High Demand Religions?

[Szdfan]

Than, with the worldview that is being presented here, how does one even know that beyond question? How does one even know that anyone can be saved?

The epistemology presented here leads only to a great foggy cloud of unknowing. It is more eastern in its origin than Christian.

There are streams of Western Christian theology that focus on the mystery of God rather than on certainty. The "Cloud of Unknowing" is a 14th Century mystical text written in Middle English. Early monasticism (the Desert Fathers and Mothers) focused on Christian mysticism. It's not just an Eastern belief.

[ohio jones]

I would suggest that more fundamental than determining what beliefs are beyond question, is determining what answers are beyond question. What is the ultimate source of authority?

Is it the written Word?
A personal vision?
The "oral traditions", if someone can tell us what they are?
The written Traditions of The Church (which One)?
The Deposit of the Faith?
The ex cathedra pronouncements of the Pope?
The personal leading of the Holy Spirit?
The Ordnung or brotherhood agreement of the local fellowship?
More than one of the above, or only one?

This is not an "Anabaptist vs. anyone else" issue, people were being martyred for having views that conflicted with the Powers That Be long before the Anabaptists came along.

If we don't agree on what's authoritative, we won't agree on much of anything else.
Exhibit A: This thread.

[Judas Maccabeus]

I would suggest that more fundamental than determining what beliefs are beyond question, is determining what answers are beyond question. What is the ultimate source of authority?

Is it the written Word?
A personal vision?
The "oral traditions", if someone can tell us what they are?
The written Traditions of The Church (which One)?
The Deposit of the Faith?
The ex cathedra pronouncements of the Pope?
The personal leading of the Holy Spirit?
The Ordnung or brotherhood agreement of the local fellowship?
More than one of the above, or only one?

This is not an "Anabaptist vs. anyone else" issue, people were being martyred for having views that conflicted with the Powers That Be long before the Anabaptists came along.

If we don't agree on what's authoritative, we won't agree on much of anything else.
Exhibit A: This thread.

In the end, the question is “where is final authority.”

[Judas Maccabeus]

Than, with the worldview that is being presented here, how does one even know that beyond question? How does one even know that anyone can be saved?

The epistemology presented here leads only to a great foggy cloud of unknowing. It is more eastern in its origin than Christian.

There are streams of Western Christian theology that focus on the mystery of God rather than on certainty. The "Cloud of Unknowing" is a 14th Century mystical text written in Middle English. Early monasticism (the Desert Fathers and Mothers) focused on Christian mysticism. It's not just an Eastern belief.

But largely has been since the 60s. I was there, and can actually remember it. Many of my friends could not say that.

[Josh]

Than, with the worldview that is being presented here, how does one even know that beyond question? How does one even know that anyone can be saved?

The epistemology presented here leads only to a great foggy cloud of unknowing. It is more eastern in its origin than Christian.

There are streams of Western Christian theology that focus on the mystery of God rather than on certainty. The "Cloud of Unknowing" is a 14th Century mystical text written in Middle English. Early monasticism (the Desert Fathers and Mothers) focused on Christian mysticism. It's not just an Eastern belief.

But largely has been since the 60s. I was there, and can actually remember it. Many of my friends could not say that.

And early monasticism was generally theologically orthodox and did not come up with novel doctrines at odds with their larger church.

[Sudsy]

I would suggest that more fundamental than determining what beliefs are beyond question, is determining what answers are beyond question. What is the ultimate source of authority?

Is it the written Word?
A personal vision?
The "oral traditions", if someone can tell us what they are?
The written Traditions of The Church (which One)?
The Deposit of the Faith?
The ex cathedra pronouncements of the Pope?
The personal leading of the Holy Spirit?
The Ordnung or brotherhood agreement of the local fellowship?
More than one of the above, or only one?

This is not an "Anabaptist vs. anyone else" issue, people were being martyred for having views that conflicted with the Powers That Be long before the Anabaptists came along.

If we don't agree on what's authoritative, we won't agree on much of anything else.
Exhibit A: This thread.

In the end, the question is “where is final authority.”

The 'final authority' that I am going with is the Holy Spirit's revelation to my spirit that I am saved -

Romans 8:16 -The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God

The Holy Spirit has brought me to believe that my salvation is based on this alone -

Romans 10:9-10 - If you openly declare that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by openly declaring your faith that you are saved.

What others chose to believe for their salvation is their choice. This, I believe, is the Gospel message that saves us from sin and eternal death and the one that I share with others.

[Josh]

How is this not just “If I think I’m saved, I am”?

[Valerie]

You are not in the position to call early church writers false teachers or call out false doctrine in regards to this topic. You are 2000 years out from Apostles starting Churches. You are defending Anabaptists for their beliefs which is understandable but they are simply wrong about their conclusions. And I loaned my early church writers book out but you are wrong that this started in 300.
EVERY country the Apostles started the Church, east or west, the "norm" was infant baptism. It was stated as fact not "guessing" that the Apostles themselves taught it.
Anyone questioning it, like I remember Tertullian did, and I believe that was before 300 that he questioned it, well he left the Church anyways to become a Montanist, a sect that eventually died out. But the "common" practice was for Believers to baptize their infants. As OJ pointed out about Anabaptists differing each other in application, same would be true of the original Church- early church writers BEFORE 300 had opinions on how old the infant should be- how many days old.

I think each of us has a responsibility as a believer to call out false doctrine that does not align with Scripture. God has preserved Scripture for us and it can be used to try the doctrine of man, whether that man be apostle or peer. We are told in 2 Timothy 3:16,
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
And Paul writes in Galatians 1:8
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you that that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."
John 14 records "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you and shall be in you."

So yes, as believers with God's Spirit in us, we do have the ability to call out that which is contrary to scripture. Just because an early "church father" wrote something does not mean that writing is truth. Using the argument of oral tradition does not give credence to an idea. Paul clearly teaches that if something does not line of with God's word, it should not be heeded.

Differing opinions on baptism does not fall in the category of heresy.

I believe in total immersion. I could say to teach pouring or sprinkling is heresy. But I can read the early church allowed for poring if there was not water available for total immersion.

It seems to me that baptizing infants vs adults and pouring vs immersion are not in the same category and cannot be treated as the same. They are not opinions. One is a command of Christ and one is an application of that command. Christ commands baptism. In Scripture when people were baptized, they were baptized upon request and this request was preceded by repentance (Act 2:38 "And Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized)' An infant cannot repent or ask for baptism. In scripture, repentance is a prerequisite to baptism. Furthermore baptism was received willingly, not forcefully. A 'baptism' of infants is nothing more than a bath. I prefer to give my children their bath at home.

As to immersion vs pouring, that is an application of a scriptural command. Scripture is not explicit in whether immersion or pouring constitutes baptism. It simply says to be baptized. Let's be careful not to put a command and an application into the same category.

When the Scripture does not explicitly give details of a command, what you have is the faith passed down in all aces it was taken by Apostles. We don't read where God told Cain & Abel to offer up a sacrifice to Him, do we? They were practicing this because He must have told them and it was not written down. God's elect women were ceiling in the Old Testament. We read that they are but we do not read where we were told to. Somehow, they were instructed to, though there was no written command. We have 1 Corinthians 11 to continue this ancient practice now to Gentiles Christians. By the way, 2 books of Corinthians are "missing" we don't know what all was said in them.

I will just say, there are Sola Scriptura arguments made by denominations making their case FOR infant baptism. That would be if you think early church writers saying Apostles taught to do this were liars. So those denominations make their case for Infant Baptism using Scripture and convey their understanding.

So most Christians believe and have since the beginning as there is evidence, and you cannot find any "decree" going out all of a sudden worldwide for churches to start doing this, we can know this was passed down- that converted Believers were baptized and their children then were too and were added to the Church.

Look, people have started to serious dominations SO SURE they were Scriptural - take Seventh Day Adventist.
SO SURE we are wrong, by way of Scripture, for our Holy Day of worship to be on Sunday.

I don't think it is God's leading to be SO SURE of something you cannot prove.

The early church fought and died to defend the faith once delivered to the saints. We can have opinions, sure- but to accuse of false teachings because "YOU" think it's false teachings, does not make it so.

Scripture teaches oral teachings were passed down.
Scripture says the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. I can see why this assumption and error was made against the Church but perhaps they will be accountable if it turns out they assumed wrongly and created such havoc.

Even still, other Protestants at that time still use Scripture to support infant baptism even if you remove E Of & RC from the picture.

[Sudsy]

How is this not just “If I think I’m saved, I am”?

I believe the assurance given by the Holy Spirit is not a 'think so' or a 'hope so' but a 'know so'. We may be tempted to doubt our salvation as that is a common trick of satan. He likes to bring up our failings as if these will makes us 'not good enough'. But if I am trusting on what Jesus did and not what I am doing to be saved, I have this 'blessed assurance Jesus is mine' and I am His. It is a matter of faith in what Jesus did and not about putting faith in myself and my own righteousness. Salvation is a gift that cannot be earned. Believe it and receive it. What a great gift !!!

[Soloist]

I will just say, there are Sola Scriptura arguments made by denominations making their case FOR infant baptism. That would be if you think early church writers saying Apostles taught to do this were liars. So those denominations make their case for Infant Baptism using Scripture and convey their understanding.

Show me these quotes from the early teachers directly taught by the Apostles and I’ll show you quotes that disagree from early teachers taught by Apostles.

I don't think it is God's leading to be SO SURE of something you cannot prove.

I completely disagree. For one, we all believe in unseen unprovable living God.

The early church fought and died to defend the faith once delivered to the saints. We can have opinions, sure- but to accuse of false teachings because "YOU" think it's false teachings, does not make it so.

The heretics did as well and you have repeatedly stated martyrdom isn’t proof of anything. Thus, you stating it’s true when it contradicts Scripture doesn’t make it true either.

Scripture teaches oral teachings were passed down.
Scripture says the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. I can see why this assumption and error was made against the Church but perhaps they will be accountable if it turns out they assumed wrongly and created such havoc.

No objection. The objection is who is the church.

Even still, other Protestants at that time still use Scripture to support infant baptism even if you remove E Of & RC from the picture.

Yeah and they also killed the Anabaptists with the sword too.