Contradictions/UnScriptural Catholicism ??

  • Thread starter Thread starter joshua_b
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
sparks:
Not all families in the bible had infants. Some did, some didn’t. We have no proof that the baptized families contained infants.
Click to expand...
More likely than not, the families baptized had infants, since not only were large families the norm then, but extended families lived in one household. So you had uncles, aunts, cousins, grandparents in one roof. It’s more likely than not that, given such a setting, there would be an infant somewhere there.
 
Asking you if you believe scriptures contradicts itself is not off-topic. It is directly related to the discussion. For instance, you cite John 3:5 but do not agree that there are exceptional circumstances in which one may be baptised by desire or blood.

If you read Luke 23:32-43 you see Christ promising salvation to the thief who was hanging on a cross. The thief was not baptised by water but by desire. You cite John but ignore Luke and state that the Bible contradicts Church teaching? Why is that?
 
Actually the question is very relevant. I started this thread in the hopes of reaching a mutual respect and understanding between Catholics and Protestants on different teachings and customs of the Church in the light of Scripture (and more importantly its interpretation). If you do not believe in Scripture as the inerrant and inspired written Word of God, then perhaps you should go find a new thread. Not because you are not welcome here; you most certainly ARE and your opinions and comments will be respected, but because I didn’t intend to start a debate with non-believers or those who hold that Scripture is NOT inerrant, and if you are arguing that something contradicts Scripture without the precept that Scripture is inerrant then we are just going to go in circles, which isnt productive for anyone. Now, back to the topic at hand.
 
40.png
Eden:
For instance, you cite John 3:5 but do not agree that there are exceptional circumstances in which one may be baptised by desire or blood.

If you read Luke 23:32-43 you see Christ promising salvation to the thief who was hanging on a cross. The thief was not baptised by water but by desire. You cite John but ignore Luke and state that the Bible contradicts Church teaching? Why is that?
Click to expand...
This is not correct. I am only pointing out specific passages in the Bible which contradict Catholic teaching. I am not making any claims about the whole Bible or the Bible as a whole, and I already said that it may or may not be reasonable for Catholicism to reject a particular passage of Scripture.
I remain willing to discuss the alternate topic of whether or not the Bible contradicts itself on another thread. I hesitate to initiate a discussion on this alternate topic here, for the following reasons:
  1. fear of being accused of hijacking the thread,
  2. not following the rules and regulations which demand to stay on topic.
  3. The topic is somewhat complex and will require a lot of in depth discussion back and forth.
 
Ok Kirane, now I understand where you are coming from. Let’s amend this a little bit. Rather than a contradiction of a “specific passage”, can you cite an example of a contradiction to Biblical teaching ? What I was looking for was NOT contradiction to a passage taken at it most literal sense, completely void of interpretation and context. If you wanted to start a thread on contradictions in scripture, or anything else that may spring to mind as a result of this thread, then by all means be my guest. You may even find me participating in that one if you do. Again, if the topic here is of interest to you, then please stay and contribute, but can we please focus a little more towards what I was looking for ?
 
Now, on to infant baptism. Scripture does not ANYWHERE condemn or forbid infant baptism. So, to find the Truth on whether or not to baptize infants, I would look to the Church, which 1Tim3:15 tells me is the “pillar and foundation of all truth”. There is record as early as the late 1st century of infant baptism taking place, and there is NO record of any Christian objection to the practice of infant baptism prior to the 16th century that I have found anywhere. (If I am wrong on this, then please let me know, citing your source…I’m not so prideful I can’t admit that I am wrong.) The ONLY controversy historically documented within the Church concerning the baptism of infants was whether or not it should be done at 8 days, given its parallel to and fulfillment of the Jewish law of circumcision. This is not a “later Catholic” development, this was within the first hundred years after the death of Christ. If it is indeed true that the Catholic Church is a “later version” of Christianity, then surely there would be record of some objection from the “original Christians” regarding this matter.
 
I think the problem is assuming that it is possible to know “what scripture teaches” by merely citing a particular passage.

Much as we may want it to be, the bible is not a book of instruction, or a book of catechetics, or a book to teach doctrine in an orderly way. Speaking of the NT, it is a collection of letters and historical narratives directed to particular people, and adopted for general use by the Church, mainly in liturgical settings–i.e. the gospels and letters were read during liturgical services.
 
I agree absolultely. That is why Sacred Tradition is so incredibly important. The formation of Doctrine was closed at the death of the last Apostle. The Catholic Church is not allowed to change Doctrine. That is part of the reason for this thread is to get a feel for the claim that Catholic Doctrines have changed through the centuries.
 
40.png
joshua_b:
The Catholic Church is not allowed to change Doctrine.
Click to expand...
Where does it say that? You may be right, but where is the source of this statement. I’m seeking knowledge, not trying to start an argument.
 
40.png
mikew262:
Where does it say that? You may be right, but where is the source of this statement. I’m seeking knowledge, not trying to start an argument.
Click to expand...
This is part of the “deposit of faith”. The deposit of faith cannot be changed.
 
To understand the concept in its entirety, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in Part One “The Profession of the Faith”, article 2, “The Transmission of Divine Revelation”.
 
40.png
joshua_b:
To understand the concept in its entirety, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in Part One “The Profession of the Faith”, article 2, “The Transmission of Divine Revelation”.
Click to expand...
link to Part One “The Profession of the Faith”, article 2, "The Transmission of Divine Revelation:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top