Credo-baptism?

Discussion in 'Questions?' started by Rexlion, Jan 27, 2023.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    Acts 7:8 says, And he gave him the covenant of circumcision: and so Abraham begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat the twelve patriarchs.

    Your author likens baptism to circumcision, does he not? His idea is that baptism replaces circumcision, right? That means he is promoting a covenant of baptism. Oh, he might not have said that in so many words, but that's his general idea.
     
  2. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,678
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    There is no such thing as “Christianity,” existing above and apart from all the various Churches; that’s just an abstraction. Each Church claims to represent the whole truth. One either accepts those claims or one doesn’t. If the latter, it raises the obvious question of why one would wish to identify with it in the first place.
     
  3. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,678
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    That, or the notion that the individual rather than the Church is the authorized interpreter.
     
  4. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    3,323
    Likes Received:
    1,626
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    I can't even imagine how you draw the conclusion that "he is promoting a 'covenant of baptism', and I don't think he is. We would need to ask him. What is clear though is that baptism and circumcision are regarded in the scripture as being synonymous. Circumcision. (of the heart), is even directly linked with 'Baptism' in New Testament scripture. You cannot surely be questioning the fact that the author "likens baptism to circumcision", because according to NT scripture, and particularly to St. Paul, it is far more than just a likeness in a spiritual and sacramental manner, as is indicated by Rom.15:8-12.

    "Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name. And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people. And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people. And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust."

    Acts 19:4-5. "Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."
    .
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2023
    Invictus likes this.
  5. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,678
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    Also, it is clear that the author was simply presenting and defending the standard Reformed view, which one would also encounter in the Three Forms of Unity, the Westminster Standards, and the dogmatic works of Hodge, Warfield, Vos, Bavinck, Barth, etc. In other words, it’s not the author’s private opinion, and the position he defended doesn’t stand or fall with his presentation of it.
     
  6. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    Maybe you're right. Maybe I am conflating things you've written with what he has written; if so, this came about because you advanced the author's book as a work that helped define what you think on the subject. In many of your posts, you have harped on "the covenant" as being the justification for infant baptism. But that is patently false.

    What is the new covenant? Let's define it. The new covenant is: Christ died and rose from the grave to redeem all (by grace) who would receive (by faith) the promise.

    But you seem to indicate your feeling that baptism is "part and parcel" of the covenant. It's not. It's a sign and a symbol, a sacramental ordinance which God calls us to do (as He calls us to obey the commandments), but if we sin (or for some reason do not get baptized) we are still under the covenant of grace. (Let's try not to get off 'into the weeds' about the need for repentance, etc, for now.)

    No, it is not synonymous, not by a long shot! Circumcision was required for those who would be under the Abrahamic Covenant; God said in Gen. 17:10, This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. Circumcision was a physical alteration of the body and physical identification as a descendant of Abraham (either by genetics or by other joining to the household of genetic descendants).

    In contrast, God never said, "every child among you believers shall be baptized," or anything of the sort. Baptism symbolizes our unity with Christ in His death and resurrection, but it is never stated to be an absolute requirement for enabling one to come under the Grace Covenant. (We are saved "by grace through faith," not 'by grace through baptism.') Moreover, circumcision was not restricted to those who had an inward spiritual conversion (whose hearts were spiritually circumcised), whereas the NT teaches clearly that baptism is the sign of "a good conscience toward God" and of the recreated, reborn spirit in the believing Christian. The NT never talks about a 'covenant community' of mixed believers and their unbelieving children & relatives & servants, yet the OT certainly tells us that unbelieving children, relatives and household servants were all welcomed into the Circumcision Covenant.

    The Abrahamic Circumcision Covenant was primarily a physical one, not a spiritual one (Abraham and Sarah were in spiritual communion with God, but that doesn't mean all or even most of their descendants were.) The promises were centered on making Abraham's descendants numerous as the sand on the seashore, to bless and prosper them, and to give them all the land from the Nile to the Euphrates. Thus, this covenant of mostly temporal blessings was entered into by physical means: circumcision. But salvation (regeneration, redemption) is entered into purely by spiritual means: grace received through faith in Christ. Thus, baptism and circumcision are not at all synonymous. They merely have some similarities or parallels.

    Being "likened" to something is not the same as being synonymous with the thing. A metaphor is just that: a metaphor.



    You're reading too much into this. The phrase, "the circumcision," was a synonym for "the Jews" or "those who were under the Abrahamic Circumcision Covenant". Remember that Jesus said during His earthly ministry, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt. 15:24). Jesus came to serve (minister to) the Israelites, not the Gentiles, during His preaching, teaching, and healing; the fact that He also ministered to the Gentiles in His death and resurrection is a revelation that did not come until after His ascension. This portion of the verse was merely citing to the Romans the fact of Jesus' earthly ministry to the Jews, and it was not meant to teach sacramental theology or anything of the sort.

    Glad you brought that up; it supports my contention that baptism is always put forth in the NT as an act which followers of Christ undertake after, not before, they believe (come to faith). These people whom Paul addressed were believers already (v. 2) who had no knowledge about being water-baptized into Christ. When they were baptized, they did not then become believers or members of the invisible church, because they already were those things! (What did they receive at baptism? They received upon themselves an overflowing gifting by the Holy Spirit, with the evidences of tongues and prophecies. Yet we know they were "disciples" who "believed," so they must have already had the Holy Spirit indwelling them.) Similarly, we read in Acts 2:41 that it was the hearers who believed, they that gladly received his word, who were baptized. It's the same in Acts 8:12-- After they believed Philip's preaching about the Good News, they were then baptized. In Acts 10:44-46, Peter preached and it's obvious that the hearers believed in Christ, because the Holy Spirit filled them, after which they went ahead and got baptized (just as Peter taught them they should do). There are many similar passages, all of which show one clear pattern: people believed and then got baptized. The NT never gives any clear example of people getting baptized before they believed or teaching them to do the same.

    Of course, now you're probably saying, "Wait! What about the household baptisms?" But none of them show decisively what you want them to show. The family of the Philippian jailer was baptized after Paul and Silas spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house, so all of them had the chance to hear the Gospel and come to faith prior to being baptized. Paul baptized the household of Stephanus, but this whole-household baptism was indicative of whole-household faith: ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints (1 Cor. 16:15). None of the "household baptism" passages indicate the presence of infants or of children too young to believe, either; there is no support for infant baptism to be seen in these passages apart from vivid imaginings and extreme suppositions. "Maybe there were infants" is not enough upon which to build a grand doctrine.

    Paedobaptism supporters also like to cite Acts 2:39, part 'a': For the promise is unto you, and to your children: but they conveniently forget parts 'b' and 'c': and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. You see, if this verse supports baptism of not-yet-believing infants and children, then it also supports baptism of any unbeliever who lives anywhere. But it doesn't mean that at all, for part 'c' explains that the promise is for all whom God calls to faith. Paedobaptism supporters also forget what the promise was: Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (v. 38). No infant can yet repent! How can anyone quote 1/3 of a verse, out of context, in support of their supposition? Verse 41 also provides context in telling us that the people who got baptized were those who received (i.e., heard and believed) the message. Proper context is vital in good hermeneutics.

    Paedobaptists will say that baptizing an infant will bring them extra grace which will help insure a probable future regeneration. That's a very pleasant and pretty supposition. Show me where the Bible says this, please? Show me where the Bible says anything even remotely suggestive of this notion?
    Oh, maybe it's in Acts 10:47-- Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who will probably someday become believers? Uh, nope.
    Maybe Gal. 3:27-- For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ will probably someday put on Christ? Nope.
    What about Rom. 6:3-- Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ will probably someday be baptized into his death? Wrong again! :blush:
    No, it's quite obvious that the NT never teaches this concept, as much as we might wish it did.

    But I could still 'give a pass' to baptizing infants on the mere grounds that it brings comfort to parents and that it symbolizes entrance into the 'church visible,' if only we stopped there. But we do not stop there. Let me quote from the 2019 BCP baptismal liturgy; these are the parts that concern me most deeply:
    ...We thank you, Father, for the water of Baptism. In it we
    are buried with Christ in his death. By it we share in his
    resurrection. Through it we are made regenerate by the Holy
    Spirit...

    ...Heavenly Father, we thank you that by water and the Holy
    Spirit you have bestowed upon these your servants the
    forgiveness of sin, received them as your own children by
    adoption, made them members of your holy Church, and raised
    them to the new life of grace
    .​


    The 1979 BCP similarly says:
    We thank you, Father, for the water of Baptism. In it we are
    buried with Christ in his death. By it we share in his
    resurrection. Through it we are reborn by the Holy Spirit...
    ...Heavenly Father, we thank you that by water and the Holy
    Spirit you have bestowed upon these your servants the
    forgiveness of sin, and have raised them to the new life of
    grace...
    ...N., you are sealed by the Holy Spirit in Baptism and marked
    as Christ’s own for ever
    . Amen.​


    The truth is, we are not reborn by "the water of baptism," but by grace through faith. Making the above statements before the family and the congregation is, to my mind, terribly misleading. This is a holdover from Roman Catholic doctrine which Anglicanism never cleaned out when it distanced itself from Rome's other errors. People who hear their priest state these things are very impressionable and easily brought to think (erroneously) that salvation is by baptism into the 'church visible'. While the baptism liturgy does contain good mentions of faith here and there within it, I think that the presence of theological inaccuracy creates a genuine spiritual danger to those who hear it from the mouth of a priest. (the 1979 BCP even poses a suggestion of "once saved, always saved" by stating that the baptized infant is "Christ's own for ever"!) :facepalm:

    This is why I cringe and must 'bite my tongue' whenever we have a baby baptism!
     
  7. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,678
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    It’s a sign; it’s not magic. If the water itself doesn’t confer grace (and according to Reformed teaching, it doesn’t), there can be no objection to infants receiving baptism. You might be better served reading Hodge’s comments on the subject here:
    Otherwise, this is a debate that is already long settled within Anglicanism: Anglicans practice, and believe in the propriety of, the baptism of infants, and nothing is going to change that. There’s nothing new that can be said about it at this point. One either accepts Anglicanism’s claim to teach the truth or one doesn’t. If the latter, why be Anglican? If all an individual needs for faith is Scripture, what salvific role is left for the Church?
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2023
    Tiffy likes this.
  8. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    3,323
    Likes Received:
    1,626
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    It is both a sign and a seal of God's grace, for the children of The Covenant, which of course the children of believers in the atonement of Christ and the Grace of God, ARE. By Paul's reckoning however it (baptism) is of less importance for either infants or adults than 'responding to the call of God'.
    .
     
    Rexlion likes this.
  9. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    It is not that simple. Churches cannot legitimately say what Hodge states out of one corner of the mouth, and then say what the Baptismal liturgy states out of the other corner. "Hypocrites! Whitewashed tombstones!" is what Jesus might say.

    Anglican practices and liturgies do get modified from time to time, but only if enough people speak up with the truth.

    Anglicanism is apparently your "sacred cow". It is not mine. I recognize that no church is perfect, for the simple reason that fallible humans lead it and make up its membership. Errors creep into churches all the time. Heavens! By your logic, no one should have agitated for Trinitarianism in the 3rd Century when 90% of the church world was Arian! I am doing what good, sincere Christians have been doing ever since the gospels and epistles began to circulate; like the Bereans, I am searching the scriptures to see what is right, and speaking out against mistakes. Better to correct little mistakes before they become large mistakes and lead to heresies, as they did in the Roman church.

    As to "why be Anglican," I belong to an Anglican parish because that is where the Lord has planted me. Just because He planted me there does not prove that the place is perfect. I need to do my part within the Body of Christ. And I do not need someone telling me I should just sit down, shut up, and be a good little automaton. Or in this case, perhaps suggesting (rather insultingly) that I move on to some other denom? Sorry, I am needed here in this parish.

    Sounds like someone looks at the Church as an organic creature with inherent powers apart from Christ. The Romans did the same thing and look where it got them. "The Church" does not have a "salvific role" because only Jesus saves. "The Church" is simply the Body of Christ on earth (not any denominational entity), and apart from Christ and obedience to Him, "The Church" is nothing. Less than nothing! The role of the churches' leaders should be to help feed and shepherd the sheep, train the sheep to be active in evangelism both on a personal level and worldwide, and comfort and bind up the wounds of the sheep when they're hurting. No salvific role; we are merely planters and waterers, while God does the harvesting.
     
  10. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,678
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    With respect, it seems to me that you are misreading the liturgy, and your position otherwise simply makes no sense. People practice, follow, and belong to a religion because they believe it holds answers that aren’t available to them in any other medium. No one says, “I follow X religion, even though I think some of it is completely wrong.” It would be inconceivable for a practicing Buddhist to declare that “the Third Noble Truth is not ‘that there is a cessation of suffering,’” or for a Muslim to deny that Pilgrimage to Mecca is one of the Pillars of Islam. By the same token, for a person to claim to be ‘Anglican’ and yet deny the entirety of Anglican sacramental theology as well as the arguments that have historically supported it, would strike any fair-minded observer as confused and incoherent at best and potentially disingenuous and misleading at worst. What you are describing is tantamount to merely joining a local congregation out of convenience, and then creating one’s own private religion from there, without ascription of any real authority to the body to which one belongs. There are a lot of words that can describe such an approach, but I’m afraid “faith” isn’t one of them.
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2023
    Shane R and Tiffy like this.
  11. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    I quoted it directly. So I can't be misreading it. It says what it says.

    Well, there we go. I don't follow the "Anglican religion"; I never have and I never will. As I have pointed out, I follow Christ and the Christian religion. But just so you won't be confused, I have changed my forum profile. I hope that helps. For those forum members who follow "the Anglican religion" or "the Episcopalian religion" or "Paul" or "Apollos", good luck with that.
     
  12. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,678
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    Thank you, that does clarify things, to some extent. Still, it bears noting once more that there is no such thing as “the Christian religion.” There are only particular Christian religions (including, I suppose, the ones individuals privately invent). Claiming to belong to something in general without adhering to anything in particular is just having faith in oneself, ultimately.
     
  13. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    "The Christian religion" is another way of saying "Christianity." You are the first person I have ever encountered who told me that, basically, Christianity is not a religion. :rofl: Several billion people would disagree with you.

    The Christian religion is for people who have faith in, and follow, Christ Jesus.

    Who do the people of the Episcopalian religion follow? Archbishop what's-his-name, obviously.:biglaugh:
     
  14. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    3,323
    Likes Received:
    1,626
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    I find myself, denominationally, of a similar opinion to yourself on that particular point. However one of the distictive features of Anglicanism is its praxis concerning God's attitude to the solidarity of the human family within The Covenant, which is ultimately an expression of the changeless promises of God in scripture, which were and still are, according to scripture integral to the eventual election of individuals, by the grace of God.

    You have proven by what you have recently posted that you regard those Divine scriptural promises, which the Anglican church declares its confidence in, now bogus, under an entirely NEW dispensation, thus making out the God of the Old Testament to be a liar. The promises are THERE, "it says what it says", as you put it. It could be that the Anglican church is not the most insulted party in this matter. It is truly fortunate that God is gracious, but clearly the baptism of infants of believers is no trivial matter when it impinges upon the trustwortyness of the word of God. Ps.86:15, Ps.103:8, Ps.111:4, Ps.116:5, Ps.145:8.
    .
     
  15. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    2,529
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    You may rafl however Anglican/Episcopalian is a way of walking the Christian Faith. So the answer is very simply, we follow Jesus. Away with your derision good sir.
     
  16. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    3,323
    Likes Received:
    1,626
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    Religions in general, could be defined as any philosophical system or organisation aimed at placating or pleasing divine beings, (God's or God), by human beings, to ensure their own welfare or express gratitude.

    Christianity does not comfortably fit into that category because Christianity is a recognition by groups of individuals who accept that we have NOTHING whatever to offer God or gods as bribes or to become deserving of God's favour. God has done everything possible for our welfare ALREADY. The only thing we possess to offer God is our gratitude for His Grace. That is what the Eucharist is. Thanksgiving!
    .
     
  17. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,678
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    “Christianity” is a family of religions (rather than a single religion), organized around the same central figure, yet consisting of disparate groups that do not uniformly recognize one another’s legitimacy, maintain different canons of scripture, obey competing hierarchies with widely varying polities, and have radically different understandings of what the path of salvation is and what specific beliefs and practices foster and sustain it. All claim to be “biblical.” All claim to be “following Jesus.” Yet there is no objective test that will tell us who is ‘right’ and who is ‘wrong’ to the satisfaction of all parties. To say “I’m not Anglican, I’m Christian,” is a nonsensical statement, as though there were some lowest common denominator sect out there that everyone could agree on and join, and as though Anglicanism adds something non-essential and non-Christian to some Christian “core” from which it can be neatly separated. This attitude is quite common in America, but is simply a product of the Second Great Awakening and has nothing to do with Christianity in general or Anglicanism in particular as traditionally understood and practiced, which is why I tend to think of American “Christianity” in general (i.e., revivalism/evangelicalism) as more of a separate religion altogether than a legitimate expression of Christianity. To be Christian is to be and to belong to some particular expression of it; if it is not one of the established or organized variants, then it is a sect of one’s own invention, e.g., the one-member sect of Rexlion.

    As C.S. Lewis put it in Mere Christianity:

    I hope no reader will suppose that 'mere' Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions - as if a man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or anything else. It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2023
    Shane R, Tiffy and (deleted member) like this.
  18. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    Christianity
    [ kris-chee-an-i-tee ]

    noun, plural Chris·ti·an·i·ties.
    the Christian religion, including the Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox churches.
    Christian beliefs or practices; Christian quality or character: Christianity mixed with pagan elements; the Christianity of Augustine's thought.
    a particular Christian religious system: She followed fundamentalist Christianity.
    the state of being a Christian.
    Christendom.
    conformity to the Christian religion or to its beliefs or practices.​

    Who should I take as an authority: the dictionary, or the mighty Invictus? Easy choice, the dictionary wins. :yes:

    You claim it's nonsensical for me to say "I'm not Anglican, I'm Christian".... what planet are the Episcop aliens from? :p It is entirely sensible for a person to say he's Christian or that his religion is Christianity or that he is of the Christian faith, and practically everyone on earth understands and accepts the meaning of these phrases. (But not you. Why is that, hmmm?)

    Last night I was re-reading part of Alec Motyer's Life 2: The Sequel, and I happened to see the following; it seems apropos to the moment:

    Let this at least be said: to each is given by God the liberty to study and Bible individually and personally, and to decide what it means...Each must be personally persuaded, submissively to Holy Scripture. (emphasis added by me)​

    No, I am not a "sect"unto myself. I am in Christ, and Christ lives in me and through me. How could I be isolated? I strive to understand God's word from scripture and the Spirit, studying "individually and personally," and striving to be "persuaded submissively" to the Lord (Acts 17:10-11). Unlike some others, I do not strive to be "persuaded submissively" to fallible human beings who may or may not have been (or be) listening very well to God.

    You may hurl your insults at me if you wish, and falsely claim that I am acting as a "one-member sect," but know this: the staunch Roman Catholic hurls the same insult at you, at me, and at every Anglican and Protestant. You are in large (if not good) company. By insulting me, you inadvertently insult yourself and every Christian who has had the "audacity" to not let the Roman magisterium do all the thinking for us.

    For those who elevate Anglicanism as your golden calf, read the scriptures and repent while you still can.

    1Co 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; (I am of Canterbury;) ) are ye not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, (and who is Welby,) but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building. According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.​
     
  19. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,678
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    You are playing semantics here. You’re a smart guy, and we both know that you understand what I am actually saying. I’m describing reality. To say “I am Christian” is a perfectly meaningful statement and is not in dispute. To say it in the sense that you mean it, i.e., that being Anglican is something other than being Christian - as though it’s possible to be a ‘bare’ Christian with zero denominational content or coloring - is nonsense. You’re taking this personally, and angrily accusing the rest of us of “worshiping a golden calf” merely for recognizing that proper churchmanship involves recognition of certain confessional standards. That's ridiculous. Christianity is not and never has been some do-it-yourself, pick-and-choose doctrinal free-for-all. No one here is insulting you, and no one is forcing you to participate in this thread and make the problematic assertions you are making. For someone who has repeatedly lamented that certain others on this Forum fail to "accept correction," you seem curiously reticent to do so yourself.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2023
    Tiffy likes this.
  20. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    2,529
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I don't see how this conflicts with what @Invictus said, indeed I think the Dictionary you quote backs him up.

    My real equation of the dictionary is:

    Is there a plural of Christianity?
    Does that even make sense?​

    My reading of scripture would incline me to answer no, and to that extent, I would not accept the Dictionary on this occasion.

    Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you should be in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you should be united in the same mind and the same purpose. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters. What I mean is that each of you says, ‘I belong to Paul’, or ‘I belong to Apollos’, or ‘I belong to Cephas’, or ‘I belong to Christ.’ Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one can say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to proclaim the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its power.
     
    Tiffy and Invictus like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.