ptwild

So, approximately sometime in and around the 7th century?

What were they known as before they were known as Baptist? What is surviving of their earliest times?

Don't mention it. I too only recognize the accepted canon, but you had made a reference to the scribes handing down the quote from Enoch (v. 14) and I only wanted to point out that there is in fact a book of Enoch from which St. Jude quotes in writing his epistle. I don't believe that the mere fact that St. Jude quotes from 1 Enoch makes the book canonical, but it is evident that at least some of the early Christians were reading deuterocanonical sources for one reason or another. I guess this would be an interesting topic in and of itself. I'll start a thread. Have a good one.

I just finished a study of Jude. For reference, the quote attributed to Enoch in verse 14 comes from 1 Enoch, which is a deutrocanonical book. Also, the information found in verse 9 comes from The Assumption of Moses, another deutrocanonical book.

You were done way before this. It always get's rough when facts get in the way of what one wants to believe.

I beg to differ. As I stated, I won't debate this point with you because neither one of us are going to change our minds. But you are obviously familiar with those biblical examples of entire households being baptized after the father has converted and himself been baptized. There is a difference between being converted to Christianity from one faith and being born into a Christian household and raised as a Christian. You believe that only those who were able to make a profession of faith were baptized, without that being stated in the scripture. The factt of the matter is that both positions are reasonable, I just believe mine is more reasonable, as you do yours. You stating that infant baptism didn't arise until the 3rd centurey doesn't make it so. I'm sure you have some biased anti-infant baptism source which says this, while I have the historical records of the Church of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandra, Corinth, Ephesus . . . It all boils down to which "source" you chose to believe. And I'm not trying to convert anyone. There were some statements made about some of the practices which Methodist have that at least have something in common with Anglicanism (I do not in fact know what Methodist believe and can only speak to these issues based on my experience with them within the context of Anglicanism). We are all Christians, so I don't know what I would even be trying to convert you to. I merely choose an ancient way of practicing the faith, were as you choose a more modern method. I'm sure we have different reasons for each and I'm not about to say that my reason trumps your reason.

I agree, the Bible is the product of God . . . delivered through his Church. No one said the Bible was not important or that it was not the primary guide to our faith. However, in addition to the Bible, we have the examples and practices of the early Church. It's not the only way we know how to get saved. The gospel was an oral tradition several years before it was codified in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. And there were several writings of the early Church that are not considered, nor professing to be, the inspired Word of God, that give us the history and practices of the Church. Our faith is not founded on the Bible. It existed before and apart from scripture. Our faith is founded on Christ. Our practices are based on the practices of his Church. Don't get me wrong, I believe in prima scriptura, that is, that no belief or practice can contradict clear biblical teaching. However, I believe this because the Church accepted those books and cannonized them in to a collection known today as the Bible.

There is only one body, just as there is only one head. St. Paul was emphatic in his emphasis that we all be one, as in undivided. You admit that the early church's scriptures are God inspired, so it must have some validity. Did not ever notice that all of the different congregations in the Bible were listening to the instructions of one central group of people? And yes, if one goes through their confirmation classes and states that he or she has faith that Jesus Christ is the only begotton son of God, the Messiah, through whom we may access the father, and through whom our salvation is sealed, then they are assumed to be "okay with God." I don't know of any other way a person can express their faith. What do you do in your church, aside from asking if the person is "saved?"

Who tries to make it biblical? How are they trying to do so? Confirmation has nothing to do with salvation. It is merely a public profession of faith which presupposes that one already has such faith. And I know for a fact that at least one of the local Baptist Churches in my city ask its new member candidates to make such a profession, and rightfully so. What's with all this "it's not in the Bible" stuff anyway? As stated before, there was a Christian Church, with certain practices, years upon years before there was a Bible. The Bible is a product of the Church, not vice versa. You won't find many true Christians that worship the Bible, which is nothing more than idoltry.

They don't need scriptural support for it. Like Anglicans, it is my understanding that Methodist do not believe the Bible is the sole guide for Church practice (prima scriptura as opposed to sola scriptura). The Church existed before the Bible, so it is more than reasonable to look to the practices of the early church as much as it is to look to the Bible. Plus, the Bible has more than one account of whole families being baptized without any indication that the children were excluded or a personal profession of faith was required (different argument for a different topic, so I won't debate it). The early church baptized babies. The whole idea of believers baptism doesn't appear until the Cathars (100% heretical) come along in southern France sometime in the 11th century.

Make no mistake about it, with Anglicanism there is no expectation of a dramatic conversion experience. One's faith is expected to spring out of sound instruction and reason, rather than emotionalism brought on by music or a charismatic evangalist. If a person cannot honestly stand before the congregation and confirm his or her faith in Christ, then they shouldn't. Sounds like several of the folks you know just did it to please their parents or church, which is as much their own fault as anyone elses. If it's not inside of you, then there is nothing to confirm.

Just to clarify a few things about confirmation and infant baptism (as much of this sounds a lot like the practices of Anglicanism): When it says that an infant becomes a member of the church through baptism, it does not mean a member of the body of Christ, as in salvation. It means a member of the local Christian community, to be raised and instructed in a Christian home and church. A baby doesn't get to decide on whether or not it will be admitted and included in the Christian community anymore than it gets to decide whether or not it will be admitted or included in its own family. As far as confirmation, I believe you are taking a website explanation of something and only looking at the words without any concordance from an actual member. If you are not familiar with the process or terminology, it's only reasonable that you would be confused or misunderstand. Confirmation is supposed to be an outward sign of the inward manifestation of faith. One goes through confirmation classes to determine whether or not that faith has indeed manifested itself. If it has, then the confirmand is expected to confirm his or her faith publically. Although you don't use the same words and practices, I'm reminded of my own confirmation when I read several of y'all's (forgive the double apostrophe - I'm southern) conversion experiences in which a leader from the Church came to your house, spoke with you about the gospel, then proceeded to make sure you had a sincere and real faith in Christ. It's the same thing.

"calling God a liar" makes much more sense. I just couldn't see how a person can "MAKE" God a liar, which to me, seems impossible.

My family used to be buried on a desiganted portion of the family estate (there are over fifty graves, some over a hundred years old) on a creek bank, but a law enacted a few years back forbid anyone being from buried in such low lying areas (fear of floods uprooting graves). So for the past few decades my family has been cremated and had their ashes buried in the family plot. It has nothing to do with our spiritual life, as we (and I assume most Christians) believe that the body is an earthly shell of which our souls cease to occupy upon death. I doubt anyone has a problem with burning old ragged clothing that are not useable anymore - that's kind how we look at it. Once the soul leaves the body, the body is nothing other than another piece of earthly material like a dead log or an old car.