Yeah..
Tertullian demonstrates that the epistles of Paul are fully consonant with the Old Testament and the apostolic witness. His reasoning shows that far from being “foreign” or at variance, Paul’s letters preserve the continuity of God’s revelation in Christ. The real issue, is not the authority or truth of the patristic writings themselves, but the selective readings and quotations that others employ. Pulling a single phrase or isolated text out of context and using it to reconstruct a supposed “pre-Pauline, non-doctrinal Way”.
The burden lies with anyone who claims that early Christianity was purely ethical or mystical to account for the entire historical and theological witness.
Not to go off topic here, do you hold to “baptismal regeneration?”
Since…
Paul consistently presents baptism as participation in Christ’s salvific work, but always faith-mediated. The Greek verb baptizō (βαπτίζω) literally means “to immerse,” and Paul uses it to convey symbolic union with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection:
Romans 6:3–5: “Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus (baptisthemen εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν) were baptized into His death? Therefore, we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too may walk in newness of life.”
Here, baptism enacts union with Christ, but the passage emphasizes faithful living in the Spirit, not water as an automatic agent of regeneration. The text frames baptism as symbolic participation, highlighting God’s initiative and Christ’s work.
Galatians 3:27: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ (εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε) have put on Christ (ἐπεδύσασθε Χριστόν).”
Baptism marks covenantal incorporation, but the putting-on of Christ is an ontological transformation through faith and Spirit, not through the ritual alone.
1 Corinthians 12:13: “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body… and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.”
Here, baptism coincides with Spirit-wrought unity, again showing that the salvific effect is from the Spirit, with water as the visible instrument, not an automatic regenerative agent.
- Oriental Orthodox Theology of Baptism
Oriental Orthodox theologians, drawing on the Church Fathers like Cyril of Jerusalem, Didymus the Blind, and the Cappadocians, teach that:
Baptism removes original sin and regenerates the soul (ex opere operato in effect).
Infants are baptized because they are already under the curse of original sin, a notion extrapolated from Augustine, not Paul.
Chrismation (anointing with oil) immediately follows baptism, emphasizing Spirit conferral as part of regeneration.
The logic is historically and pastorally coherent: baptism is both sacrament and instrument of grace, but the biblical warrant for infant baptism or automatic regeneration is absent. Paul’s letters never speak of infants being “regenerated” at baptism, nor does he ever claim water itself effects salvation apart from faith.
- Biblical vs. Sacramental Emphasis
Aspect Paul’s Teaching Oriental Orthodox Theology
Mechanism Faith-mediated participation in Christ’s death/resurrection Water and anointing confer grace and regeneration, independent of conscious faith (esp. infants)
Focus Union with Christ, obedience, Spirit-led transformation Grace conferred objectively through sacrament
Evidence Romans 6:3–5, Galatians 3:27, 1 Corinthians 12:13 Church Fathers, liturgical praxis, baptismal rites (Cyril, Didymus)
Scope Converts with faith; public confession of Christ Includes infants; emphasizes original sin and inherent cleansing - Exegesis and Historical Observation
Faith precedes baptism in the New Testament. Acts 8:36–37 shows the Ethiopian eunuch’s belief precedes baptism: “See, here is water… What prevents me from being baptized?” Philip says, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” Baptism enacts faith, it does not generate it.
Salvation is by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8–9). Water baptism is instrumental, not meritorious. The Spirit effects transformation; baptism is a covenantal witness.
Oriental Orthodox theology relies heavily on extra-biblical interpolation from patristic liturgy and tradition. While historically venerable, this is not strictly Pauline or apostolic. Scripture never commands infant baptism with salvific guarantees, nor claims water alone regenerates.
So, Sam…
Paul’s baptism is participatory, salvific, and Spirit-mediated, but always faith-based and covenantal. Oriental Orthodox baptismal regeneration adds a layer of automatic sacramental efficacy, especially regarding infants, which Scripture does not explicitly support. The biblical witness emphasizes union with Christ, Spirit-wrought new life, and obedience, not ritual magic or automatic grace.
Bottom line: Oriental Orthodox theology is historically coherent and liturgically rich, but from a strictly biblical standpoint, baptismal regeneration as taught in their tradition is an extrapolation beyond Paul’s letters. Scripture treats baptism as faith-driven participation in Christ’s atoning work, not an independent conduit of salvation.
J.
My stance on it is that..
What is baptism?
Simply put, baptism is our death, burial and resurrection in union with Jesus Christ. It is a rite of passage, given by Christ to the Church as an entrance into the Kingdom of God and eternal life.
The apostle Paul describes the promise of God in this mystery as most Orthodox call it, most succinctly when he writes, “Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so, we also should walk in newness of life” (Rom 6:4). To baptize (Gr. Baptizo) literally means “to immerse, to put into” Historically, Orthodox Church has baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (Matt 28:19).
In the OT, baptism is pictured by the passage of God’s people with Moses through the Red Sea (1 Co 10:1,2). John the Baptist, the last prophet of the OT, baptised in water for repentance (Mk 1:4, Acts 19:4). Jesus received John’s baptism, thereby transforming the water and baptism itself. In the NT, baptism is the means by which we enter the Kingdom of God (Jn 3:5) are joined to Christ (Rom 6:3) and are granted the remission of our sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).
What results from Baptism..
- A first and second dying
Our first dying with Christ in baptism was our death with Him on the Cross. In the fourth century, St. Cyril of Jerusalem instructed his new converts. “You were led by the hand to the holy pool of divine baptism…and each of you was asked if he believed in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. And you made that saying confession, you descended into the water and came up again three times. In the very same moment, you died and were born”.
The second death of baptism is continual, dying to sin daily as we walk in newness of life. St. Paul writes to the Colossians concerning baptism (Col 2:12), and concludes by saying, “Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.” - The resurrection of righteousness
This is our life in Christ, our new birth and enetrance into God’s kingdom, our newness of life (Rom 6:4, Jn 3:3). It is our being joined to Christ in His glorified humanity and indwelt by God himself (Jn 14:23). Our relationship with God is not something static, a legal fiction given to us by a Divine Judge. Rather, this is a dynamic and real life in Christ, holding the promise of everlasting life. Our resurrection to new life now forms a prelude to the resurrection of our body at Christ’s second coming. - An intimate and continual communion with God
We are raised to new life for a purpose: union and communion with God. In this sense, baptism is the beginning of eternal life. For this reason, Peter writes that baptism now saves us (1 Pt 3:21), for it is not mere the removal of dirt from our bodies but provides us with a good conscience toward God.
Because of these promises, the priest prays for the newly baptized, thanking God, "who has given us, unworthy though we be, blessed purification through holy water, and divine sanctification through life-giving chrismation and who now also have been pleased to bring new life to Your servant newly illuminated by water and the Spirit, and granted remission of sin, voluntary and involuntary.
Orthodoxy doesn’t affirm the doctrine of Original Sin, @Johann
“To the one who does not work but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness” (Rom 4:5
Please, explain this to a newbie to theology?
This is all heady stuff! I don’t understand all the terms that those of you who are learned, so I get my dictionary out lol. But I love reading all of this. I’m learning so much here!
Thank you
Joanne
@Joanne.1966
“To the one who does not work” = This means a person is not trying to earn God’s approval by following rules perfectly or by doing good deeds.
“but believes in Him” = Instead, the person trusts God completely and relies on Him.
“who justifies the ungodly” = God declares sinful and imperfect people to be righteous, even though they are not perfect on their own.
“his faith is counted as righteousness” = God credits the person’s trust and faith as if they were righteous, accepting them as right with Him.
1 Like
I agree that all of that is deeply problematic.
But this can’t be blamed on the fathers anymore than we should blame the Bible when heretics misread and misuse Scripture to justify their erroneous doctrines.
So I am unsure how this fits into the broader conversation. They are clearly mis-understanding and mis-using the Didache. The Two Ways does represent an early Christian moral framework–but it’s not instead of of Jesus’ life and teachings about Himself as the One who reconciles sinners with God by His life, death, and resurrection. Being fairly familiar with the content of the Didache, I simply don’t know how they could use it that way. The Didache is, quite firmly, within the broader context of historic “Pauline” Christianity. I dislike the phrase “Pauline Christianity” because that’s just Christianity, it’s the apostolic faith, it’s who Jesus was and what Jesus said and did.
There’s no shortage of folks who claim they have recovered “the true Christianity”. This is, in fact, why it’s so important that we ground our faith in the historic faith which has been received. This is why the Creeds matter.
This is an argument in favor of historically-grounded orthodox Christian faith. Because without that, we get all this other weird stuff that simply isn’t Christianity.
1 Like
If you listen to the podcasts you will understand.
J.
Many (Abke, etc) who argue against the historic Church tend to isolate a few lines from the Fathers and use them as prooftexts, often detached from the broader theological framework those same Fathers were writing within…
Johann said that:
An amazing hymn from Syriac Orthodox Christians (ترنيمة رائعة من المسيحيين السريان الأرثوذكس):
You are requiring history to verify what Scripture has already claimed about itself, and that is the problem. The church did not make God’s Word authoritative, the church declared it authoritative because it already was God’s Word. The canon of Scripture was not formulated by councils, it was affirmed by councils. The Word of God has always carried its own authority for authenticity.
Paul instructed the Thessalonians to “receive… not the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God” ~1 Thessalonians 2:13. Before any councils had met. When Jesus was tempted, He did not refer to any councils or tradition, He simply said, “It is written” ~Matthew 4:4. Scripture had been the final authority for the Son of God Himself.
The apostles did not have to wait for later “conciliar discernment” to recognize inspired Scripture. Peter referred to Paul’s letters as “Scripture” when both were alive ~2 Peter 3:16. Which is immediate apostolic recognition of inspiration in real time.
Therefore, no, Scripture does not require ecclesial adjudication to be sufficient. It declares itself to be “God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” ~2 Timothy 3:16. Which is a divine declaration of sufficiency, not one awaiting historical verification.
The problem is not epistemic. It is spiritual. When man wants the church to serve as the judge over the Word, he is setting up human authority where only God should be. The Word of God judges the church, not the other way around ~Hebrews 4:12.
Placing your faith in man rather than God will not be good for you on Judgement Day.
Romans 4:5 gives one of the clearest statements of what salvation is. Paul is saying that justification is a declaration of righteousness made by God, not on the basis of our work but our belief. “To the one who does not work but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness” ~Romans 4:5.
Let me paint you a word picture. Picture a debt. An owed amount that you could never earn enough money to pay off. Even if you work for a thousand lifetimes you will never pay off the debt. Jesus steps in and pays your debt in full with His life. There is nothing you can do to earn it but believe and receive. Faith trusts in what Christ has done, it does not earn righteousness.
Paul is saying “justifies” means that God declares you to be righteous, not because of your own righteousness but because of Christ’s righteousness credited to you. It’s like God taking your sin and putting it on Jesus at the cross and taking Jesus’ righteousness and putting it on you. We call this the great exchange.
By “the one who does not work” Paul is not saying we do not do good works. He is saying we are not saved by good works, they are the fruit of salvation ~Ephesians 2:8-10.
@TheologyNerd
Be careful what you mean when you say “orthodox Christian” faith, because there are several branches that claim that title, each with distinct theology and practice. The Eastern Orthodox Church traces itself through Constantinople and emphasizes theosis, the mystical union with God through the sacraments. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic, Armenian, and Syriac traditions, rejected Chalcedon and hold Miaphysite Christology. The Assyrian Church of the East follows a separate line of apostolic succession and Nestorian-influenced theology. Even within the Eastern Orthodox world, Greek, Russian, and Antiochian streams differ in their liturgical, mystical, and ecclesiological emphases. So when someone invokes the phrase “orthodox faith,” one must ask which “orthodoxy” they mean, because the label does not guarantee doctrinal unity, and each tradition interprets Scripture, sacraments, and salvation history through its own inherited lens.
Correct?
J.
I said “orthodox” little ‘o’. I don’t think anyone is going to conflate the ordinary, universal Christian use of the term orthodoxy with any of those specific Communions which are called Orthodox, capital ‘O’.
So I fail to see any reason to be concerned.
Christian orthodoxy is well defined–it’s the Creeds. All Christians believe the Nicene Creed, whether or not they include the Nicene Creed in their liturgy or not is a different story. But one can’t be a Christian and reject the Nicene Creed.
1 Like
I agree entirely that the Word of God is inherently authoritative by virtue of divine inspiration. That is not under question. The issue is epistemological and historical, not ontological. You have rightly stated that the Church “declared” rather than “made” the Word authoritative; but such a declaration presupposes a process of discernment. The question, therefore, is not whether Scripture possesses intrinsic authority, but how that authority was recognized, delimited, and transmitted in the historical Church.
To say that “the canon was affirmed, not formulated” still requires explanation of who affirmed it and on what basis. The moment one appeals to the act of “affirmation,” one has already invoked the Church’s conciliar function, precisely the communal discernment I am describing. The early centuries are filled with instances where Christian communities held differing collections of writings, some including texts later excluded (e.g., Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas), and others omitting texts later received. It is a matter of historical record that the canonical consensus did not exist as a closed and universally recognized list during the apostolic era. Your citation of 2 Peter 3:16 demonstrates that Peter recognized certain Pauline letters as Scripture, but this intra-apostolic acknowledgment does not constitute a completed canon, nor does it indicate a self-operating principle by which later generations could identify inspired writings without recourse to apostolic or ecclesial authority. Likewise, when Christ said, “It is written,” He appealed to a corpus of texts already established through Israel’s covenantal and communal discernment under divine providence. Even there, Scripture did not arise in isolation but through sacred history mediated by the people of God. When you say that “Scripture judges the Church,” the statement is theologically correct but historically incomplete. Scripture’s authority is exercised within the Church, through the Spirit who both inspired the text and illumines its meaning within the ecclesial body. Otherwise, the claim of sufficiency collapses into individual interpretation without a rule of faith to define orthodoxy from error.
So my question remains unanswered. Where, in the first century, do we see Scripture functioning as an autonomous and self-interpreting authority apart from the Church’s living discernment and apostolic succession? Appeals to inspiration or internal testimony of Scripture do not answer that question. The issue is not whether the Word is divine, but whether its authority, in practice, ever operated independently of the ecclesial context that preserved and proclaimed it.
@Johann, do you know the history behind the Syriac Orthodox hymn Ebke-w-Ebke (an amazing example of repetance)…
This hymn was written by Catholicos (Syr. “Maphryono”) Ignatius Marcus Bar Qiqi when he returned to Christ after he had left the church for another faith. Through his role, he was respected by both his own and other Christian congregations as well as people of that other community. After serving the church as Catholicos for 25 years, he departed from Christianity after a dispute with his congregation, thinking that people of that other faith would welcome him with open arms. They did not, because the respect they had for him was for the office he held within the church. Once he had left, he was no longer venerated by either Christians or others as before. Furthermore, he fell into extreme poverty.
It is said that people once asked him how he celebrated the Eucharist. When he held up his open hands and demonstrated prayer, they are said to have seen tongues of fire on his fingers. They were astonished and reported the phenomenon to him. Bar Qiqi is said to have taken this as a sign to repent. He showed great remorse and returned to Christianity. It is not known how long Bar Qiqi lived outside the church. He was likely subsequently admitted to a monastery. As a sign of his deep repentance, he stretched himself out at the church exit and asked all the monks to step on him as they left. Bar Qiqi likely spent the rest of his life as a penitent at the Saint Jacob Monastery in Salah, Tur Abdin, where he died at an advanced age. He died in 1030. His burial site is in front of the altar of the small Saint Barshabo Church, located south of the monastery’s main church. Bar Qiqi probably sought a place far from Tagrit or Mosul, the monastery in Salah, Tur Abdin, so that he would no longer be seen by the faithful of his former church territory or by acquaintances from the other community because of his disgrace. As can be seen from his lamentations, the hymns he wrote, he realized that he had committed a grave error. So that God would forgive him for his sin, he wished to be trodden by the monastic community during his lifetime, and also by priests on his grave after his death. His grave, directly in front of the altar, is of great significance. Bar Qiqi himself most likely desired this location. In Syriac Orthodox Churches, the tombs of priests, bishops, or patriarchs are not known to be located in front of the altar. They are buried in designated niches on the walls of the sanctuary or the interior of the church, and in the crypts.
We’ve already gone over this before, and Scripture has already settled it. The Word of God was authoritative the moment God spoke it, not when a council recognized it ~2 Timothy 3:16.
In the first century, we do see Scripture functioning with full authority apart from any institutional body. Every time Jesus said, “It is written,” He appealed directly to the Word as final, not to rabbinic or church authority ~Matthew 4:4. The Bereans tested even Paul’s preaching by the Scriptures ~Acts 17:11. That’s the Bible judging the messenger, not the other way around.
Peter also referred to Paul’s writings as Scripture while both were still alive ~2 Peter 3:16, showing that divine authority was recognized immediately, not centuries later by councils. The Spirit who inspired the Word is the same Spirit who illumines its meaning, so it never relied on ecclesial approval to be authoritative.
So I’m not going to keep circling back to what’s already answered. The Bible speaks for itself, and its authority doesn’t depend on human validation. It stands because God said it.
Stop putting your faith in man’s institutions and put your faith in God’s Word. Council, tradition and no man can save you, only Jesus Christ can. You have now been given the truth from Scripture and you will be held accountable before God for what you teach ~James 3:1. Every one who preaches or practices a false gospel is under the curse of God unless they repent ~Galatians 1:8. Scripture says, Thus says the LORD: “Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength, whose heart turns away from the LORD.” ~Jeremiah 17:5. Turn to Christ while there is still time, for only He can save you ~John 14:6.
1 Like
You are repeating assertions, not demonstrating them. No one is denying that God’s Word is authoritative the moment He speaks; the question concerns recognition and canonization in historical practice. To affirm that “the Bible speaks for itself” does not explain how believers in the first two centuries, who did not yet possess a universally defined canon, determined which writings constituted that Bible.
When Jesus said, “It is written,” He was citing a corpus already discerned and transmitted through the covenantal life of Israel, a people, priesthood, and prophetic tradition. That example supports rather than undermines the necessity of communal discernment in identifying the authentic Word of God. Likewise, the Bereans you mention examined Paul’s teaching against their existing Scriptures (the Septuagint), not against a self-evident canon of New Testament texts which did not yet exist. Your use of that passage, therefore, presupposes the very interpretive continuity you deny.
Peter’s reference to Paul’s letters as Scripture is an instance of intra-apostolic recognition, not a formal canonization. It tells us that some Pauline writings were already esteemed as inspired, but it does not tell us which ones, nor how later communities were to distinguish authentic letters from spurious ones, a serious problem the early Church itself encountered. The mere existence of such disputes (for example, the varied canons attested by Irenaeus, Clement, and the Muratorian fragment) proves that inspiration, though intrinsic, was not self-evident in practice.
You have quoted 2 Timothy 3:16, yet the “Scripture” to which Paul refers there is the Old Testament corpus known to Timothy from childhood. The passage affirms divine inspiration, not the self-sufficiency of a later, as-yet-uncollected New Testament canon. To read into it a post-apostolic sola scriptura framework is anachronistic. Appealing to the Spirit’s illumination also presupposes a concrete interpretive body. The same Spirit who inspired Scripture guided the Church that received it (John 16:13). Without that hermeneutical continuity, “illumination” collapses into individual subjectivity, and history itself becomes irrelevant to theology. No one here is placing faith in man over God. The question is how God chose to preserve and transmit His Word, through inspired individuals abstracted from history, or through the living Body of Christ animated by the same Spirit that spoke through the prophets and apostles. The record of history is unambiguous: the canon, creed, and rule of faith emerged through ecclesial discernment, not private revelation.
Until you can show from first-century evidence that the canon functioned independently of that discernment, your argument remains theological assertion, not historical demonstration.
