ABOUT BAPTISM

[BreadOfLife]

See how the truth upsets those who dont walk in it. No highlighted text in mine, is there?? Yes you do follow after false doctrines these ones

1Ti_4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Mar_7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Col_2:22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?

do have a nice day.

Upset?? Who said I was "upset"??
It's not MY online cult being exposed - it's YOURS . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Most of the churches were house churches. Sometimes they met in a school or at a synagogue to witness. But without exception, house churches were the norm.

And they were ALL Apostolic.

 

[mjrhealth]

Upset?? Who said I was "upset"??
It's not MY online cult being exposed - it's YOURS . . .

Who is Upset Bol is upset thats why you high lite all your letters because no one listens to you and you demand to be heard.

 

[Dave L]

And they were ALL Apostolic.

We still have the Apostle's writings, just as the house churches did.

 

[BreadOfLife]

We still have the Apostle's writings, just as the house churches did.

It’s hard to believe that you could be this dense.

Do you honestly believe that ALL of the house churches spoken of in Acts had ALL of the Apostolic writings?? When Paul wrote to the Galatians - it was to the people in Galatia – not Ephesus, not Corinth, not Thessalonica, etc. these were compiled LATER – by the Catholic Church and declared canonical.

The churches (parishes) in each town were started by an Apostle or a companion or disciple of an Apostle – and they were taught the SAME Gospel everywhere. NOTHING was left to chance, as we read in 2 Thess 2:15 . . .

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement - or by a letter of ours.

 

[Dave L]

It’s hard to believe that you could be this dense.

Do you honestly believe that ALL of the house churches spoken of in Acts had ALL of the Apostolic writings?? When Paul wrote to the Galatians - it was to the people in Galatia – not Ephesus, not Corinth, not Thessalonica, etc. these were compiled LATER – by the Catholic Church and declared canonical.

The churches (parishes) in each town were started by an Apostle or a companion or disciple of an Apostle – and they were taught the SAME Gospel everywhere. NOTHING was left to chance, as we read in 2 Thess 2:15 . . .

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement - or by a letter of ours.

Your insults only bolster my position.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Your insults only bolster my position.

How so?
Please illustrate how my pointing out your ignorance of the Early Church somehow "bolsters" your position.

 

[Dave L]

How so?
Please illustrate how my pointing out your ignorance of the Early Church somehow "bolsters" your position.

They show your unchristian attitude towards me and show my Christian attitude towards you in not responding harshly.

 

[epostle]

We still have the Apostle's writings, just as the house churches did.

First, "house churches" apart from the Apostles or their succeeding bishops did not exist.
Second, they had no Bibles, and nobody had all the Apostolic writings until it was proven they were truly apostolic. This long, complicated process took over 3 centuries. The house churches were in union with their bishop, a fact clearly shown in the NT.
The Book of Revelation was not accepted as scripture until 350 AD, and Hebrews was longer than that.
It can get frustrating when Protestant revisionists deny their own scholars, deny the hard facts of history, deny the Early Church Fathers, and deny their role in the realization of the full canon, just so they can maintain a fantasy with no evidence, and no names.

Protestants do, of course, accept the traditional Canon of the New Testament (albeit somewhat inconsistently and with partial reluctance - Luther questioned the full canonicity of James, Revelation and other books). By doing so, they necessarily acknowledged the authority of the Catholic Church. If they had not, it is likely that Protestantism would have gone the way of all the old heresies of the first millennium of the Church Age - degenerating into insignificant, bizarre cults and disappearing into the putrid backwaters of history.

 

[Dave L]

First, "house churches" apart from the Apostles or their succeeding bishops did not exist.
Second, they had no Bibles, and nobody had all the Apostolic writings until it was proven they were truly apostolic. This long, complicated process took over 3 centuries. The house churches were in union with their bishop, a fact clearly shown in the NT.
The Book of Revelation was not accepted as scripture until 350 AD, and Hebrews was longer than that.
It can get frustrating when Protestant revisionists deny their own scholars, deny the hard facts of history, deny the Early Church Fathers, and deny their role in the realization of the full canon, just so they can maintain a fantasy with no evidence, and no names.

Protestants do, of course, accept the traditional Canon of the New Testament (albeit somewhat inconsistently and with partial reluctance - Luther questioned the full canonicity of James, Revelation and other books). By doing so, they necessarily acknowledged the authority of the Catholic Church. If they had not, it is likely that Protestantism would have gone the way of all the old heresies of the first millennium of the Church Age - degenerating into insignificant, bizarre cults and disappearing into the putrid backwaters of history.

House Churches

Also, the first churches: The earliest churches were essentially what we would call today house churches. They typically met in well-to-do Christian homes. You may recall, in Acts 16 the church in Philippi met in the home of Lydia, and we know the church in Ephesus met in the home of Aquila and Priscilla. As Christianity grew, some homes were actually renovated to serve as churches.
Archaeologists have discovered a renovated house church in the small city of Dura, in present day Iraq. It could accommodate about sixty-five or seventy people in the main assembly room. It actually had a separate room for baptisms, with an actual baptistery. In this case, it was probably not large enough for full immersion baptism, but probably something along the lines of pouring or sprinkling.
It was not until the late third or early fourth century that we find buildings actually erected for the exclusive purpose of Christian worship. By the fifth century, there are some fifty churches in Rome.


Bock, D. L., Cardoza, F., Cohick, L. H., Evans, C. A., Goheen, M. W., James, F. A., III, … Moo, D. J. (2016). NT176 The Gospel Message in the Early Church. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

 

[BreadOfLife]

They show your unchristian attitude towards me and show my Christian attitude towards you in not responding harshly.

No - they show me rebuking a person who is lying with impunity.

 

[Dave L]

No - they show me rebuking a person who is lying with impunity.

You are the one with zero scriptural support. Not me.

 

[CoreIssue]

First, "house churches" apart from the Apostles or their succeeding bishops did not exist.
Second, they had no Bibles, and nobody had all the Apostolic writings until it was proven they were truly apostolic. This long, complicated process took over 3 centuries. The house churches were in union with their bishop, a fact clearly shown in the NT.
The Book of Revelation was not accepted as scripture until 350 AD, and Hebrews was longer than that.
It can get frustrating when Protestant revisionists deny their own scholars, deny the hard facts of history, deny the Early Church Fathers, and deny their role in the realization of the full canon, just so they can maintain a fantasy with no evidence, and no names.

Protestants do, of course, accept the traditional Canon of the New Testament (albeit somewhat inconsistently and with partial reluctance - Luther questioned the full canonicity of James, Revelation and other books). By doing so, they necessarily acknowledged the authority of the Catholic Church. If they had not, it is likely that Protestantism would have gone the way of all the old heresies of the first millennium of the Church Age - degenerating into insignificant, bizarre cults and disappearing into the putrid backwaters of history.

Bishop means elder or preacher in the Bible. They served at the will on the congregation.

The books of the Bible were circulated and accepted from the time of the writing of the letters.

Catholicism argued over authenticity.

The Bible as shown in the NIV and the NASB is what was always accepted by believers, not the Catholic Bibles.

House churches still exist today, mostly non-denominational and more solidly Biblical.

There is no office higher than local church elder/pastor.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You are the one with zero scriptural support. Not me.

I've obliterated your position repeatedly - Scripturally, historically and linguistically . . .

 

[Dave L]

I've obliterated your position repeatedly - Scripturally, historically and linguistically . . .

Only according to you and not according to scripture.

 

[Jay Ross]

Only according to you and not according to scripture.

Oh Dave, it also seems that your response relying of the force of scripture is just your opinion as well. But it is a way of increasing your presence on this forum where quantity seems to be the measure of quality in your case.

 

[Dave L]

Oh Dave, it also seems that your response relying of the force of scripture is just your opinion as well. But it is a way of increasing your presence on this forum where quantity seems to be the measure of quality in your case.

How then did they baptize? Prove me wrong.

 

[Jay Ross]

How then did they baptize? Prove me wrong.

Dave if you would provide the scriptural references to back up your claims, instead of giving pithy responses, then people may be more accepting of your posts. Because you post so often with opinions, it is easier for us all to grab the bar on the side and slide down to the bottom of the page.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Only according to you and not according to scripture.

No - according to Scripture, history and linguistics.

 

[BreadOfLife]

How then did they baptize? Prove me wrong.

The Bible is SILENT on the method of Baptism. It only speaks of the formula (Matt 28:19).
We get the method from Apostolic Tradition (i.e., The Didache, A D 50).