How do protestants explain history

[Isaiah45_9]

Jesus is not saying the Scriptures are not sufficient. He is in fact telling them to search the Scriptures because they give testimony of Him. If you read further He is saying they do not believe the Scriptures and that is their problem.

How do we know how to follow Jesus? Because Scripture contains what we need to know and do. There may be other things we can do, but those found in Scripture are sufficient.

Carl,

You asked against Formal Sufficiency and I provided you with it.

Scriptures themselves tell you there is Material Sufficiency but there is no Formal Sufficiency, because the wicked and unlearned twist their meaning and turn them into their own destruction. And while it is good to study them, if we don’t follow Christ we missed the whole point. And the commission Christ gave the Apostles is clear:

[bibledrb]Matthew 28:16-20[/bibledrb]

Christ said teach - not hand out.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Peter is saying some things are difficult not all. That is not denying the formal sufficiency of Scripture.

Indeed he is. If they are formal, you would not need a teaching authority as commanded in Matt 28.

If there was Formal Sufficiency, the message would be clear among all the Solas and Bible only churches:

Infant Baptism vs No Infant Baptism
Women Ordinations vs No Women Ordination
Baptismal Grace vs Only Symbolic Baptism
Real Presence of the Eucharist vs only Spiritual Presence of the Eucharist
Church Orders (Bishops, Priests, Deacons) vs No Church Order other than a Pastor.
Sacraments vs No Sacraments (Or only a few)

And the list goes on.

No - if there was actual Formal Sufficiency there would be one single denomination.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Jesus is not saying the Scriptures are not sufficient. He is in fact telling them to search the Scriptures because they give testimony of Him. If you read further He is saying they do not believe the Scriptures and that is their problem.

Well, just to compare with a Catholic-Protestant dispute, a Catholic would say that the scriptures give testimony to baptismal regeneration, but most Protestants deny this. The Catholic party will say “,search the scriptures,” and, “had ye believed , ye would have believed in baptismal regeneration,” and the Protestant on the other hand will say that the evidence is simply not clear. This is the problem with the Jews in this passage. It is not that the Jews reject the authority of Scripture, nor that they do not have their own interpretation of Scripture in good faith, but that they do not have the correct interpretation of Scripture. They are not deliberately misrepresenting what Scripture says. They are simply mistaken. So the problem is, even if Scripture gives testimony of something, what good does that do if someone fails to recognize it?

This is a problem because few would be bold enough to say that everything they believe about Scripture is the correct interpretation. Since Protestants disagree among themselves about issues that are, in my mind, of vital importance, how can anyone be certain that he is in a position not unlike the Jews in John 5? Since Baptists and Lutherans strongly disagree on the nature of baptism, one of them has to have made a fundamental mistake and this is not without consequence. If Lutherans are wrong and baptism is a mere profession of faith that should be made by converts above the “age of accountability,” then Lutherans are ascribing salvation to the work of baptism, which falls under the anathematizations of Paul in his Letter to the Galatians. If Baptists are wrong and baptism should be administered to infants and Peter was speaking literally he said “baptism now saves you,” then they are condemning helpless infants to hell by denying them baptism, following the error of the Pelagians. Would either group, however, say that they don’t believe the Scriptures? Of course not. They both zealously defend how biblical their views are. But clearly one of them is severely deluded.

Even if you think with certainty that you have arrived at all the correct answers or at least all the important ones, I hope you can see why Isaiah saw this passage as an evidence of his position.

 

[dronald]

Well, just to compare with a Catholic-Protestant dispute, a Catholic would say that the scriptures give testimony to baptismal regeneration, but most Protestants deny this. The Catholic party will say “,search the scriptures,” and, “had ye believed , ye would have believed in baptismal regeneration,” and the Protestant on the other hand will say that the evidence is simply not clear. This is the problem with the Jews in this passage. It is not that the Jews reject the authority of Scripture, nor that they do not have their own interpretation of Scripture in good faith, but that they do not have the correct interpretation of Scripture. They are not deliberately misrepresenting what Scripture says. They are simply mistaken. So the problem is, even if Scripture gives testimony of something, what good does that do if someone fails to recognize it?

This is a problem because few would be bold enough to say that everything they believe about Scripture is the correct interpretation. Since Protestants disagree among themselves about issues that are, in my mind, of vital importance, how can anyone be certain that he is in a position not unlike the Jews in John 5? Since Baptists and Lutherans strongly disagree on the nature of baptism, one of them has to have made a fundamental mistake and this is not without consequence. If Lutherans are wrong and baptism is a mere profession of faith that should be made by converts above the “age of accountability,” then Lutherans are ascribing salvation to the work of baptism, which falls under the anathematizations of Paul in his Letter to the Galatians. If Baptists are wrong and baptism should be administered to infants and Peter was speaking literally he said “baptism now saves you,” then they are condemning helpless infants to hell by denying them baptism, following the error of the Pelagians. Would either group, however, say that they don’t believe the Scriptures? Of course not. They both zealously defend how biblical their views are. But clearly one of them is severely deluded.

Even if you think with certainty that you have arrived at all the correct answers or at least all the important ones, I hope you can see why Isaiah saw this passage as an evidence of his position.

Yeah, I know what this is like. Since I believe that unbaptized babies go to Heaven due to Christ’s proclamation that the kingdom belongs to such as them; can you please go outside the Scriptures and tell me what happens to babies who are un-baptized?

In fact, I already know the answer and it’s that Catholics have no idea. They say that the Scriptures are not sufficient and then they fail to make certain declarations.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

That is a good example. One Protestant (namely yourself) might take a verse such as Luke 18:16 to say that babies automatically go to heaven. Another might look at John 3:3 and say that a baby must be baptized to go to heaven. How are you to decide who is correct while souls are at stake? It is not a matter to be lightly brushed aside.

The Catholic position really matters little as far as that issue is concerned. Why should we demand certainty about everything? The Catholic Church cannot make up new revelation. She can only teach what has been revealed to her. Nevertheless, I don’t think you can fairly say that Catholics have no idea. The doctrine of the Church is very clear. Because of original sin, all must receive the laver of regeneration in order to enter into the kingdom of heaven. That means that infants, if they do not receive the grace of baptism, cannot enter heaven. The fate of unbaptized infants is only uncertain inasmuch as the Catholic Church allows that God could hypothetically confer that grace apart from the sacrament of baptism. However, the Catholic faith, contra Pelagianism, holds that God does not owe this grace to anyone, not even infants, so if Fe did choose to give the sanctifying grace of baptism to infants who died without receiving the sacrament of baptism, it would be an act of sheer mercy freely given. The obligation of baptizing infants remains because we cannot presume God’s mercy and it is the only means of salvation that God has revealed to us. If God chose to work outside of the sacrament, that is His prerogative, but he has not revealed his intention to do so. All the Catholic Church can teach is what God has revealed. I don’t understand how not putting limits on what God has the power to do is any more of a problem than Catholics not knowing at what time Christ will come again.

 

[dronald]

That is a good example. One Protestant (namely yourself) might take a verse such as Luke 18:16 to say that babies automatically go to heaven. Another might look at John 3:3 and say that a baby must be baptized to go to heaven. How are you to decide who is correct while souls are at stake? It is not a matter to be lightly brushed aside.

The Catholic position really matters little as far as that issue is concerned. Why should we demand certainty about everything? The Catholic Church cannot make up new revelation. She can only teach what has been revealed to her. Nevertheless, I don’t think you can fairly say that Catholics have no idea. The doctrine of the Church is very clear. Because of original sin, all must receive the laver of regeneration in order to enter into the kingdom of heaven. That means that infants, if they do not receive the grace of baptism, cannot enter heaven. The fate of unbaptized infants is only uncertain inasmuch as the Catholic Church allows that God could hypothetically confer that grace apart from the sacrament of baptism. However, the Catholic faith, contra Pelagianism, holds that God does not owe this grace to anyone, not even infants, so if Fe did choose to give the sanctifying grace of baptism to infants who died without receiving the sacrament of baptism, it would be an act of sheer mercy freely given. The obligation of baptizing infants remains because we cannot presume God’s mercy and it is the only means of salvation that God has revealed to us. If God chose to work outside of the sacrament, that is His prerogative, but he has not revealed his intention to do so. All the Catholic Church can teach is what God has revealed. I don’t understand how not putting limits on what God has the power to do is any more of a problem than Catholics not knowing at what time Christ will come again.

I do believe it is a good example as you say; in that it should be obvious that a baby will go to Heaven. Of course it’s not that simple in the Catholic Church, it’s more a matter of because you’re not sure you Baptize the baby. That’s great until Baptism isn’t an option and the parents have to accept that their baby may not be in Heaven; which to me is not only illogical, but unbiblical.

If Jesus says Heaven belongs to children, I accept it; I don’t try and complicate things.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

If Jesus says Heaven belongs to children, I accept it; I don’t try and complicate things.

Then what do you do when Christ says that no one can enter the Kingdom of Heaven unless is born of water and spirit?

You understand that baptism doesn’t guarantee your entrance to heaven either?

 

[dronald]

Then what do you do when Christ says that no one can enter the Kingdom of Heaven unless is born of water and spirit?

You understand that baptism doesn’t guarantee your entrance to heaven either?

Ah, you see my friend that doesn’t work either from a Catholic point of view. Baptism of blood and Baptism of desire do not have anything to do with a literal water. So obviously even in Catholicism the water is symbolic in some way, why Catholics can’t apply the same to infants since Jesus did say the kingdom of Heaven does belong to them is confusing to my Evangelical brain.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Ah, you see my friend that doesn’t work either from a Catholic point of view. Baptism of blood and Baptism of desire do not have anything to do with a literal water. So obviously even in Catholicism the water is symbolic in some way, why Catholics can’t apply the same to infants since Jesus did say the kingdom of Heaven does belong to them is confusing to my Evangelical brain.

That still leaves us all at Christ’s Mercy, does it not?

 

[spina1953]

It seems to me that Baptism is a gift from God, that offers salvation. yet, this does not mean that because one is baptized that one will just get into heaven. Also we do not know with any certainty that when one dies that the person in is heaven one might be in hell for anyone knows. That being said we do not know who gets into heaven or goes to hell, we can only hope that one gets into heaven, but in the end it is God who grants it there is nothing we can do to earn it or merit it or deserve it. it is a pure gift from God. We can of course try and live in the manor that Jesus asks us to and try to do God’s will while are still on tis earth. Baptism is the means in which we might have the means of the gift of salvation and we can either accept it or not, but is does cleanse us from the sin of Adam and Eve and whatever sins we had before we are baptized. So Baptism is a gift from God to us so that once again might have a relationship with God from whom we were separated.

 

[dronald]

That still leaves us all at Christ’s Mercy, does it not?

Not in the same way you’re implying about infants, as Baptism of desire is a valid Baptism in the Catholic Church without the use of water. Where an unbaptized baby is just an unbaptized baby.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Not in the same way you’re implying about infants, as Baptism of desire is a valid Baptism in the Catholic Church without the use of water. Where an unbaptized baby is just an unbaptized baby.

In that case whomever is hindering an infant to be baptized is risking their soul, is it not?

Because at that point the person is acting as God and saying: “Don’t baptize that baby, he is already in heaven”. The baby through no fault of his own is not held accountable for it. Can you say the same thing for those that impede a child to be brought to Christ and the baptismal graces He offers?

 

[dronald]

In that case whomever is hindering an infant to be baptized is risking their soul, is it not?

Because at that point the person is acting as God and saying: “Don’t baptize that baby, he is already in heaven”. The baby through no fault of his own is not held accountable for it. Can you say the same thing for those that impede a child to be brought to Christ and the baptismal graces He offers?

To be honest Isaiah, you’re again commenting on matters that are strange to Evangelicals. The idea that anything we do can hinder God in any way. Baptize or don’t Baptize, God is God and we can in no way make a baby saved or unsaved. We can however appeal to Christ’s words, who is God.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

To be honest Isaiah, you’re again commenting on matters that are strange to Evangelicals. The idea that anything we do can hinder God in any way. Baptize or don’t Baptize, God is God and we can in no way make a baby saved or unsaved. We can however appeal to Christ’s words, who is God.

They should not be strange, dronald. It is in Scriptures, your highest authority.

You have read all that was posted on the Apologetics side in the forum. The Church has been practicing infant baptism since the beginning, even Tertullian is arguing against what people thought the baptism of infants was. The Orthodox (And I think Eastern Catholics) not only baptize infants but they give communion to infants as well.

ETA: I’m not saying you are hindering God - for that is impossible. But you are hindering the children if you prohibit their baptism.

 

[andrewstx]

Not in the same way you’re implying about infants, as Baptism of desire is a valid Baptism in the Catholic Church without the use of water. Where an unbaptized baby is just an unbaptized baby.

Perhaps dronald you are making the exception more of the rule? I think that those who qualify for baptism of desire are very few.

My mother was a baptism as symbolic only, credo baptism, baptism by submersion only believer. She made the exception as the rule point by pointing out then thief at the cross, that was only one human, but she used that to try and prove that baptism that baptism is not essential for anyone.

 

[dronald]

They should not be strange, dronald. It is in Scriptures, your highest authority.

You have read all that was posted on the Apologetics side in the forum. The Church has been practicing infant baptism since the beginning, even Tertullian is arguing against what people thought the baptism of infants was. The Orthodox (And I think Eastern Catholics) not only baptize infants but they give communion to infants as well.

ETA: I’m not saying you are hindering God - for that is impossible. But you are hindering the children if you prohibit their baptism.

Tertullian, treatise on BAPTISM 18,4 (c. AD 200-206)

"According to circumstance and disposition and even age of the individual person, it may be better to delay Baptism; and especially so in the case of little children. Why, indeed, is it necessary – if it be not a case of necessity – that the sponsors to be thrust into danger, when they themselves may fail to fulfill their promises by reason of death, or when they may be disappointed by the growth of an evil disposition? Indeed the Lord says, ‘Do not forbid them to come to me’ [Matt 19:14; Luke 18:16].

“Let them come, then, while they grow up, while they learn, while they are taught to whom to come; let them become Christians when they will have been able to know Christ! Why does the innocent age hasten to the remission of sins? …For no less cause should the unmarried also be deferred, in whom there is an aptness to temptation – in virgins on account of their ripeness as also in the widowed on account of their freedom – until they are married or are better strengthened for continence. Anyone who understands the seriousness of Baptism will fear its reception more than its deferral. Sound faith is secure of its salvation!”

I’m not sure how you interpret that.

And again, what Jesus says about children trumps any other reasoning to me. As you can admit, it’s not the water that does the Baptizing; it’s coming to God with a clear heart. That’s why Baptism of desire is valid in the CC.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Tertullian, treatise on BAPTISM 18,4 (c. AD 200-206)

"According to circumstance and disposition and even age of the individual person, it may be better to delay Baptism; and especially so in the case of little children. Why, indeed, is it necessary – if it be not a case of necessity – that the sponsors to be thrust into danger, when they themselves may fail to fulfill their promises by reason of death, or when they may be disappointed by the growth of an evil disposition? Indeed the Lord says, ‘Do not forbid them to come to me’ [Matt 19:14; Luke 18:16].

“Let them come, then, while they grow up, while they learn, while they are taught to whom to come; let them become Christians when they will have been able to know Christ! Why does the innocent age hasten to the remission of sins? …For no less cause should the unmarried also be deferred, in whom there is an aptness to temptation – in virgins on account of their ripeness as also in the widowed on account of their freedom – until they are married or are better strengthened for continence. Anyone who understands the seriousness of Baptism will fear its reception more than its deferral. Sound faith is secure of its salvation!”

I’m not sure how you interpret that.

And again, what Jesus says about children trumps any other reasoning to me. As you can admit, it’s not the water that does the Baptizing; it’s coming to God with a clear heart. That’s why Baptism of desire is valid in the CC.

It’s always best to give a link to the quote/treatise:

Tertullian on Baptism, scroll down to Chapter 18.

Tertullian, who is but one of many writers of the Church, already gives witness to the existing practice of infant baptism.

And the Church has practiced it since Her beginning. If you want to side with one guy who is questioning the practice, not prohibiting it - that is on you. If you want to side to the invention of the 1,500’s that is on you as well.

I find it funny how you don’t cling to Jesus’ sayings in the same manner when he changes Simon name to Rock… But you seem to side to whatever or whomever says the opposite of what we say…

Regardless, I thank you because your doubts make me stronger, I pray the fullness of truth is revealed to you.

 

[Nicea325]

Tertullian, treatise on BAPTISM 18,4 (c. AD 200-206)

"According to circumstance and disposition and even age of the individual person, it may be better to delay Baptism; and especially so in the case of little children. Why, indeed, is it necessary – if it be not a case of necessity – that the sponsors to be thrust into danger, when they themselves may fail to fulfill their promises by reason of death, or when they may be disappointed by the growth of an evil disposition? Indeed the Lord says, ‘Do not forbid them to come to me’ [Matt 19:14; Luke 18:16].

“Let them come, then, while they grow up, while they learn, while they are taught to whom to come; let them become Christians when they will have been able to know Christ! Why does the innocent age hasten to the remission of sins? …For no less cause should the unmarried also be deferred, in whom there is an aptness to temptation – in virgins on account of their ripeness as also in the widowed on account of their freedom – until they are married or are better strengthened for continence. Anyone who understands the seriousness of Baptism will fear its reception more than its deferral. Sound faith is secure of its salvation!”

I’m not sure how you interpret that.

And again, what Jesus says about children trumps any other reasoning to me. As you can admit, it’s not the water that does the Baptizing; it’s coming to God with a clear heart. That’s why Baptism of desire is valid in the CC.

What does baptism of desire have to do with the baptism of infants?

 

[dronald]

It’s always best to give a link to the quote/treatise:

Tertullian on Baptism, scroll down to Chapter 18.

Tertullian, who is but one of many writers of the Church, already gives witness to the existing practice of infant baptism.

And the Church has practiced it since Her beginning. If you want to side with one guy who is questioning the practice, not prohibiting it - that is on you. If you want to side to the invention of the 1,500’s that is on you as well.

I find it funny how you don’t cling to Jesus’ sayings in the same manner when he changes Simon name to Rock… But you seem to side to whatever or whomever says the opposite of what we say…

Regardless, I thank you because your doubts make me stronger, I pray the fullness of truth is revealed to you.

I rejoice if I’ve made your Faith in Christ stronger; seriously that’s all I could ever hope for for anyone.

I quote Tertullian because you brought him up. Yes, Tertullian, The Didache and the Bible all make it seem as if any individual being baptized has to understand why. Such comprehension was impossible with infants.

 

[dronald]

What does baptism of desire have to do with the baptism of infants?

I would read what we’ve discussed so far; in that the water is even symbolic to Catholics who accept someone is Baptized without water if they wanted to be Baptized but could not.