What Do We Know For Sure?

[Homer]

Hebrews 6:1-2, (NKJV)

1. Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2. of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.


The writer of Hebrews lists six items as basic to the Christian faith. Those knowledgeable in the Greek have likened the writer's statement about elementary principles to such basic education as a child learning the alphabet. Really beginner's stuff. The question then arises as to whether the earliest Christians understood them clearly whereas we do not. It might be said that they had access to the teaching of the apostles. On the other hand we all have copies of the scriptures and the vast majority of them did not.

The reformers argued for the perspicuity of the scriptures. But Christians have many views about baptism. The Salvation Army, for example, does not baptize converts or practice communion. Additionally, some believe baptism must be by immersion while others think sprinkling is adequate. As for the resurrection there is controversy with the preterists over what resurrection may be. And of course the controversy regarding eternal judgment has raged on here for years, and our host, after a lifetime of study, does not know what it means (not trying to start another fire regarding hell, pun intended). So if we can not know with any confidence what the true teachings are on the basics, what advantage is there in studying more advanced doctrines? The Catholics must laugh at us.

[jriccitelli]

Hi homer, my thoughts on this were: I figured that this could be understood as a small group of believers, who have studied, learned and gone over these doctrines together, and having established somewhat of a foundational understanding of these doctrines, could now move on to other things. And the writer of Hebrews, like a small group leader, was now encouraging and or announcing to his disciples that they were ready to move on to other doctrines. Not that they wouldn't return to these doctrines, but that it was now established that this group had a good 'foundation' for further study. And i would believe that these 5 or 6 doctrines indeed establish a necessary foundation to other doctrines, although i think 'these specific' ones are meant as 'speaking of all basic doctrines in general' that need understanding before moving on 'to perfection' generally speaking.

I think that group may have understood enough, and the next group would have to learn these foundational principles too, but just how each group understood them would be up to each person and group... as history has shown.

I think the moral is, get your foundations down first - before moving on, sadly biblical doctrinal foundations are almost always overlooked in the Church, and yet they claim and grapple for perfection.

[TheEditor]

For what its worth, it occurs to me that he writer of Hebrews is addressing Hebrews. And, in the list you give, all of those things; repentance from dead works; faith toward God; the doctrine of baptisms; laying on of hands; resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment, were all elements of the Jewish faith prior to their becoming Christians.

Baptisms--Mark 7:4; Leviticus 14:8, 9; John's baptizing style and demand for repentance before baptizing was not questioned, just his authority in doing so; The Jews laid on hands, and the Jews had an apprehension of Judgment and Resurrection--unlike the Greeks.

Regards, Brenden.

[mattrose]

I would say that there is a basic/core truth in each of those things listed. I doubt the author was unaware that the particulars of each category could be disputed, but all can agree that we need to turn from our former lives (Repentance), trust in God (Faith), experience solidarity with Christ (Baptism), be part of community (Laying on of hands), believe in the future hope (Resurrection) and be aware of the consequences of continued wickedness (Judgment). These basic beliefs are essentially creedal whereas more-defined beliefs and practices surrounding them are doctrinal and, therefore, subject to dispute. I tend to think the early (apostolic) church was far less concerned than we are about getting every single detail of every single belief pinned down and more concerned about actually living like Jesus (I often think of the Didache's casual approach to methods for baptism in this regard... "But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.")

[backwoodsman]

So if we can not know with any confidence what the true teachings are on the basics, what advantage is there in studying more advanced doctrines? The Catholics must laugh at us.

You're not suggesting we all have to agree completely on every detail of every doctrine, are you? That would be contrary to Paul's teaching in Romans 14, among other places. Our unity is in following Jesus, not in perfect agreement on minor points of doctrine. If we're confused on this, the Catholics have good reason to laugh.

The verses you quote are from the middle of the writer's attempt to convince his readers of how far they've fallen spiritually without being aware of it. He's not advocating for uniformity of belief on all points, but for spiritual maturity. They were once mature, but had unwittingly devolved to a state of spiritual infancy, endlessly rehashing the most basic of elementary concepts as though they were the things of spiritual maturity. (Reminds me of much of Christian radio and preachers these days -- going over & over the most basic stuff imaginable, while those who have been Christians for decades gush over how challenged they were by such a great sermon.)

The writer's solution to this problem is in v.12 -- faith and patience. Many reject such simple answers as too simplistic, but childlike simplicity in following Jesus is the only way to spiritual maturity.

The reformers argued for the perspicuity of the scriptures.

And yet, they committed, or at least advocated, the persecution and even murder of anyone with whom they disagreed, in direct opposition to the clear teaching of scripture. To borrow a phrase from Jesus, they strained out gnats, but swallowed camels. Scripture is clear that men of such character as history shows them to be are not qualified to be spiritual leaders. The more I learn of them, the more I wonder why they're so revered among Christians.

[Homer]

Backwoodsman wrote:

You're not suggesting we all have to agree completely on every detail of every doctrine, are you? That would be contrary to Paul's teaching in Romans 14, among other places. Our unity is in following Jesus, not in perfect agreement on minor points of doctrine. If we're confused on this, the Catholics have good reason to laugh.

Take baptism for an example. Certainly this is a basic teaching and commanded by Jesus. And we are plainly informed that if we love Him we will obey Him. But it appears that some do not know what baptism is; what they are commanded to do, while others place no importance on it or do not baptize at all. It would seem all could agree that immersion is an acceptable baptism but that does not answer as to why it is not done at all.

I know a man who moved here with his family from another state. He had attended a church in that state, for many years, whose pastor is one of the most prominent of Calvinists, author of books and prominent on the radio. Yet this man and his family had never been baptized as our pastor discovered when he came here. Makes you wonder. Was the most basic of teaching ignored at that church while staining at gnats?

Thing with the Catholics is that they see no need to defend their practice of baptism - no need to argue over the meaning of the Greek word. They simply assert their authority to change the practice as they see fit.

I use baptism as only an example. The question is how do we practice obedience, which Jesus equates with love for Him, if we can not even know what to obey and teach? I can see churches disagreeing about frequency of the communion, but the group that does not baptize never partakes of communion either.

[steve7150]

Thing with the Catholics is that they see no need to defend their practice of baptism - no need to argue over the meaning of the Greek word. They simply assert their authority to change the practice as they see fit.\












There was a time when they charged money to buy salvation and they didn't see any need to argue whether they had the authority to do this. The RCC had absolute power over Christianity and we know what absolute power does to man.

[Paidion]

Second century Christians understood that Jesus and the apostles taught that baptism was the moment in which one was regenerated. Not that immersion in water in itself regenerated a person, but that when one repented and submitted to Christ, his baptism sealed the matter, sort of like signing a contract to seal a deal.

I think that the subject of baptism is one matter in which Homer and I are mostly, if not totally, in agreement. Here is how Justin Martyr explained the Christian practice of baptism:

I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we were being made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, then then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except you are begotten again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (John 3:5) — Apology 61

[Homer]

Paidion wrote:

Second century Christians understood that Jesus and the apostles taught that baptism was the moment in which one was regenerated. Not that immersion in water in itself regenerated a person, but that when one repented and submitted to Christ, his baptism sealed the matter, sort of like signing a contract to seal a deal.

Which brings up the question as to why second century Christians understood this and a great many today do not. Seems plain enough in the scriptures. (I ask this in a general sense about what we know for sure; not looking for a big discussion about baptism.)

I think that the subject of baptism is one matter in which Homer and I are mostly, if not totally, in agreement.

This is correct.