Was it worth Dividing the Church??

[ohio jones]

They called marijuana the ™Gateway Drug" wonder if the Reformation whether Protestant or Anabaptism was the Gateway of where we are now -

Why wouldn’t the split of Catholics and Orthodox be that?
Or any number of false teachings well before the reformation?

The west (RC) is where the Reformation happened, not the East. But look what happened in the West-thousands of divisions all based on sola scriptura- it was not supposed to happen that way, isn't it obvious?

If the west and the east had not split, would there have been a Reformation?

Is Parkside's division from other churches based on sola scriptura?

[Valerie]

Why wouldn’t the split of Catholics and Orthodox be that?
Or any number of false teachings well before the reformation?

The west (RC) is where the Reformation happened, not the East. But look what happened in the West-thousands of divisions all based on sola scriptura- it was not supposed to happen that way, isn't it obvious?

If the west and the east had not split, would there have been a Reformation?

Is Parkside's division from other churches based on sola scriptura?

Who could know to your question, it was things being done not repented of that caused the Great Scism- Rome went off on their own- it was what they were doing that led to the Reformation. Perhaps given more time, there would have been repentance-

Parkside yes is based on Sola Scriptura as in all denominations or non-denominations. It oroginally started as a men's Bible Study-so there you go. We do feel ots sound doctrine & they don't claim to be infallible

[Valerie]

By the way, till we all come to the unity of the faith once for all delivered to the saints- on one hand it's somewhat frustrated me to have spent time in the various vastly different people of faith because you can't help but ask how does God see their point of view or how does God see their interpretation? Or who has it the most right? I for one am not looking for a perfect Church because there are people in it and that keeps it from being perfect-
On the other hand what has been tremendously beneficial to me and my husband is to have spent time among various denominations and learn from them while we were seeking various places after leaving the Pentecost environment, in each of the groups there are numerous misunderstandings of the others beliefs- a lot of assumptions that are not true. Do ypu think that is beneficial??

[Wade]

The call of Christ was to repent for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand. His call was to follow Him. His call was to forsake all or you are not worthy to be His disciple.
None of which a child much less an infant can do!

His focus was the kingdom of God and it was not primarily about salvation.

The division is simply a focus on the reality of His kingdom now or a focus on salvation. Anyone who thinks you can be born into the church by infant baptism has to throw out the call of Christ to commit to Him - being born again and be alive in Him, experiencing the blessing of His Will on earth.

This didn’t happen in the 1500’s where some wrongly focused on salvation and missed the kingdom, it started early on.

For those who believe in infant baptism how do you reconcile infant baptism with the calls of Christ (that only people who aren’t children can do) and him only calling the Gospel the kingdom of heaven/God?



I will add I’m sceptical that the Protestant churches that came out of the reformation were worth it.

Jesus used children as an example of faith. He said also, suffer not the children to come unto Me.
Psalm 8:2
King James Bible
Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.

I think there is a difference of understanding of children between the ancient church and the Anabaptist Church and some Protestant churches because some Protestant churches do baptize infants. Jesus seems to have a higher view of children and would not deny them baptism. Of course as an adult if you come into the faith that would be a believer's baptism. But if the apostles taught to baptize your infants and children then they must have a different understanding than a lot of other denominations so I see in the ancient Church the Christian parents will have their infant baptized and raise them in the fear and nurture of the Lord. They are not seen as outside of the church or outside of the faith then while they are growing up.

I saw my first infant baptism in January. The baby was baptised & anointed with oul & Chrismated to receive the Holy Spirit & given the Eucharist & many prayers- the baby girl is dunked three times in a baptismal font and the look on her face when it was over was amazing to me. Her mother and father are very devout Christians I have the elbows confidence they will raise her in the fear and nurture of the Lord, but of course we do not lose our free will to fall away, backslide or what have you but she is on her way.

Not a misunderstanding about children but about the church and the kingdom of God - they are two different things. If children are apart of the kingdom of God - why do you feel a need for them to be of the church or to be baptized?

[Sudsy]

I haven't looked this up but wasn't the main idea of infant baptism from the belief that we are born in sin and that baptism washed away all sins ? Called paedobaptism. A form of grace, a sacrament, being reborn. Therefore, as early as possible, prepare a child for Heaven through baptism.

In many other churches they/we believe until a child reaches an point of understanding to believe in Jesus as Lord and Saviour, should they die, God will receive them into Heaven. It isn't a fear that until they reach that point they will be lost and end up in hell. This is called credobaptism.

Most churches I have been a part of have child dedications, which they have created with Old Testament backing. The idea is more for the parents to promise to raise the child in a Godly home. It has no 'saving power' for the child.

I have to go for now but will study this later.

[Heirbyadoption]

Jesus seems to have a higher view of children and would not deny them baptism.

I was admittedly a bit torn at first, but after reading an open endorsement of paedobaptism on an "Anabaptist" forum, it gives me no pleasure but I would reply to the OP question of whether it was worth "dividing" the church with: absolutely.

[temporal1]

Jesus seems to have a higher view of children and would not deny them baptism.

I was admittedly a bit torn at first, but after reading an open endorsement of paedobaptism on an "Anabaptist" forum, it gives me no pleasure but I would reply to the OP question of whether it was worth "dividing" the church with: absolutely.

i was raised in a definitely no baptising babies-children home, in a time (before current ecumenism) there was quite a lot of pressure .. to join “the right” church .. churches seemed focused on getting warm bodies in their own church pews (?my young perception). even as a child, i felt “invited” (with pressure) to join various churches. without explanation of why. esp why one from another. i was afraid of church, i was confused. interested! but shy and confused. afraid.

looking back, it’s interesting how my stoic quiet parents were so firm about refraining from baptising infants. they definitely experienced various pressures. it’s interesting to me how beliefs are passed down over time, altho the origins may be forgotten.

eventually, as a married adult with children, after visiting a few churches, we reluctantly visited a Lutheran church; the pastor spoke simply, with such heart, we wanted to learn more, altho the liturgy was all-new to us, and infant baptism was completely foreign.

story shortened.
when we first witnessed the infant baptism ceremony, it was evident this was not equivalent to an adult baptism. that, later, in confirmation, this was the point of personal decision (altho, still young teens). this softened my view. (i’m unsure if this reflects what was happening in the Reformation.) my guess is, this later confirmation was not as it is today? i’m not sure.

i was baptised as an adult, our children were older teens.

it’s hard to understand in full what happened long ago. however, the Catholic Church was adamant about its supremacy and control, infant baptism was one of several points of contention. scriptures written in common language was hard-fought.

i think it’s hard today to imagine.

[Valerie]

Jesus seems to have a higher view of children and would not deny them baptism.

I was admittedly a bit torn at first, but after reading an open endorsement of paedobaptism on an "Anabaptist" forum, it gives me no pleasure but I would reply to the OP question of whether it was worth "dividing" the church with: absolutely.

i was raised in a definitely no baptising babies-children home, in a time (before current ecumenism) there was quite a lot of pressure .. to join “the right” church .. churches seemed focused on getting warm bodies in their own church pews (?my young perception). even as a child, i felt “invited” (with pressure) to join various churches. without explanation of why. esp why one from another. i was afraid of church, i was confused. interested! but shy and confused. afraid.

looking back, it’s interesting how my stoic quiet parents were so firm about refraining from baptising infants. they definitely experienced various pressures. it’s interesting to me how beliefs are passed down over time, altho the origins may be forgotten.

eventually, as a married adult with children, after visiting a few churches, we reluctantly visited a Lutheran church; the pastor spoke simply, with such heart, we wanted to learn more, altho the liturgy was all-new to us, and infant baptism was completely foreign.

story shortened.
when we first witnessed the infant baptism ceremony, it was evident this was not equivalent to an adult baptism. that, later, in confirmation, this was the point of personal decision (altho, still young teens). this softened my view. (i’m unsure if this reflects what was happening in the Reformation.) my guess is, this later confirmation was not as it is today? i’m not sure.

i was baptised as an adult, our children were older teens.

it’s hard to understand in full what happened long ago. however, the Catholic Church was adamant about its supremacy and control, infant baptism was one of several points of contention. scriptures written in common language was hard-fought.

i think it’s hard today to imagine.

Its not just Catholics, the other original Church, in the east also baptized infants- no pressure- it was the understanding from the beginning since the Apostles taught it. Lutherans &Presbyterians did not depart from it either, they apparently didn't feel that was a belief/understanding to contest.

[Valerie]

Jesus seems to have a higher view of children and would not deny them baptism.

I was admittedly a bit torn at first, but after reading an open endorsement of paedobaptism on an "Anabaptist" forum, it gives me no pleasure but I would reply to the OP question of whether it was worth "dividing" the church with: absolutely.

That's why i put it into the Category of General Christian theology

[Josh]

The idea Jesus would have baptised infants is absurd. In Jesus’ time, baptism and Jewish miqvah were the same thing, which was done when a person turned 12 (or later), and indeed undergoing miqvah was required to enter adult religious life.

To quote one of the confessions I hold, “infant baptism, the highest and chief abomination of the pope”. We baptise as adults because we follow the ways of the New Testament: “repent, and be baptised”, not “be baptised, and repent a decade later”.