Was it worth Dividing the Church??

[Valerie]

I understand how it did, but o wonder if ot should jave ever happened-
Honestly- we KNOW that everything was not written down in detail in the Gospels & Epistles-
(2 Thessalonians 2:15 "therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which were taught, whether by word or our epistle.)-"word" here indicating Paul and Apostles taught some specifics "orally" that they did not wrote down.
When i read these statements, including Origen staying the Apostles taught it, and we know some Reformers did not "discard" infant baptism to this day, I'm greatly concerned there was a HUGE assumption made that may have, even with the best intention, was actually an heir that divided the church at large so badly that it is unrecognizable today.

These are some quotations regarding infant baptism from Church Fathers:

Origen (184-253 AD): "The Church inherited from the apostles the custom of baptizing even newborns. Because the apostles, to whom were entrusted the secrets of divine mysteries, understood that everyone is born with sinful tendencies that must be cleansed by water and the Holy Spirit " (Commentaries on Romans 5:9).

Hippolytus of Rome (about 170–235 CE): "First baptize the youngsters, and if they are able to speak for themselves, allow them to do so. Otherwise, their parents or other relatives should speak on their behalf " (The Apostolic Tradition).

Irenaeus (130-202 A.D.) wrote, "He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; that is, all who are reborn in God through him: newborns, children, youths, and the aged" (Against Heresies, 2:22:4).

Cyprian of Carthage (200–258): "But in regards to the case of infants, which you claim should not be baptized until the second or third day after birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be observed, so that a newborn should not be baptized and sanctified until the eighth day, we all had very different opinions in our council. No one agreed with your proposed course of action; rather, we all believe that the kindness and grace of God cannot be denied to anybody born of woman " (Letter to Fidus).

Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.) stated, "The habit of Mother Church in baptizing newborns is clearly not to be despised, nor is it to be considered redundant, nor is it to be claimed that her tradition is anything other than apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, 10:23:39).

[temporal1]

i’m pretty sure division was inevitable, even if not over infant baptism.
learned devout Catholic monks were questioning the Catholic Church hundreds of years before the printing press. the printing press is what fueled The Reformation. whenever the printing press occured in history, The Reformation (as recognized) would have followed. imho.

going back to Jesus, and, further, to The Garden, what do we see?

Jesus was the ultimate divider, literally offering Himself as The Way, even away from the family+church He was born into.
“Follow me” divides.

(i think) division is frustrating part+parcel of life on earth, the journey to Eternity, God sees all and uses all for His purposes, which are beyond human understanding.

my thoughts as i muddle through, nothing more.

[Soloist]

I would love to hear David B’s sermon on infant baptism and then the rebuttal to himself by himself.

I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.
3Jn 1:10  Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.

The church had been split multiple times. It’s disingenuous to argue that any split is just heretical movement’s.

2Th 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.

Division was created to separate the Church from the church. All of us are held accountable for our own choices.
There is a security that comes from belonging to a historical church and having the doctrine established by patriarchs or papal authority. I would argue that is a false security and the entirety of this structure appeals to us seekers as an answer to the confusion and disarray that plagues our hunt for perfection when really the problem is ourselves.
Many groups out there claim to have the answer and one who fairly evaluates the Orthodox can see that there is more division then is claimed. Which Orthodox group do you belong to? Does your group follow the revised version of Orthodoxy of the 14th century? The 19th century revision? Do you claim to follow the early church itself? What point is when you stop accepting new doctrine claimed to be historically sound? As looking through the ages of the early writings and later, more and more select teachers create more and more form. It’s impossible to trace every practice/doctrine to the first 300 years.
The two biggest challenges to someone rejecting the OTC is apostolic authority and what Jesus said. If the church wouldn’t fall, what does not falling mean in context of the churches Jesus called out and threatened? Did all the churches have the same practice? Did they all baptize for the dead? Why isn’t this practiced today? Clearly it was practiced by the “early” church. The farther we dig, the more disorder we see in the writings. What is your foundation built on? Jesus? Or men writings that were not claimed as inspired by anyone?

[Szdfan]

Many groups out there claim to have the answer and one who fairly evaluates the Orthodox can see that there is more division then is claimed. Which Orthodox group do you belong to? Does your group follow the revised version of Orthodoxy of the 14th century? The 19th century revision? Do you claim to follow the early church itself? What point is when you stop accepting new doctrine claimed to be historically sound? As looking through the ages of the early writings and later, more and more select teachers create more and more form. It’s impossible to trace every practice/doctrine to the first 300 years.

The two biggest challenges to someone rejecting the OTC is apostolic authority and what Jesus said. If the church wouldn’t fall, what does not falling mean in context of the churches Jesus called out and threatened? Did all the churches have the same practice? Did they all baptize for the dead? Why isn’t this practiced today? Clearly it was practiced by the “early” church. The farther we dig, the more disorder we see in the writings. What is your foundation built on? Jesus? Or men writings that were not claimed as inspired by anyone?

I think this a good place to mention again my favorite religion joke by Emo Philips:

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

[Szdfan]

More seriously, I think the church divides because 1) people don't agree and 2) people have to follow their conscience and 3) following your conscience is ultimately better than some sort of false unity forced by coercion.

[Josh]

Most “division” in the last 150 years has been due to liberals taking over solid groups with sound doctrine and pushing in the same direction that all liberals push: agitating for more central control, tolerating sexual sin, slavishly serving the desires of the wealthy, and condemning those who dare speak up another such things.

The last 200 years in America have also seen the rise of quacks, frauds, and grifters of every stripe seeking to create their own strange new religions.

There have, of course, been some divisions that don’t fit the above mold, but that is what most have been. The solution? Order the liberals to sit down, remove them from any position of power or authority, stop letting them control the seminaries, and don’t let them shrink your church’s attendance to 0.

[Valerie]

Most “division” in the last 150 years has been due to liberals taking over solid groups with sound doctrine and pushing in the same direction that all liberals push: agitating for more central control, tolerating sexual sin, slavishly serving the desires of the wealthy, and condemning those who dare speak up another such things.

The last 200 years in America have also seen the rise of quacks, frauds, and grifters of every stripe seeking to create their own strange new religions.

There have, of course, been some divisions that don’t fit the above mold, but that is what most have been. The solution? Order the liberals to sit down, remove them from any position of power or authority, stop letting them control the seminaries, and don’t let them shrink your church’s attendance to 0.

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

[Soloist]

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?

[Josh]

Valerie, some of the key divisions:

- Armenian Apostolic, 4th century, also the first Christian state
- Arian divisions in 3rd/4th century, most Germanic peoples converted to Arianism
- Eastern Orthodox division in 11th century
- Nestorian divisions ranging from 3rd-10th century - most early Chinese Christians were Nestorian, as was much of the rest of the East and Ethiopia

None of these had anything to do with Anabaptism or Protestantism. All thought they were preserving the true faith, too, and continue to believe that to this day.

Modern day Protestants and evangelicals are notorious for having a great multitude of divisions, but there are also diverse modern day forces at play that seek to destroy any Christian congregation. Liberalism is the most notorious one, and every single Christian church is in its sights. They seek to stoke divisions until a former Christian church agrees that:

- Jesus didn’t actually die for our sins on the cross
- Jesus is not God
- All faiths go to heaven and Jesus isn’t the only way
- Unrepentant sinners don’t go to hell
- Sexual immorality such as homosexuality is not wrong.

Until such time as all such ungodly people meet the final judgment, there will continue to be attempts at divisions in our churches.

[Ken]

Most “division” in the last 150 years has been due to liberals taking over solid groups with sound doctrine and pushing in the same direction that all liberals push: agitating for more central control, tolerating sexual sin, slavishly serving the desires of the wealthy, and condemning those who dare speak up another such things.

Nonsense.

How many various groups and subgroups of Amish exist today? They all originate from the same theological beginning. Liberals have nothing to do with the fact that 20+ different groups of Amish exist today.

Or for that matter, look at how many different groups of conservative Anabaptists exist? There is basically just one objectively liberal group of Anabaptists and that is MCUSA. All the other dozens upon dozens of Anabaptist groups are just various flavors of conservative.