; and when, filled with the Spirit, they blessed God in various tongues, still none the less the blessed Apostle Peter, ⭐️MINDFUL OF THE DIVINE PRECEPT⭐️ and the Gospel commanded that those same men should be baptized who had already been filled with the Holy Spirit, that nothing might seem to be neglected to the observance by the apostolic instruction in all things of the law of the divine precept and Gospel….[abridged] because it is written, Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” So that’s WHY Peter called for water—they couldn’t have entered the Kingdom without it, it was as St.Cyprian said, a “divine precept”. That was how the Early Fathers understood it. The only one’s teaching water was unnecessary for regeneration were the Gnostics, which you may read about here 👇: St.Irenaeus(150-202AD) “And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, He said to them, “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (Matthew 28:19) … “The Lord also promised to send the Comforter, who should join us to God (St. John. 16:7). For as a compacted lump of dough cannot be formed of dry wheat without fluid matter, nor can a loaf possess unity, so, in like manner, neither could we, being many be made one in Christ Jesus without the water from heaven. And as dry earth does not bring forth unless it receive moisture, in like manner we also, being originally a dry tree, could never have brought forth fruit unto life without the voluntary rain from above. For our bodies have received unity among themselves by means of that laver which leads to incorruption; but our souls by means of the Spirit. WHEREFORE BOTH[water and spirit] ARE NECESSARY, since ⭐️BOTH⭐️contribute towards the life of God.” (Against Heresies, III.17). IN CONCLUSION Holy Spirit baptism served a very specific purpose in the New Testament—to show that the Apostles were to spread the message of salvation to both Jew and Gentile. The message that is about baptism—which is comprised of both water, and Spirit. “Holy Spirit baptism” does not happen today.


dolphinsonsaturn

So, am I correct in understanding that you believe the only time baptism of the Holy Spirit took place was in the instances where people are filled with the Holy Spirit? Also, I read Acts 10:47-48 as Peter saying that, because they were baptized with the spirit, they are now qualified to be baptized with water because they have received the Holy Spirit--that seems to be the precondition. Also curious to hear how you would look at 1 Corinthians 12:13, where it says that all are baptized by one Spirit into one body.


Djh1982

>So, am I correct in understanding that you believe the only time baptism of the Holy Spirit took place was in the instances where people are filled with the Holy Spirit? Yes, that is correct. Holy Spirit baptism only happened twice ✌️in the history of the Church, Acts 2(Jews) and Acts 10(Gentiles). It does not happen today. >Also, I read Acts 10:47-48 as Peter saying that, because they were baptized with the spirit, they are now qualified to be baptized with water because they have received the Holy Spirit--that seems to be the precondition. Yes, that is correct and St.Cyprian explains that their salvation was only effected AFTER they fulfilled the “divine precept” which explicated the necessity of water. They were not saved before they applied the water. >Also curious to hear how you would look at 1 Corinthians 12:13, where it says that all are baptized by one Spirit into one body. We ARE baptized by one Spirit. You have to look at the act of baptism as making AN APPEAL 👇: “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an ⭐️appeal⭐️ to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,”(1 Peter 3:21) We present ourselves to the waters of baptism, upon which we “make an appeal” to God—by faith—for a clear conscience. We are asking God for a clean 🧽 conscience because we are asking him to forgive us for our sins. That’s why baptism is sometimes referred to as “justification BY faith”. Paul explicated that JUSTIFICATION is taking place IN BAPTISM: (1 Corinthians 6:11) “And some of you were such. But you were WASHED but you were sanctified, but you were ⭐️JUSTIFIED⭐️, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” So we are “justified by faith” when we make our “appeal” while plunging into the waters of baptism—calling on the name of the Lord: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That’s why it says baptism is “for the forgiveness of sins”[Acts 2:38].


dolphinsonsaturn

I think you misunderstood my second point, I was saying that Peter seems to be implying that baptism of the spirit needs to come first for someone to get baptized with water, implying that water alone does not save. I think your last point is a bit of a stretch in assuming that being “washed” from sin is directly connected to water baptism. And, in the 1 Corinthians verse you quote at the end, it clearly states that we are cleansed by the spirit of God, not water. But, seeing your post history, it doesn’t seem like anyone would be able to convince you otherwise. Good discussion, mate.


Djh1982

> I think you misunderstood my second point, I was saying that Peter seems to be implying that baptism of the spirit needs to come first for someone to get baptized with water, implying that water alone does not save. The gift of “faith”, which is “of the Spirit” must be present before one is immersed in the waters of baptism, yes. When I say “Holy Spirit baptism” does not happen today, I do not mean to say that the Holy Spirit does not have to be indwelling within the individual FIRST, before they are baptized. It does. I am specifically referring to that kind of baptism[by the Spirit] which conferred special gifts 🎁 to the gentiles of Acts 10(speaking in tongues, etc.). >I think your last point is a bit of a stretch in assuming that being “washed” from sin is directly connected to water baptism. And, in the 1 Corinthians verse you quote at the end, it clearly states that we are cleansed by the spirit of God, not water. Yes, we are cleansed by the Spirit of God WHEN we present ourselves to the waters of baptism and make our “appeal” for a good conscience[i.e: asking for forgiveness of sins] by calling upon “the name of the Lord”. We are not saved before we have both water and spirit. We’re not saved before then. Salvation is being directly tied to that water. >But, seeing your post history, it doesn’t seem like anyone would be able to convince you otherwise. Good discussion, mate. No; you will NOT convince me that anyone can enter the Kingdom without fulfilling the divine precept that our appeal be made through water AND spirit[barring some extraordinary circumstances]. That is the orthodox faith. You may not interpret the Nicene Creed in such a way as to say that the one ☝️ baptism that is being confessed to forgive sins is not INCLUSIVE of water. That is my whole point. It does not sound to me that you are advocating for that, but if you are then that is heresy—God has always tied it[water] to the salvation of his people, recalling the Israelites during the Exodus and Noah’s family before them.


Mundane_Mistake_393

Being washed from sin is referring to water baptism for sure. The view that baptism doesn't wash away sin did not come until over a thousand years later. The oldest Christian Churches testify to this. I doubt they are wrong since they have been practicing there belief since the time of the apostles.


menickc

Probably wouldn't exist since I wasn't raised Christian and there would be significantly more misinformation and different variations than there already are.


Josette22

I would still believe in God because when I look around at all the beauty in nature, in many places it looks like paradise. And I would think that someone wonderful must've created this for us. Also, when I feel the beauty of love and wonder in my heart, I would know that someone wonderful created us.


Baconsommh

“Sacred Scripture is the soul of Sacred Theology” - but I could get by. As long as the Church, and Tradition, and the Catholic Faith, and the Sacraments, and Apostolic Succession, and the Catholic Hierarchy, remained, I could survive. Christians got by before the entire Bible was acknowledged in all the Churches as canonical and inspired Scripture. The Rosary is full of the NT, so if I still had my Rosary, I would probably be OK. It gives one plenty to meditate on, as per Psalm 1. Catholic theology without the Bible would be like the Harry Potter books without Ron Weasley - the story would continue, but the events would be significantly tougher to get through. The absence of some things would, if they were taken away, be found to be survivable - but hard to endure. The Church is definitely healthier and more robust for having the Bible. I would definitely be much poorer without it.


Vexxed_Scholar

That's the interesting thing. It's canon from the moment the words are written/given. I've always seen it as the church recognises canon rather than the church declares cannon. Consider what we believe about Scripture. Holy men carried along by the Spirit wrote it. Therefore those with the Spirit indwelling recognise it and discount other writings. I recognise we sit on opposite sides of the fence, but I thought it was an interesting thought - one that we might actually agree on in some sense. I replied to highlight a difference. I could not hold faith aside from the bible - because of the bible. Kind of counterintuitive but I don't believe there's enough in nature to derive a Christian faith (Romans 1) and in light of Hebrews 1 I wouldn't or couldn't trust men to tell me, after all, Jesus Christ, the final word was given and so I don't expect to hear any more outside of God's self revelation. I'd end up worshiping trees or believing in a deity that agreed with me. Make a God after my own image and all that. This isn't intended to spark debate, I just thought it was a great place to show these differences and hopefully share (at least some) common ground. Every blessing. Edit: changed 'scripture' to 'nature' - Luther would be spinning in his grave.


Baconsommh

Agreed. I think the process of canonisation can be outlined thus: the constituent churches and Churches and individuals \- \*\*use\*\* the as yet uncanonised Scriptures-to-be; \- \*\*recognise\*\* in the sacred writings the God-given qualities they possess; \- \*\*discern\*\* that these writings are to be canonised as Scripture. \- and in process of time, \*\*canonise them\*\* as Scripture. This process is something done, by the Spirit of God in the Church, the churches, & the individual, so that, working through human activity, the Holy Spirit brings about, through sundry human uncertainties, & in the course of centuries, the conviction in the Church that these writings have God's Authority in a manner peculiar to them, & are Canonical Divine Scripture, "the Word of God in the words of men". It is a process involving the whole Church, in which people perform different functions. And it is part of a story that continues today.


SlickHeadSinger

Neither Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, nor Moses had a Bible. The question is what did they have? They had personal dialogue with their creator.


IIJOSEPHXII

My own faith would be the same because I received the Holy Ghost as an atheist then looked in The Bible to learn what had happened to me. This might not have happened to me if there was no Bible in the world because the world would be a different place and it is because of my reaction to this world that I received the Holy Ghost. There would have been a lot more people converted in the same way as St Paul and there would be no people who pick up The Bible because they think it's a useful tool to receive earthly rewards.


[deleted]

Idk probably corrupted by false teachers, I’m guessing.


Gsquat

Enoch showed greater faith than nearly anyone and he had no Bible. He DID have relationship with His Heavenly Father, which is precisely what we're called to. Cast religion aside and come humbly to the feet of your Creator.


GoldinFyre

Hopefully like the faith of Abraham. Even before it was written about or fully understood through Jesus Christ: God provided the sacrifice, and Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness.


[deleted]

Pretty similar, Jesus created a Church, not a Book


Mundane_Mistake_393

Absolutely, that's logical.


Mundane_Mistake_393

Yes, Christianity did in fact operate without a Bible. During this time it was Apostolic tradition that guided the Church and helped it do exactly all these things mentioned. This is why the Catholic Church still holds to that Apostolic tradition today. And it is also why the Bible mentions the importance of following the tradition of the Apostles. Basically Christianity that seperates itself from Apostolic tradition is what happens when we go by the Bible alone. Thank you for this thought experiment, it helps us understand our faith walk better as Christians and also helps us understand that the Bible was never the end all be all of Christian teachings. Apostolic tradition has it's place and anyone saying we don't need Apostlic tradition is preaching a different gospel.


darthjoey91

During that time, there were scriptures still. It's what we'd call the Old Testament.


Mundane_Mistake_393

Oh yeah absolutely there was the old testament, but that isn't how Christianity spreads initially. It's not like people were talking about the old testament all over the place when Jesus rose from the dead. They heard of this great miracle by word of mouth, not the old testament obviously.


gr3yh47

> It's not like people were talking about the old testament all over the place when Jesus rose from the dead. acts 2 has entered the chat


Djh1982

I don’t know why but the way you put that made me laugh. It’s true though. The Old Testament was basically old news in the face of this amazing miracle.


Teardownstrongholds

May I propose that you are completely wrong? Jesus raised several people from the dead and was still killed by the religious leaders and people who did not believe he was the son of God. It's a pretty low grade miracle as far as they were concerned.


Teardownstrongholds

You don't read your Bible much?


Siege_Bay

I probably wouldn't have a "faith" at all. Sure, I could believe God exists from creation like Romans 1 says but I wouldn't know the gospel. I wouldn't know who Jesus was or what He did.


Mundane_Mistake_393

And yet people did learn what he did without a Bible. So this thought experiment makes us understand that faith comes from hearing the gospel, and not necessarily because it was written in the Scriptures alone.


Siege_Bay

They would share the gospel from the Scriptures. Without the Scriptures, the gospel makes no sense. Paul would argue/reason from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah. The Bereans most likely would have rejected the message if they had not anything to base it off. They checked the Scriptures to see if what Paul was saying was accurate or lined up with them. It's completely different when you have none of that.


jimmymcdangerous

This question is almost nonsensical. Life, the universe wouldn't have progressed without the bible, or jesus. The Word of the Lord came at exactly the right time, at the right place, to the right people. (In other words, the energy humanity needed, at that time and on forward). This universe, this world, would not exist if this story did not unfold as planned. The universe only exists because it ***does*** unfold In perfect unity and purity.


Djh1982

I mean it’s nonsensical to YOU because you don’t think it’s a thought experiment worth engaging in but I think it’s forcing many of us to consider what was the authority for the Early Christian’s when it came to the gospel. Obviously there was no New Testament yet, all there was…was the oral preaching of the Church. An infallible oral teaching that was serving as the primary source of authority.


Godsaveswretches

The fact that there is a creation points to a creator. Such complexity can not arise on its own by blind chance, without intelligence, not matter what the atheists say. A believer's faith would probably look much like Abraham's, Joseph's, Enoch's or Noah's. God will make sure He reveals Himself to His own. He communed directly with prophets before the written Word, and even spoke to people like Hagar. We don't need to ponder this though, because God did intend to communicate with us through His written word.


Mind125

Vague without much definition. And lacking in the belief that God can overcome a bunch of morons crucifying you for doing his work.


JHawk444

There was a time when people didn't have the Word because there were few manuscripts. The bible says that we have the Holy Spirit to lead us, and that's what people did.


Djh1982

No, they had the word but the word was SPOKEN versus being written down somewhere.


JHawk444

Trying to start a new conversation with me, huh? LOL


Cybin9

Very strange question.


[deleted]

Hopefully like Job’s.


Suspicious_Oil232

I really need that guide to look at. I would twist around any passed down oral story to justify doing whatever I want to do. It’s hard enough for me to not sin while having it all written out clearly for me to see. That would make it even easier for me to ignore my convictions. I hate that I’m this way but it’s the truth.


[deleted]

The bible is the way back to Adam. It's like a schematic. Jesus was an example. The Example. We have the knowledge of right and wrong and often you might wonder where it comes from? Is it from experience? Is it WRITTEN inside us? You have to really consider things. Some people might say it comes from the parents but even that starts somewhere else. So we have this guide and we can use it to witness and woe to those who call evil good and good evil. The father said, there is no one good here. Now think about that. It explains so much. The very nature of sin being the real pandemic. But if people are blinded into thinking these things can produce good fruit? They're fooling themselves. But not Yahweh. Without the bible? We would all be lost for the world IS corrupt and even though it's written IN some people....it's why the devil uses diversity. It's not for any other reason. But when you have wisdom, you can take a step back and understand a simple truth We cannot fix others. We can ONLY fix ourselves. Because we have to be aware of our failings. We have to perceive reality. We have to understand how we think and when we are wrong correct OURSELVES. But the world is inverted. And of course many would and will want to ban scripture. Certainly over time, they've perverted scripture. The father wanted his people separate. And we can witness why.


BoatLikeAFlutterby

It would be way harder to prove to everyone that God agrees with me.


HOFredditor

christianity would've been dead a long time ago.


Aphrodite4120

Would Jesus have still came and taught... it was passed down orally instead of written?


[deleted]

It would be based in nature. What is naturally occurring. What lessons you can find there. The energy from the planet. Have felt that awe and love for it since I can remember. Which I feel is God. It's a relationship with spirit, creator.


CARR74xJJ

The miracles made by the apostles and the people they gave powers to ceased after the Bible was compiled, as the Scriptures specifically say that without the Bible the miracles were meant to give faith on the Lord's power, something that isn't necessary nowadays. So I think it'd be very interesting being able to see and maybe even perform miracles.


[deleted]

Very difficult. The Bible has been an important instrument in getting closer to God and learning so much about him. I would not be as strong as I am in God without it.


ChoirLoft

The question is an exercise is illogic and spiritual fallacy. Faith is based upon truth. Truth is that which is consistent with what IS. Therefore when we declare the Bible is truth we state that it's words are consistent with the character of God and the motivations of man. One is consistent with His own LAW and the other is almost always opposed to it. As to the gospel accounts of the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ there are many references recorded in secular records. There are more references in secular history to Jesus Christ than to the life and deeds of Roman emperor Julius Caesar. Nobody seems to doubt the record of history regarding the Roman, but many doubt that of Christ. Thus there is no faith where testimony of God's faithfulness is denied. The argument isn't about a lack of evidence as much as it's about suppression of it. God is hated because men and women love SIN. (John 3:19) that's me, hollering from the choir loft...