Originally posted by CalvinandHodges
Hello:
After reading the initial post I would have to ask the question concerning Seaton's statement here:
Where is the Scripture proof for this? In every doctrine of Theology we can refer back to the OT, including the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, but not the Sacrament of Baptism? I wonder what John the Baptist would say about that? Especially when Jesus says that he is the greatest of all the OT prophets. When considering baptism cutting out the whole of the OT does not seem very God glorifying.
Although I don't need to provide any proofI will attempt to. John the Baptist was OT and he baptized people. As for whether baptism is a sacrament, we'll agree to disagree.
Since the teaching of Believer's Baptism is such a radical departure from Federal Theology, and the rest of Scripture, one would expect an explanation of it in the Early Church Fathers. Yet, they are silent on it. In fact, it can be shown that Infant Baptism is the Universal practice of the Universal Church throughout history.
Well, the NT does say "believe and be baptized". Jesus was baptized as an adult. This would signify that circumcision/infant baptism just don't cut it (no pun intended) and can not be made to be the same. If they were the same, then there would have been no need for Jesus to be baptized as an adult.
As for the early Church, the reason they practiced infant baptism on a large scale was because Roman Catholicism was the dominating religion was it not? And we know why they practiced it.
Tertullian, about two hundred years after the birth of Christ, is the first man of whom we read in ecclesiastical history, as speaking a word against infant baptism. And he, while he recognises the existence and prevalence of the practice of infant baptism, and expressly recommends that infants be baptized, if they are not likely to survive the period of infancy; yet advises that, where there is a prospect of their living, baptism be delayed until a late period in life. The superstitious ideas he used to justify such a teaching was that Baptism wipes away all past sins, and that sins committed after Baptism were especially heinous. Of course, such a view is contrary to the NEW TESTAMENT doctrine and practice of Baptism. Yet, Tertullian is often cited by Credo Baptists to justify their views.
Wasn't it superstitious ideas by Catholics that brought infant baptism into the Church? Wasn't it Catholics who believed that infant baptism was NECESSARY for that child's salvation as it washed away original sin? If you ask me, that is superstitious. So you believe that all Baptists get their beliefs from a man named Tertullian? And since he was wrong, all Baptists are wrong? Guilt by association? I got mine from the NT.
After Tertullian the next time Infant Baptism is questioned, about twelve hundred years after Christ, was during the time of the Waldenses. They maintained that infants ought not to be baptized, because they were incapable of salvation. They taught that none could be saved but those who wrought out their salvation by a long course of self-denial and labour. To those of us committed to the doctrines of Grace: the Waldenses view is clearly a doctrine of Works salvation.
And during this 1200 year period wasn't the world dominated by the Roman Catholic church? Weren't "baptistic" people persecuted by the Roman Catholic church? These could be two reasons why not much was said against it for 1200 years, wouldn't you agree? The Waldenses would be teaching a Works salvation (if indeed that is what they taught); but how is that any different from the outrageous things I have seen on this board? That if one doesn't baptize his infant child he is a "covenant breaker", an "apostate", and on his way to hell? Talk about "works" salvation.
Are my Baptist brothers going to stand up and say that "infants are incapable of salvation"? I hope not. Yet, these are the very words of Baptist John Piper as an argument against Infant Baptism. It seems to me that if the deity can be incarnate in an infant, then infants are more than capable of receiving Saving Grace. There seems to be a small thread of Works-Righteousness in the Credo Baptist position. I said, "seems to be."
If Christianity is a faith and if one is saved through faith in Christ, it stands to reason that infants aren't capable of salvation. But who knows what God can do? I don't claim to. God can still save them. Maybe Piper meant that they are incapable of rationally believing in Christ, without excluding the possibility that God could have put faith in that child's heart which he/she will understand when he/she is older. There may "seem to be" a Works-Righteousness in the Credo Baptist position (I don't see it though). I don't know any Baptist who believes you have to do a work (baptism) in order to be saved. They do it precisely BECAUSE they are saved.
We hear no more of Antipaedobaptists until the 16th Century, when they arose and for the first time broached the doctrine of our modern Baptist brethern. As far as I can discover, the modern views of Baptists were absolutely unknown in the whole Christian world, before that time.
Again, this could be due to the RC Church being the dominant religion in the world (denomination in Christianity, etc.). This doesn't prove they were the only ones, it only proves they were the major force. And if they were right in their doctrine, there would have been no need for a Reformation. It has been said that Luther didn't go far enough in "reforming" the Church because he kept to infant baptism. Baptists believe they descend from the very beginnings of the Church; that they were never RC and they were never Protestant. And since John the Baptist baptized believers, I tend to personally believe we trace our "denomination" all the way back to his time.
The silence of the Church for over 1600 years concerning Believer's Baptism is counterbalanced by the very vocal affirmation by the Church concerning Infant Baptism. Tertullian, we have already noted, acknowledged the practice of Infant Baptism. Origen, circa 250AD, speaks unequivocally of the baptism of infants:
No need to repeat myself again right?
The testimony of Cyprian:
Would I be correct in assuming these two sources were Roman Catholic?
Here is a synodical decree for the baptism of infants. This was not simply the opinion of one or two pastors, but it was the universal determination of a unanimous synod. Consequently, it represents the universal practice of the Church.
Were they Roman Catholic?
I could go on and quote Chrysostom and Augustine, but I think I have made the point clear. I could imagine that a Credo Baptist reply to this would be that the Reformation brought about a rediscovery of the doctrines of the Bible. The only problem with this is that the Reformation doctrines can also be found in the testimony of godly men prior to the Reformation. Concerning the modern day views of Credo Baptism one cannot find such a testimony.
Two more Roman Catholics I presume?
Grace and Peace,
-CH
[Edited on 5-9-06 by CalvinandHodges]
Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
Originally posted by CalvinandHodges
Hello:
After reading the initial post I would have to ask the question concerning Seaton's statement here:
Where is the Scripture proof for this? In every doctrine of Theology we can refer back to the OT, including the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, but not the Sacrament of Baptism? I wonder what John the Baptist would say about that? Especially when Jesus says that he is the greatest of all the OT prophets. When considering baptism cutting out the whole of the OT does not seem very God glorifying.
Although I don't need to provide any proof
Look up sacrament: From Webster's 1828
3. In present usage, an outward and visible sign of inward and spiritual grace; or more particularly, a solemn religious ceremony enjoined by Christ, the head of the christian church, to be observed by his followers, by which their special relation to him is created, or their obligations to him renewed and ratified. Thus baptism is called a sacrament, for by it persons are separated from the world, brought into Christ's visible church, and laid under particular obligations to obey his precepts. The eucharist or communion of the Lord's supper, is also a sacrament, for by commemorating the death and dying love of Christ, christians avow their special relation to him, and renew their obligations to be faithful to their divine Master. When we use sacrament without any qualifying word, we mean by it,
4. The eucharist or Lord's supper.
Since the teaching of Believer's Baptism is such a radical departure from Federal Theology, and the rest of Scripture, one would expect an explanation of it in the Early Church Fathers. Yet, they are silent on it. In fact, it can be shown that Infant Baptism is the Universal practice of the Universal Church throughout history.
Well, the NT does say "believe and be baptized". Jesus was baptized as an adult. This would signify that circumcision/infant baptism just don't cut it (no pun intended) and can not be made to be the same. If they were the same, then there would have been no need for Jesus to be baptized as an adult.
As for the early Church, the reason they practiced infant baptism on a large scale was because Roman Catholicism was the dominating religion was it not? And we know why they practiced it.
The "catholic" (meaning 'true') church did not become the "Roman catholic" church till much later...in the sense that you are thinking. Like alot of churches today, the churches back then differred and the changed as time went one. The early church was not perfect...but neither was the "Roman" church wholly corrupt from the start.
Tertullian, about two hundred years after the birth of Christ, is the first man of whom we read in ecclesiastical history, as speaking a word against infant baptism. And he, while he recognises the existence and prevalence of the practice of infant baptism, and expressly recommends that infants be baptized, if they are not likely to survive the period of infancy; yet advises that, where there is a prospect of their living, baptism be delayed until a late period in life. The superstitious ideas he used to justify such a teaching was that Baptism wipes away all past sins, and that sins committed after Baptism were especially heinous. Of course, such a view is contrary to the NEW TESTAMENT doctrine and practice of Baptism. Yet, Tertullian is often cited by Credo Baptists to justify their views.
Wasn't it superstitious ideas by Catholics that brought infant baptism into the Church? Wasn't it Catholics who believed that infant baptism was NECESSARY for that child's salvation as it washed away original sin? If you ask me, that is superstitious. So you believe that all Baptists get their beliefs from a man named Tertullian? And since he was wrong, all Baptists are wrong? Guilt by association? I got mine from the NT.
No, Infant baptism wasn't an RCC thing...it was a church thing...that is what we are debating. And many RCC's will tell you that baptism doesn't equal salvation. (I would also be careful about saying that an RC person can't be saved
After Tertullian the next time Infant Baptism is questioned, about twelve hundred years after Christ, was during the time of the Waldenses. They maintained that infants ought not to be baptized, because they were incapable of salvation. They taught that none could be saved but those who wrought out their salvation by a long course of self-denial and labour. To those of us committed to the doctrines of Grace: the Waldenses view is clearly a doctrine of Works salvation.
And during this 1200 year period wasn't the world dominated by the Roman Catholic church? Weren't "baptistic" people persecuted by the Roman Catholic church? These could be two reasons why not much was said against it for 1200 years, wouldn't you agree? The Waldenses would be teaching a Works salvation (if indeed that is what they taught); but how is that any different from the outrageous things I have seen on this board? That if one doesn't baptize his infant child he is a "covenant breaker", an "apostate", and on his way to hell? Talk about "works" salvation.
Who ever said a baptist was on their way to hell for not baptizing their children??? The Waldenses, though persecuted by the RCC never full left the RCC...they were a sect. Oh, and the RCs were persecuted in certain countries as well. Again, persecution neither states that one is a true church...neither does having been a persecuter mean the the church one is persecuting in the name of isn't a true church. There were those within the RCC that did not believe in persecuting the Protestants and Anabaptists. There are so many scenarios and each is individual to each person living at that time. We honestly cannot broadbrush their intents or actions. Also an understanding of that time period's "just punishment" is neccessary. Much like the OT example. What were done to the idolators and heretics...even in Christ's day??? THAT is where the ppl of the reformation gleaned their view of just punishment for what they saw as heresy.
Are my Baptist brothers going to stand up and say that "infants are incapable of salvation"? I hope not. Yet, these are the very words of Baptist John Piper as an argument against Infant Baptism. It seems to me that if the deity can be incarnate in an infant, then infants are more than capable of receiving Saving Grace. There seems to be a small thread of Works-Righteousness in the Credo Baptist position. I said, "seems to be."
If Christianity is a faith and if one is saved through faith in Christ, it stands to reason that infants aren't capable of salvation. But who knows what God can do? I don't claim to. God can still save them. Maybe Piper meant that they are incapable of rationally believing in Christ, without excluding the possibility that God could have put faith in that child's heart which he/she will understand when he/she is older. There may "seem to be" a Works-Righteousness in the Credo Baptist position (I don't see it though). I don't know any Baptist who believes you have to do a work (baptism) in order to be saved. They do it precisely BECAUSE they are saved.
John the Baptist was apparently had faith from the womb. If an infant or toddler can't have saving faith, then where do we draw the age limit? The invisable and very subjective "age of accountability"? (Dude! I used to believe all this!). In a non-calvinistic view salvation IS a work on man's part, but not of baptism...it is in the fact that they believe that man CHOOSES his salvation. In the calvinistic viewpoint, God has predetermined who will be saved and who won't.
We hear no more of Antipaedobaptists until the 16th Century, when they arose and for the first time broached the doctrine of our modern Baptist brethern. As far as I can discover, the modern views of Baptists were absolutely unknown in the whole Christian world, before that time.
Again, this could be due to the RC Church being the dominant religion in the world (denomination in Christianity, etc.). This doesn't prove they were the only ones, it only proves they were the major force. And if they were right in their doctrine, there would have been no need for a Reformation. It has been said that Luther didn't go far enough in "reforming" the Church because he kept to infant baptism. Baptists believe they descend from the very beginnings of the Church; that they were never RC and they were never Protestant. And since John the Baptist baptized believers, I tend to personally believe we trace our "denomination" all the way back to his time.
And those baptist myths are just that...baptist myths and cannot be proven (and don't blame the RCC, proof would still be in history if it were there). The (Pilgrims) Baptists came from the Protestants in England (and yes, they are considered protestants). Some went over to Holland for a time and were persuaded to the anabaptist cause. Others came straight here to the states where baptist doctrine flourished due to the views of the baptists concerning education and more of a "charismatic" type of regeneration (this was appealing to groups of lesser means...which is why many ppl came to the US in the first place. This is why you will not find them anywhere but in western culture and in fairly recent history (Reformation onward).
The silence of the Church for over 1600 years concerning Believer's Baptism is counterbalanced by the very vocal affirmation by the Church concerning Infant Baptism. Tertullian, we have already noted, acknowledged the practice of Infant Baptism. Origen, circa 250AD, speaks unequivocally of the baptism of infants:
No need to repeat myself again right?
The testimony of Cyprian:
Would I be correct in assuming these two sources were Roman Catholic?
Again, the catholic church varied. You cannot just throw a person out because they were "catholic". In fact, if you want to go back to what most baptists believe was "before" the catholic church, then you still have problems as there were heretical doctrines floating around in even Paul's day. Needless to say, the baptists themselves also are famous for quoting from catholic church fathers...so you can't dismiss these quotes simply because of association.
Here is a synodical decree for the baptism of infants. This was not simply the opinion of one or two pastors, but it was the universal determination of a unanimous synod. Consequently, it represents the universal practice of the Church.
Were they Roman Catholic?
I could go on and quote Chrysostom and Augustine, but I think I have made the point clear. I could imagine that a Credo Baptist reply to this would be that the Reformation brought about a rediscovery of the doctrines of the Bible. The only problem with this is that the Reformation doctrines can also be found in the testimony of godly men prior to the Reformation. Concerning the modern day views of Credo Baptism one cannot find such a testimony.
Two more Roman Catholics I presume?
only if you cut out the fact that their HOUSEHOLDS were baptized also...this would mean EVERYONE
Grace and Peace,
-CH
[Edited on 5-9-06 by CalvinandHodges]
Grace and Peace to you as well.
-BP
Originally posted by Kaalvenist
I find it almost humorous when Baptists whose theology matches those of the Reformed (Protestant) churches, except on the doctrine of the church, try to claim that their point of origin is John the Baptist, and that they did not in fact spring fully formed from the head of Zeus... I mean, from the Puritan Independents of the seventeenth century.
Sarcasm noted. I may return the favour.
The early church fathers were not "Roman" Catholic. The "Roman" Catholic Church did not exist, in any form even similar to what we are familiar with, until centuries later. But I prefer to prove my Paedobaptism from the Bible; so I will leave the discussion of ecclesiastical history to others.
Funny. Most of the early Church fathers seem to be labelled as Roman Catholics. Why would this be? You prefer to prove your "doctrine" from the Bible? Then please start to do so...don't forget the New Testament while you're at it. No catechisms or confessions either...since you prefer to only use your Bible. I will be watching for you ever using church history in a debate and point out that you don't do that.
I would ask you, Brian, where you get explicit testimony of Scripture (book, chapter, verse) that the church is a purely New Testament thing?
It could be a concept known by just about everyone. Where do you have chapter and verse for the explicit teaching of a Trinity? (I believe in the Trinity by the way).
Especially when it has been shown you that in Romans 11, the church (the olive plant) is described as having a single root (Abraham), with natural branches (the Jews), which were broken off for unbelief, with unnatural branches (the Gentiles) being grafted in by faith -- but it's still the same tree, the same church! -- and from Matthew 21, that "the kingdom" (i.e. the church) was taken from the unbelieving Jews, and given to the Gentiles. You contend that if they were the church, we would still have to perform sacrifices. But I contend that they, as the church, looked forward to Christ in those sacrifices; and that we, as the church, look back to Christ in the Word and sacraments (the sacrifices being abrogated by His death).
It wasn't the church. It was Israel. If it were the church, would the church need to later be grafted into itself? there are no Jews and Gentiles in Christ. Yes, they looked forward to the coming Messiah. But that does not make them the Church. They were Israel, and they rejected the Messiah. Christ then included the Gentiles. In the future, God will deal with Israel again. Unless you believe that God is going to punish the Church during the Great Tribulation for rejecting the Messiah? (confused here).
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Although I don't need to provide any proof
Look up sacrament: From Webster's 1828
3. In present usage, an outward and visible sign of inward and spiritual grace; or more particularly, a solemn religious ceremony enjoined by Christ, the head of the christian church, to be observed by his followers, by which their special relation to him is created, or their obligations to him renewed and ratified. Thus baptism is called a sacrament, for by it persons are separated from the world, brought into Christ's visible church, and laid under particular obligations to obey his precepts. The eucharist or communion of the Lord's supper, is also a sacrament, for by commemorating the death and dying love of Christ, christians avow their special relation to him, and renew their obligations to be faithful to their divine Master. When we use sacrament without any qualifying word, we mean by it,
Isn't that a pretty old dictionary? Words change meanings. You know from experience that Baptists don't believe in sacraments; they believe the Lord's Supper and Baptism to be ordinances.
4. The eucharist or Lord's supper.
Well, the NT does say "believe and be baptized". Jesus was baptized as an adult. This would signify that circumcision/infant baptism just don't cut it (no pun intended) and can not be made to be the same. If they were the same, then there would have been no need for Jesus to be baptized as an adult.
As for the early Church, the reason they practiced infant baptism on a large scale was because Roman Catholicism was the dominating religion was it not? And we know why they practiced it.
The "catholic" (meaning 'true') church did not become the "Roman catholic" church till much later...in the sense that you are thinking. Like alot of churches today, the churches back then differred and the changed as time went one. The early church was not perfect...but neither was the "Roman" church wholly corrupt from the start.
True, it was different. But the Roman Catholic church was not a Christian church. I believe it was wholly corrupt from the start and Luther should have left it from the beginning instead of just trying to reform it.
Wasn't it superstitious ideas by Catholics that brought infant baptism into the Church? Wasn't it Catholics who believed that infant baptism was NECESSARY for that child's salvation as it washed away original sin? If you ask me, that is superstitious. So you believe that all Baptists get their beliefs from a man named Tertullian? And since he was wrong, all Baptists are wrong? Guilt by association? I got mine from the NT.
No, Infant baptism wasn't an RCC thing...it was a church thing...that is what we are debating. And many RCC's will tell you that baptism doesn't equal salvation. (I would also be careful about saying that an RC person can't be saved
I believe it was an RCC thing. If baptism was required to remove original sin, then it equals salvation. Except for the fact that there are many other things you had to do before you were saved. I never said an RC person can't be saved. However, I don't believe it is a Christian church.
And during this 1200 year period wasn't the world dominated by the Roman Catholic church? Weren't "baptistic" people persecuted by the Roman Catholic church? These could be two reasons why not much was said against it for 1200 years, wouldn't you agree? The Waldenses would be teaching a Works salvation (if indeed that is what they taught); but how is that any different from the outrageous things I have seen on this board? That if one doesn't baptize his infant child he is a "covenant breaker", an "apostate", and on his way to hell? Talk about "works" salvation.
Who ever said a baptist was on their way to hell for not baptizing their children???
Um...it was a heated discussion just this past week, in which that proposition was put forth. It was thoroughly and soundly rejected by many of us I believe.
The Waldenses, though persecuted by the RCC never full left the RCC...they were a sect. Oh, and the RCs were persecuted in certain countries as well. Again, persecution neither states that one is a true church...neither does having been a persecuter mean the the church one is persecuting in the name of isn't a true church. There were those within the RCC that did not believe in persecuting the Protestants and Anabaptists. There are so many scenarios and each is individual to each person living at that time. We honestly cannot broadbrush their intents or actions. Also an understanding of that time period's "just punishment" is neccessary. Much like the OT example. What were done to the idolators and heretics...even in Christ's day??? THAT is where the ppl of the reformation gleaned their view of just punishment for what they saw as heresy.
I realize what you are saying about persecution. However, the RC church was the biggest player in the "persecution" going on at the time and since they were ordered to do it by a "pope", I believe that this implies that it was not a Christian church.
The people in the early church and in the reformation were WRONG in the view that they gleaned for just punishment of heresy. NOWHERE in the New Testament are we commanded to kill heretics. NOWHERE!
If Christianity is a faith and if one is saved through faith in Christ, it stands to reason that infants aren't capable of salvation. But who knows what God can do? I don't claim to. God can still save them. Maybe Piper meant that they are incapable of rationally believing in Christ, without excluding the possibility that God could have put faith in that child's heart which he/she will understand when he/she is older. There may "seem to be" a Works-Righteousness in the Credo Baptist position (I don't see it though). I don't know any Baptist who believes you have to do a work (baptism) in order to be saved. They do it precisely BECAUSE they are saved.
John the Baptist was apparently had faith from the womb. If an infant or toddler can't have saving faith, then where do we draw the age limit? The invisable and very subjective "age of accountability"? (Dude! I used to believe all this!). In a non-calvinistic view salvation IS a work on man's part, but not of baptism...it is in the fact that they believe that man CHOOSES his salvation. In the calvinistic viewpoint, God has predetermined who will be saved and who won't.
Hence the fact I said, "who knows what God can do?". If there is an age of accountability, the fact is that we wouldn't know what it was. It would be between God and each individual person. Parents could not decide it. It was said when I first got saved, that salvation is an individual matter. It is something God does for each individual person and He is the Father of all He saves. That He has no grandchildren, and nobody gets into heaven because their parents believed.
Again, this could be due to the RC Church being the dominant religion in the world (denomination in Christianity, etc.). This doesn't prove they were the only ones, it only proves they were the major force. And if they were right in their doctrine, there would have been no need for a Reformation. It has been said that Luther didn't go far enough in "reforming" the Church because he kept to infant baptism. Baptists believe they descend from the very beginnings of the Church; that they were never RC and they were never Protestant. And since John the Baptist baptized believers, I tend to personally believe we trace our "denomination" all the way back to his time.
And those baptist myths are just that...baptist myths and cannot be proven (and don't blame the RCC, proof would still be in history if it were there). The (Pilgrims) Baptists came from the Protestants in England (and yes, they are considered protestants). Some went over to Holland for a time and were persuaded to the anabaptist cause. Others came straight here to the states where baptist doctrine flourished due to the views of the baptists concerning education and more of a "charismatic" type of regeneration (this was appealing to groups of lesser means...which is why many ppl came to the US in the first place. This is why you will not find them anywhere but in western culture and in fairly recent history (Reformation onward).
How do we know they're myths? People who believed similar to Baptists have been around since the beginning of the Church. They were those who heeded the Scripture that said "Repent and be baptized...". Another reason you may find Baptists only in western cultures could be because they worship differently than people in the east. People in the east tend to be Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Charismatic, etc.
No need to repeat myself again right?
Would I be correct in assuming these two sources were Roman Catholic?
Again, the catholic church varied. You cannot just throw a person out because they were "catholic". In fact, if you want to go back to what most baptists believe was "before" the catholic church, then you still have problems as there were heretical doctrines floating around in even Paul's day. Needless to say, the baptists themselves also are famous for quoting from catholic church fathers...so you can't dismiss these quotes simply because of association.
No, you can't throw a person out because they are Catholic. But it raises red flags when I hear quotes from Roman Catholic sources. I realize there are Baptists who quote the Catholic church fathers. I have never been able to understand that. As for the heretical doctrines floating around in Paul's day, I know that. I don't understand what point you are making though.
Were they Roman Catholic?
Two more Roman Catholics I presume?
only if you cut out the fact that their HOUSEHOLDS were baptized also...this would mean EVERYONE
You would have to prove that meant "infants". Households can be parents and children over 8 years old.
Because people like you don't know any better, and blindly label every father after the apostolic period as "Roman" Catholic... even though, as your fellow (Reformed) Baptist James White notes, "they did not believe in the very doctrines that define the Roman communion over against others, doctrines such as an infallible Papacy, Marian dogmas such as the Bodily Assumption, the treasury of merit, indulgences, and devotion to reserved, consecrated hosts that would indicate that the patristic belief in "real presence" was in fact a belief in transubstantiation."
Did you somehow miss my examination of Acts 2:38, 39; or did you just prefer to ignore it?Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
You prefer to prove your "doctrine" from the Bible? Then please start to do so...don't forget the New Testament while you're at it. No catechisms or confessions either...since you prefer to only use your Bible. I will be watching for you ever using church history in a debate and point out that you don't do that.
Brian, I can demonstrate clear Scripture proof for the doctrine of the Trinity (beginning in the Old Testament, of all places)... can you demonstrate clear Scripture proof for your doctrine of the church existing only in the New Testament?
Is that what I said? Or did I say that Gentiles have been grafted into the church? I contend that the promises made to Israel under the Old Testament respected Israel considered as the church; and for that reason, those promises descend to us today, and not to unbelieving Jews.
So is there no one in Christ then (since Jews and Gentiles contitute all humanity)? Galatians 3 does not contradict Romans 11, Brian; in fact, read the entirety of Galatians 3, and I think you will see more evidence against you (regarding the abiding continuity of the Abrahamic covenant).
But the saints under the Old Testament (not the Jews in the New Testament who rejected Christ) had faith in the promised Messiah, and that made them the church, together with their children.
I'm not going to get into a debate on eschatology with you, Brian... unless you want to start another thread in the proper forum. Suffice it to say that I do not believe in a future, literal, seven-year tribulation period.
Would you have preferred "people like yourself"? Brian, the fact that you focus upon one phrase in a response that has little to nothing to do with my actual response, reveals rather plainly that you aren't interested in a serious discussion of these things. I apologize if I have offended you, and I meant no disrespect to you; but if you are interested in a serious discussion, maybe you should let perceived insults and slights slide, and just get to the heart of the argument.
