Accept Christ then be Baptized

[ckempston]

Nothing can beat action; not words nor eloquence. They did it, period.

Prove it.

 

[elvisman]

They didn’t tell them any such thing.

They didn’t do this.

PROVE it, Kempston.
You’re full of angry statements but no substance. Nothing.

I already proved to you in post #20 that the Church was teaching about infant baptism as early as the 2nd century - as Irenaeus writes.

Face it - you don’t have a historical leg to stand on.

 

[kimmielittle]

IMHO Ignorance is self deceiving

 

[ckempston]

You’ll note that you quoted two completely different parts. I said he mentions the written gospels, however the first part you quoted does not reference the gospels as they were written. You’ll notice the two sentences are nowhere near each other, let alone related. Basic grammatical syntax here.

It’s the same verse. How can they not be related?

 

[Nine_Two]

It’s the same verse. How can they not be related?

Given that the second one has a qualifier while the first instance does not should make it clear that the second instance is more specialized, that is the first instance refers to the gospel message, while the second instance refers specifically to writings which contain that gospel.

 

[Nine_Two]

PROVE it, Kempston.
**You’re full of angry **statements but no substance. Nothing.

I already proved to you in post #20 that the Church was teaching about infant baptism as early as the 2nd century - as Irenaeus writes.

Face it - you don’t have a historical leg to stand on.

He brought up St. Irenaeus out of context to prove the bible contained all, then we bring up statements which show St. Irenaeus believed in infant baptism. Either St. Irenaeus was condemning himself as a heretic, or his reading of Against Heresies is flawed. Which brings the further point, if he can not correctly interprete something presented in English, why should we accept his interpretation of the original Greek?

 

[ckempston]

PROVE it, Kempston.
You’re full of angry statements but no substance. Nothing.

I’m not angry, just right.

I already proved to you in post #20 that the Church was teaching about infant baptism as early as the 2nd century - as Irenaeus writes.

Face it - you don’t have a historical leg to stand on.

The Irenaeus quote is probably about baptism, though not totally necessary, the other two are indeed explicit with regard to infant baptism, but quotes 100-200 years after the death of the last Apostle are hardly evidence of an Apostolic teaching. Interestingly, possibly the oldest mention of Baptism outside the Bible (in the Didache) does not mention children, and says that the Baptized shall fast - kind of hard for an infant immediately after birth. Yet another problem for the Catholic position.

Not to mention that infant baptism contradicts the plain statements of scripture as I have pointed out, where “those who believed the message were baptized,” “if you believe, you may be baptized,” “if you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord [presumably at Baptism] you will be saved.” Sorry, but when the ECFs contradict scripture, I’ll stick with scripture.

While I find the Early Church Fathers useful, they are not authoritative, nor does the Catholic church claim that they are always correct, and I only reference them when discussing things with Catholics to show that a) they often support Protestant positions, such as Irenaeus and the sufficiency of the scriptures, and b) they often disagree amongst themselves as to what was handed down from the Apostles.

What you would need to prove your point is a letter from an Apostle, or a student of an Apostle directed by that Apostle (i.e. the Mark/Peter relationship) that says what your provided quotes say. No such quotes exist. There are a few possible conclusions:

-those church fathers who spoke of infant baptism were mistaken (they didn’t know the Apostles, so their claims could only be 2nd or 3rd hand).
-those quotes were interpolated or massaged to support Catholic doctrine (the Catholic church is not above doing this even to scripture, e.g. Johannine Comma).

You have hardly proven this is an apostolic teaching.

 

[Nine_Two]

Well I’m out of this, no use casting pearls before swine.

 

[agzag]

WOW, I should know better than to wait a day before responding to such a hot topic. It is amazing as to how quickly these threads fall apart and desend into silly name calling and mud slinging fights. I have to walk a fine line when I attempt discussions of this magnitude with my husband and if I resorted to name calling, I think my marriage would be in trouble. Everyone here, and I mean EVERYONE, needs to ask the Holy Spirit for guidance in their responses so that we may build respect for one another and in turn, strengthen the Body of Christ.

Thank you JonNC, Luke65, Nine_Two for your charitable responses. I just finished reading “Crossing the Tiber” by Steve Ray and approximately half of the book discusses the sacrament of Baptism, following Scripture, the Church Fathers, and current Church teachings. My husband has agreed to read it but I’m not sure how far he’ll get. I found it to be a great book but the format made it a challenge to read and my husband may not have the patience to get through it.

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

This is clearly too hot for participation. This thread is now closed.

Everyone please review each of your posts for content and TONE prior to hitting submit. Several posts in this thread held lots condescending tone which seriously detracts from the content (whether valid or not).

God bless-

Rachel