How do protestants explain history

  • Thread starter Thread starter Adamski
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
QUOTE=dronald;11778065]I rejoice if I’ve made your Faith in Christ stronger; seriously that’s all I could ever hope for for anyone.
Click to expand...
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./**QUOTE]
Click to expand...
And such comprehension is also impossible for mentally challenged people-your argument eliminates them entirely.

Did all Jewish male infants eight days old also have comprehension of circumcision?
 
dronald said:
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.
Click to expand...
As if there should be any other reason than Christ commanding it?

Paul says that Baptism replaces the circumcision of the Old Testament.

[bibledrb]Colossians 2:11-12[/bibledrb]

Check this website’s track about Infant Baptism.

Being that this thread is about explaining history.

Can you explain how your belief that infants are not baptized is by the history of the Church?
 
dronald said:
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.
Click to expand...
To be fair to Nicea, our conversation carries far longer than this thread and in another section of the forum.

I was referencing Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Ott) in regards to types of Baptism.
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
To be fair to Nicea, our conversation carries far longer than this thread and in another section of the forum.

I was referencing Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Ott) in regards to types of Baptism.
Click to expand...
I see…thanks
 
Re. Baptism; The Orthodox Presbyterians practice peadobaptism, it is probably one ceremony of my church with which I am not greatly pleased. This kind of baptism amounts to child dedication by the parents in a ceremony properly officiated by a minister of God.

So far so good, however where practiced it usually precludes a volitional baptism as a testimony of faith in Christ. If a person would want to express their faith in volitional baptism they would be re-baptizing i.e. Anabaptists and we all know where that leads. Anyway infant baptism does close the door in most churches to individuals who want to choose.

Is volitional baptism authorized? Certainly, Jesus, the Ethiopian eunuch, are just two examples from the Bible.

MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT BAPTISM
  1. Baptism by immersion is not acceptable. Fact is that it has always been acceptable even in the Catholic Church, here is just one example: forums.catholic-questions.org/images/attach/jpg.gif Copper relief shows Bluetooth baptized by immersion in a barrel by the monk Poppo, this was a valid Catholic baptism.
  2. Baptism is a new testament/Christian ordinance. Fact is that Jews practiced baptism for all kinds of ceremonial reasons; cleansing of lepers, handling dead people and animals, and foot washing. John the Baptist essentially practiced the ceremony under Old Testament rules. OK I understand this is controversial, here’s the basis; John probably acquired the practice from the Essenes, also if his form of baptism was for the remission of sins then Jesus should not have availed Himself of the ceremony.
  3. Baptism for (on behalf) the dead is valid. (Sorry Mormons) Baptism is not authorized by scripture, it would amount to vicarious atonement for sins and only Jesus can do that. The practice developed from a question raised by Paul:
1 Corinthians 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

Paul is asking a rhetorical question the point being that there will be a resurrection of the dead. He is not establishing a new ordinance by asking why do you do this? I personally believe this practice was a Jewish like cleansing performed by morticians very much like what we do today, i.e. clean and dress the body for burial. Why do this symbolic gesture if there is no resurrection?
  1. ‘Baptism’ was not an English word until KJV translators used it to placate Catholic objections. Fact, the word was used earlier in English by Shakespeare, Tyndale and Wycliffe, it was commonly understood in all the Christian faiths.
 
Buddyroe said:
Re. Baptism; The Orthodox Presbyterians practice peadobaptism, it is probably one ceremony of my church with which I am not greatly pleased. This kind of baptism amounts to child dedication by the parents in a ceremony properly officiated by a minister of God.

So far so good, however where practiced it usually precludes a volitional baptism as a testimony of faith in Christ.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church practices the Sacrament of Confirmation after the Sacrament of Baptism.

Does your Church practice Confirmation?
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
The Catholic Church practices the Sacrament of Confirmation after the Sacrament of Baptism.

Does your Church practice Confirmation?
Click to expand...
Yes, we call it receiving into full communion by a public confession of faith in Jesus Christ. It is formal and must be accomplished as an act of worship officiated by an ordained minister.
We don’t call it ‘confirmation’, I don’t know why.
One speculation is to distinguish from the well known tradition of preparing and confirming children at the ages of 13-14.
Baptisms and confessions are accepted from other denominations, requirements would be alignment with Nicene creed, and perhaps a few other common beliefs.
 
Buddyroe said:
Yes, we call it receiving into full communion by a public confession of faith in Jesus Christ. It is formal and must be accomplished as an act of worship officiated by an ordained minister.
We don’t call it ‘confirmation’, I don’t know why.
One speculation is to distinguish from the well known tradition of preparing and confirming children at the ages of 13-14.
Baptisms and confessions are accepted from other denominations, requirements would be alignment with Nicene creed, and perhaps a few other common beliefs.
Click to expand...
Interesting :hmmm:
 
dronald said:
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 sal

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.
Click to expand...
Please forgive me for speaking dronald. I though I was making a good point about exceptions being transformed into rules. Apparently I was typing in invisible ink since I was ignored by one and all.

Yes I had a stoke and sometimes spell incorrectly. But you know I am still a human being with feelings.

I am seriously considering withdrawing from Catholic Answers.

Maybe if you guys do not want any other (name removed by moderator)ut form other posters it would be kinder to take your conversation to private messages. Better than having a two or three way conversation and ignoring others.

Sorry too get upset, but this is not the first or I’m ssure last time for me to be omitted.
 
So far we have heard from many Lutherans, which I said in the op is close and a Calvinist which both are really trying to study history and at least going to the Protestant rebellion.

I haven’t from the me and my bible I don’t care about history modern American evangelicals they are the ones that truly puzzle me they act the the bible fell out of the sky
 
andrewstx said:
Please forgive me for speaking dronald. I though I was making a good point about exceptions being transformed into rules. Apparently I was typing in invisible ink since I was ignored by one and all.

Yes I had a stoke and sometimes spell incorrectly. But you know I am still a human being with feelings.

I am seriously considering withdrawing from Catholic Answers.

Maybe if you guys do not want any other (name removed by moderator)ut form other posters it would be kinder to take your conversation to private messages. Better than having a two or three way conversation and ignoring others.

Sorry too get upset, but this is not the first or I’m ssure last time for me to be omitted.
Click to expand...
We all get lost in the crowd brother.

And so you know, you can type in invisible ink 😃

I’m only kidding, God Bless You!

May I suggest you click and highlight from the beginning of my comment up to here.

😃
 
andrewstx said:
Please forgive me for speaking dronald. I though I was making a good point about exceptions being transformed into rules. Apparently I was typing in invisible ink since I was ignored by one and all.
Click to expand...
Sometimes making a good point is the surest way of getting everyone to ignore a post.

:cool:
 
benjohnson said:
If you consider Sola Scriptura to be “me and my bible,” then I’d agree.

Of course, being Lutheran, that’s not our definition regardless of the long-winded attemps of one particular poster here.
Click to expand...
Makes sense, but keep in mind that the idea of Lutherans being both catholic and Protestant tends to be highly confusing for us.:eek: If you guys would pick just one or the other, we probably would misunderstand you a lot less. 😛
 
Peter_J said:
If you guys would pick just one or the other, we probably would misunderstand you a lot less. 😛
Click to expand...
We’re not even “Lutheran” - and we’re not confusing at all:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

🙂
 
People get upset when we get away from the OP… Dairy make another joke?
 
steido01 said:
People get upset when we get away from the OP… Dairy make another joke?
Click to expand...
Finally an evangelical how do explain your view of Christianity, non sacramental, osos, big rock music, me and my bible, creationism didn’t exist before the last 50 years or so
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top