J
JohnChrysostom
Guest
You had me really confused for a bit. So I back off and tried to clarify before slinging my axe…
That’s what I thought I was reading, but it sounded like you were disagreeing with what we agreed on…
- Status
That’s what I thought I was reading, but it sounded like you were disagreeing with what we agreed on…
D
Dokimas
Guest
Peace be with you,
Please excuse me for assuming you were SB. You are correct when you stated that 1st century letters and documents were written but by very few apostles and mostly by their successors. The bible was canonized over the centuries. So we have thus far the letters and copies and the oral traditions of the apostles that were handed down until the final decision was made as to which books were allowed for the bible. In fact there are many patristic writings that were written at the time to validate which letters and books were acceptable. The history of the bible is as much important as the bible itself. If you do not understand this, there is nothing else I could do for you. Our Sacred Tradition is based on this and the continual guidance it receives from the HS. Furthermore, you were given many scriptures to support infant baptism. Now it is up to you to discern through the Grace of the Holy Spirit, I hope.
May I ask you this. Your wife was a former catholic, then she was baptized as an infant right? If so, do you both accept the validity of this baptism or does she plan or has been already baptized into this new faith of yours.
God Bless
Because I have all I can do to study and understand the Bible, I don’t spend time studying your sacred tradition.
My wife was baptized as an infant. She decided to be baptized again as a believer. We don’t view it as being baptized into a new faith. It’s faith in Jesus, only one true faith with many ways of exercising it.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Thanks for your info.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Well…having gone through all the threads…
I wanted my infants baptized as soon as possible so they could be incorporated into the Body of Christ…what if one died of SIDS?..or some early childhood disease…
Baptism is a grace. I also I have conviction that my Church teaches Truth. Baptism cannot secure my children to be Catholic when they are grown.
But the grace of baptism and my infants placed in the righteousness of the water and the blood that gives us life from the side of the Crucified Christ through the sacraments of initiation as children are the greatest gifts I can give my children.
One never knows what will happen in the future…and in the nuclear age, each day is very precious.
I wanted my infants baptized as soon as possible so they could be incorporated into the Body of Christ…what if one died of SIDS?..or some early childhood disease…
Baptism is a grace. I also I have conviction that my Church teaches Truth. Baptism cannot secure my children to be Catholic when they are grown.
But the grace of baptism and my infants placed in the righteousness of the water and the blood that gives us life from the side of the Crucified Christ through the sacraments of initiation as children are the greatest gifts I can give my children.
One never knows what will happen in the future…and in the nuclear age, each day is very precious.
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
I had my 2 year old Baptized shortly after he was born and will do the same with our next son my wife and I are expecting in August. I wouldn’t even consider not doing it.
My biggest concern is finding God parents
Not a lot of Catholics in my family.God bless
J
JohnChrysostom
Guest
Boy, can I relate to this post. The only godparent I could find turns out to believe in “a woman’s choice” and gay rights (sexually active). I confronted her on facebook because she made some snarky remarks to something I posted on there. My wife is non-confrontational. I, being a former soldier [like a Marine, I’m a soldier for life], refuse to pull punches that involve truth without apology. That’s why my seminary friend is now the godfather by adoption. Can’t get much better than a faithful priest.I had my 2 year old Baptized shortly after he was born and will do the same with our next son my wife and I are expecting in August. I wouldn’t even consider not doing it.
My biggest concern is finding God parents
God bless
K
KathleenGee
Guest
To interject here, parents experienced such a profound presence of Christ with their baptism, it was only proper and reasonable to extend this to all their children. You consider infant mortality, so of course, any parent would want their infant baptized.
I assume parents in many regions did the same regarding infant baptism.
So here is a good example of Church tradition in the development of the Church as well as the individual faith in Christ.
The Holy Spirit works through the believers as well in how they incarnate the truths and sacraments of Jesus Christ…you have to bring this all out into real life…and this is where the little ‘t’ traditions evolve.
I assume parents in many regions did the same regarding infant baptism.
So here is a good example of Church tradition in the development of the Church as well as the individual faith in Christ.
The Holy Spirit works through the believers as well in how they incarnate the truths and sacraments of Jesus Christ…you have to bring this all out into real life…and this is where the little ‘t’ traditions evolve.
G
greggy53
Guest
Sacred tradition is the history of Christianity and it is your inheritance too. All Christians Catholic and otherwise would do well to take the time to study our past. But I understand why many Protestants avoid this. They avoid it because if one undertakes a study of the sacred traditions which is the history of the Christian faith they would discover that the history of Christianity is and for over 2000 years has been Catholic. This doesn’t fit in with what they want to believe happened and so they dispute, distort, or ignore the events of the past.
L
losh14
Guest
I appreciate your candor.
I don’t think we’ll be able to learn much from one another here because our method of approaching Scripture differs so distinctly. You hold to a ‘strict constructionist’ exegesis, I think, to borrow the term from law. If it’s not specifically in the Bible, it shouldn’t be done. We tend to look at the Bible as part of a living history, ie that while the core was set in Scripture future debate clarified matters of disagreement.
At the very least I appreciate your offering a point of discussion though it’s frustrating that, by your note, you won’t pay attention to anything offered outside of your method of understanding Scripture. This is consistent for you with respect to your understanding of Scripture, though had I know that at first - that you wanted a specific bright line or proof text else you won’t bother with a post - I’d simply have wished you a good day.
L
losh14
Guest
And that’s where the question becomes a larger one:
- What is the purpose of baptism?
- What is its relationship with salvation?
- Why is it necessary - in other words, why does Scripture require it?
a) If it is only sign, why is that sign required?
b) If it is for remission of sins, is it the only means by which sins are remitted? If so, what is the mechanism by which sins are remitted following baptism?
0) How are we to understand what is taught in Scripture?
L
losh14
Guest
Doki - I appreciate the time constraints - as a husband, father and full-time worker, and so I understand we must limit what we study.
If you want to understand the formation of Catholic doctrine, you do need to include post-Apostolic writings because much doctrine was defined in response to challenges from heretical groups, or even just discussion within the Church. The New Testament does not go to pains to describe, for example, Jesus’ relationship with the Father, but this became more important shortly thereafter as Gnostic groups arose. We see hints of them when Paul condemns doctrines of men and pointless arguments over angels and hierarchies - the term hierarchy in particular is relevant to Gnosticism.
It is in the post-apostolic writings that we see the ‘why’ of theology as well as evidence of practices. Bear in mind that we take these to be referential rather than mandative. The Didache, in particular, was a recent discovery and so we see it as evidence of Catholic practice, not as a patristic guideline. Other writings, such as the letters of Irenaeus, have been in the Church since their inception and are referenced commonly by later authors quite frequently (Eusebius created a compendium following Nicaea).
It’s also interesting that the primary desire for many precursors to the Reformation was the nationalization of the Church - they opposed the Pope not because they saw a parallel to the Beast or the Antichrist, but rather because they felt the State should administer religion.
In any event, give Doki his time and let him ponder as he is able. We can only ask so much and be grateful he has gone so far as to ask.
If you want to understand the formation of Catholic doctrine, you do need to include post-Apostolic writings because much doctrine was defined in response to challenges from heretical groups, or even just discussion within the Church. The New Testament does not go to pains to describe, for example, Jesus’ relationship with the Father, but this became more important shortly thereafter as Gnostic groups arose. We see hints of them when Paul condemns doctrines of men and pointless arguments over angels and hierarchies - the term hierarchy in particular is relevant to Gnosticism.
It is in the post-apostolic writings that we see the ‘why’ of theology as well as evidence of practices. Bear in mind that we take these to be referential rather than mandative. The Didache, in particular, was a recent discovery and so we see it as evidence of Catholic practice, not as a patristic guideline. Other writings, such as the letters of Irenaeus, have been in the Church since their inception and are referenced commonly by later authors quite frequently (Eusebius created a compendium following Nicaea).
This is a good point as well - most evangelical theology has at least some roots in the Reformation, which likewise takes much from Catholicism. Certain ideas were quite novel - true that Waldo and Hus exhorted the free preaching of Scripture, yet it was not until Luther and Calvin that a doctrine of sola fide was really defined as such. They would do well to at least be familiar with this much of it.
It’s also interesting that the primary desire for many precursors to the Reformation was the nationalization of the Church - they opposed the Pope not because they saw a parallel to the Beast or the Antichrist, but rather because they felt the State should administer religion.
In any event, give Doki his time and let him ponder as he is able. We can only ask so much and be grateful he has gone so far as to ask.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Actually, if it contradicts the Bible it shouldn’t be done or taught. If it really glorifies God, but not specifically taught, I have not real comment except to say, that’s between God and that person.
Thank you for your response. It’s good to be able to respect each other and I have nothing but respect for you as this post of yours is, itself, very respectful. God bless you.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
I don’t think our practices really contradict the Bible.
It depends on how you were formed.
You have to remember the Bible does not have wings and fly over people and then we have to figure it all out, and then watch the fighting begin.
The gnostic heresies came up right with the Apostles and Paul. The Epistles are already correcting people’s understanding of faith and salvation, and their reactions and practices to it. You have to follow the paper trail, see who followed whom of the Apostles and Paul, and then see who were their successors, this in the Sub-Apostolic age.
What I think people are really referring to were the corrupt clergy at the time of the Reformation, how they read what the errant superiors and clerics were doing, and then draw such issues that hold people back today.
You can’t separate the growth and establishment of Christianity, especially in the Roman universal perspective, from the Bible. The Word of God has always been in the liturgies. The Breaking of Bread is the ancient Jewish custom that Jesus Himself participated in and renewed it in the development of the liturgy of the Mass.
The Be ka’a is memorial in the Jewish tradition. We carry it on. If the Protestants consider it was OK with the Jews to have their traditions, rituals and practices, than it is OK for us as well…especially when the faith spread out to so many different people, and then the work to make the church universal.
The Word of God and Tradition (the people and those who developed the institution of Church) go hand in hand. You can’t separate a gathering of God’s people from His Word–which was also written by human hand.
It depends on how you were formed.
You have to remember the Bible does not have wings and fly over people and then we have to figure it all out, and then watch the fighting begin.
The gnostic heresies came up right with the Apostles and Paul. The Epistles are already correcting people’s understanding of faith and salvation, and their reactions and practices to it. You have to follow the paper trail, see who followed whom of the Apostles and Paul, and then see who were their successors, this in the Sub-Apostolic age.
What I think people are really referring to were the corrupt clergy at the time of the Reformation, how they read what the errant superiors and clerics were doing, and then draw such issues that hold people back today.
You can’t separate the growth and establishment of Christianity, especially in the Roman universal perspective, from the Bible. The Word of God has always been in the liturgies. The Breaking of Bread is the ancient Jewish custom that Jesus Himself participated in and renewed it in the development of the liturgy of the Mass.
The Be ka’a is memorial in the Jewish tradition. We carry it on. If the Protestants consider it was OK with the Jews to have their traditions, rituals and practices, than it is OK for us as well…especially when the faith spread out to so many different people, and then the work to make the church universal.
The Word of God and Tradition (the people and those who developed the institution of Church) go hand in hand. You can’t separate a gathering of God’s people from His Word–which was also written by human hand.
J
JohnChrysostom
Guest
D
Dokimas
Guest
John I’m not a former catholic nor am I anti-catholic.
I wish I’d spend much more time studying my Bible. I would like to obey what Jesus came to do, ‘seek and save the lost.’ I can only seek to live and share the Gospel with them; the saving is left for God to do. I don’t ‘prosetylize’ the lost enough and that’s a HUGE understatement.
As for reading what will cause stumbling: do you read good commetaries that bring a different light than the teachings you get from the CC?
I’m not worried about being ostricized, I never was worried. I try to follow Jesus no matter what others think.
How would you feel if your children became Bible Believing Evangelical Baptists? BTW, I’m not Baptist.
J
JohnChrysostom
Guest
I was a Protestant, bible only believer, with a huge library of commentaries, Caufman was my preference, but I had others as well. I was learning Greek to that I could become a preacher one day when my wife became supportive of the thought. My father in law was an elder, my 2 oldest brother-in-laws are preachers, one is an elder. we have several nephews that are preachers as well and many of the extended family in those lines are also church leaders. The rest of the men are or were deacons.
I was preparing to become a preacher but was stuck in the military. In fact, after 911, I rejoined the military after almost 10 years to become a chaplain. I even had a scholarship to do it. But things took a turn for the worst and I ended up working instead. It was getting a government job that gave me more time to study more than I already had. I’ve taken bible courses as well as philosophy, logic, geography, western civilization and many other college courses to help me learn history after active duty. i was a seminarian. I was a very active student of the scriptures as a non-Catholic. I too used to proselytize others and did it constantly. But now that I’ve learned the real history of the Church, opened my eyes now I am deeply embarrassed, ashamed, of having tried to convert people from the Catholic Church as well as other Protestant faiths. People escaped from me even though I was nice. Kind of funny looking back now. My own family became frustrated with me and stopped communicating with me.
It was digging deeper into these commentaries that began to tear apart my faith in bible only beliefs. The very basis of them twisted God’s word trying to make something say what they wanted it to say. Proof texting is NOT bible study.
J
JohnChrysostom
Guest
That’s good to hear because for Catholics to have the fullness of Christ and then reject it we can only hope that they are not culpable at best. We still do not know if they are saved or not. We can only hope that you are saved as well because you are not in the fullness of faith as well. The scriptures say that it would be best for them not to have been born than for them to leave the truth - paraphrased of course. This is why I am so adamant about defending struggling Catholics from the clutches of those that try to convert someone from one faith to the other. We have far too many divisions that goes well beyond the scope of Christ’s desire “Father, may they all be one”. Division in my previous faith was also a condemnable act. Now, out of charity, the Catholic Church tries to be ecumenical in hopes of pulling all the faithful together under one umbrella of faith, the Church of Christ [biblical name and logical fact] that Jesus established. Since you’ve decided to wonder around on a Catholic board designed to help protestants learn or understand Catholicism I am reaching out. There is nothing like inviting someone home. But cramming it down their throat is altogether another thing. That’s what my previous faith Christians did to those of other Christian faiths. You may not be someone that does this. But it is funny that Protestants come on board here and act like they know more than us. In some cases that is true, but very few cases and it is always with dissenters or cafeteria Catholics.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
I can pick up right away if the source is not Catholic…for me it leads me out there…something out of context.
I like materials that connect me to my approximate and it makes sense in the world around me.
Back to godparents, I have found that most of mine disappeared, inspite of their enthusiasm for faith at the time. I find good people in parishes and we adopt each other.
I like materials that connect me to my approximate and it makes sense in the world around me.
Back to godparents, I have found that most of mine disappeared, inspite of their enthusiasm for faith at the time. I find good people in parishes and we adopt each other.
A
Abba
Guest
I agree with you. Most of these arguments fall apart before they reach the period. The ones that remain can be truly appreciated by people who already know the validity and importance of infant baptism.
What I see in your posts is someone who is searching for TRUTH. I can not help but respect the way you continue with such dedication and take the blows of argumemtum ad hominen and illogical arguments.
Allow me to humbly advice you to ask Jesus. There are things that we do not necessarily come to know by knowledge (Trinity, etc…) but rather by a spiritual assent. I am not saying that this is necessarily one of them. Although from what I have read it appears to be a difficult task to prove logically and historically the validity of infant baptism to an adult non-believer. I would suggest widening the focus so that other realities may be illuminated which will facilitate the understanding of the validity of infant baptism.
But, most of all, I would suggest that since you do not deny that the Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and perhaps you may already recognize this; go to a Catholic Church and just sit there in front of the Blessed Sacrament and ask Jesus to give you the Grace of understanding. Be persistent. Keep knocking.
God bless,
Abba
- Status