Perhaps Mary was assumed. But pending proof to support it, I should not be required to believe it. The problem is–if we check the language of the definition from 1950–I’ve pretty much made a shipwreck of my faith for choosing not to believe in it. I much prefer the language 15 years later at Vatican II, when I can freely reject the Assumption and still be considered a “separated brother.”
As for me being unique as a Protestant–I doubt that seriously. Do some study on what the Reformers meant by the “formal principle of the Reformation” (i.e., sola scriptura) and I’ll think you’ll quickly find that it is not a rejection of tradition, but rather subordination of tradition to scripture. The way you seem to be defining it and the way you describe Protestants, one would wonder if microphones and electric guitars would be “unbiblical” simply because there’s no mention of such things in scripture. I know some Catholics who think VBS is a Protestant “tradition of men” because the Bible nowhere says children ought to attend Vacation Bible School in the summer. In the hands of some Catholics sola scriptura has become a caricature. I would complain more about this were it not for the fact that some Protestants have done equal injustice to the principle as articulated by the Reformers.
You have the view of all Catholics. We do not submit to an erroneous and unbiblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura. It is Protestants who have accused Catholics of not following this doctrine and accusing us of our “unbiblical traditions.” You have just proven why Catholics are correct…it seems to me that you’re almost there
No one is claiming that baby dedications are identical to the presentation of the firstborn. Do a little homework and you’ll find that the “firstborn” is a legal status that was valid under the Old covenant. We’re no longer in the covenant of works, but grace. I used the example of Hannah dedicating Samuel. The gesture dedicating or consecrating one’s child to the Lord–it seems to me–is quite biblical. But no where am I trying to be legalistic about it. Babies were also dedicated in Israel. Does that mean I have to go there in order for it to be valid? All I said is that there is precedent for the concept in scripture. That’s far more than you can say about the baptism of infants.
Again, this is clearly reinforcing Catholic doctrine and belief. The OT was FULFILLED by Christ. Nowhere did I imply that we must follow the Mosaic laws such as presenting or “dedicating” the firstborn in the temple as the Hebrews did. Christ came to fulfill those laws, not to abolish them. So we have been given a new method of presenting our children (not only our firstborn) to the Kingdom of Heaven - Baptism.
As for Paul Jewett, try Amazon. (Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace) My point in mentioning him is that he has done the historical research and has proven quite conclusively (in my opinion) that infant baptism was not a universal practice of the early church–especially in the East–and that it took quite a bit of time before the entire church was on board with the practice. I did not say that the practice was not early and relatively widespread. I said it wasn’t universal from day 1, which accords nicely with what we see in scripture–or in this case what we don’t see–i.e., any explicit reference to the baptism of infants.
As their is no explicit reference to the “dedication” of all other children after the firstborn male
By the way, Jewett’s argument deals exclusively with those who argue that because infants were circumcised they should therefore be baptized. Given your argument above, wouldn’t you be forced to agree that because only males were circumcised that only males should be baptized? But if not, then why not? Or is it only okay to use such lines of reasoning against Protestant positions and not your own? Just curious.
I find it very sad myslef…