How do Protestatnts defend the canon of the NT

[larkin31]

Now you explain this to me. Even in the books of the N.T. that were written in the first century, Now this is when Children WERE raised in the faith, why is it that it is NEVER mentioned that they have to make a decision for Christ. But as Rom 6:3 it is already assumed that they had already been baptised in Christ.

Also if Baptism was not to be done right away, then there would be scripture that states that Children at the age of reason started joining the Church. But as you can see Infants and Parents have always been a part of the Church. My Mother took me within the first month of my life and every single Sunday since.

Here is another thing, why would the scripture not just say for example the Philippian jailer who was converted was baptised with his entire household. Now why would it not say the jailer and his wife only, simple because it was his entire house, children included. If Children were to be EXCLUDED it would be stated.

You keep misunderstanding my point. I am am not arguing that scripture says to exclude children. I think that scripture is silent on the point.

My point above was only that the adult Colossians to whom Paul was writing in his letter could not have been baptized as infants, because they would be about as old as Jesus and the chronology would not be right.

 

[larkin31]

Yes there is a great passage that even says infants.

In Luke 18:15 People were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them, and when the disciples saw this they rebuked them, Jesus however called the children to Himself and said Let the Children come to me and do not prevent them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Amen I say to you whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.

Now Jesus said we all must be baptised in order to enter heaven. Now if Jesus said Do NOT PREVENT them, how could withholding Baptism not be preventing them?

Now think about what Jesus just said. Now let me ask you why did Jesus say let the infants and children come to me, don’t hold them back, and the kingdom of heaven belongs to them, The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision now did he Because if you had to make a concious decision in order to enter heaven no Child could enter.

This passage is not about baptism.

As I say, I think that the Bible is silent on the matter of infant baptism. But I have no objection to it.

 

[benedictus2]

You have been nothing but a charitable warrior for the Faith, dear benedictus! :knight1:

Thanks sweetheart. :hug3:

 

[benedictus2]

You keep misunderstanding my point. I am am not arguing that scripture says to exclude children. I think that scripture is silent on the point.

Not entirely. When the apostles baptized whole households, it is more probable that there are babies, than that there are none.

Jesus said let the little children come to me. If to come to a life of grace in Jesus is through baptism then, this Jesus Christ obviously wants the children to be there as well.

Further more, when Christ gave the great commissioning before his ascension:
Matthew 28:19-20 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

From here, it is obvious that no one is to be excluded. He also says to baptize and teach them. The teaching in the ways of our Lord starts from the very beginning.

The command is to baptize. No age specifications.

 

[rinnie]

This passage is not about baptism.

As I say, I think that the Bible is silent on the matter of infant baptism. But I have no objection to it.

It is according to the teachings of the apostles taught by the Catholic Church.

 

[rinnie]

Not entirely. When the apostles baptized whole households, it is more probable that there are babies, than that there are none.

Jesus said let the little children come to me. If to come to a life of grace in Jesus is through baptism then, this Jesus Christ obviously wants the children to be there as well.

Further more, when Christ gave the great commissioning before his ascension:
Matthew 28:19-20 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

From here, it is obvious that no one is to be excluded. He also says to baptize and teach them. The teaching in the ways of our Lord starts from the very beginning.

The command is to baptize. No age specifications.

They are going to say that infants and children are not part of the nation next

 

[rinnie]

And Larkin no disrespect but we do not go by what you do or do not think. We go by what the Apostles taught that is why we go by the teachings of the Church.

We do not have to guess, we know

 

[rinnie]

See Larkin

St Irenaeus (200A.D.) The CHURCH having received this preaching and this faith although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she one soul and one and the same heart, harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down as if she possessed one mouth (against the Heresies 1, 10, 2)

 

[rinnie]

You keep misunderstanding my point. I am am not arguing that scripture says to exclude children. I think that scripture is silent on the point.

My point above was only that the adult Colossians to whom Paul was writing in his letter could not have been baptized as infants, because they would be about as old as Jesus and the chronology would not be right.

Larkin where did I ever say that the Adult Colossians were baptised as infants?

Let me say this one more time okay.

I said that circ. replaced Baptism. I said that one was circumcised on the body, the other on the heart. (spiritual)

that was comparing the 2.

I then compared Adult Baptsim to Adult Circumcision in the O.T.

I said if you are baptised as an ADULT and you become Christian you must Accept Jesus Christ as you personal Lord and Savior.

I said if you came into the Jewish faith as an adult (which was rare) You still had to accept The God of Abraham.

Where are you getting out of that me saying that the col. would have been baptised as Babies That makes no sense. If I implied that then Paul would be preaching to infants for goodness sakes.

 

[benedictus2]

They are going to say that infants and children are not part of the nation next

Hmmm maybe they are right. Maybe there is some plane of existence where there are only babies. And that really, the infants and children that we have in our nation are really adults .

 

[rinnie]

You keep misunderstanding my point. I am am not arguing that scripture says to exclude children. I think that scripture is silent on the point.

My point above was only that the adult Colossians to whom Paul was writing in his letter could not have been baptized as infants, because they would be about as old as Jesus and the chronology would not be right.

Okay then answer this question, You read what I said about Jesus saying heaven is for children like these.

Now if you must be baptised in order to gain eternal life, and Jesus said heaven is for babys like these, how could that not be saying that infants, and children should be Baptised? Why would Jesus say do not hinder them, and why would he say babys are indeed in heaven? But then turn around and refuse them baptism? Would that not be a direct contradiction?

 

[rinnie]

Hmmm maybe they are right. Maybe there is some plane of existence where there are only babies. And that really, the infants and children that we have in our nation are really adults .

Then again that could explain why some people act like they do No wonder this worlds crazy

 

[Nicea325]

This passage is not about baptism.

As I say, I think that the Bible is silent on the matter of infant baptism. But I have no objection to it.

Silent? Not entirely. Scripture does say households were baptized.Now many Protestants say Catholics have to prove it included infants. On the contrary, Protestants need to prove that in 1st century, the term household EXCLUDED infants. I have not found anything from Jewish sources or the early church where the term household excluded infants.

Book definitions of household:

1. people who live together: the people who live together in a single home
2. All persons living under one roof or occupying a separate housing unit, having either direct access to the outside (or to a public area) or a separate cooking facility. Where the members of a household are related by blood or law, they constitute a family.
3. family unit - primary social group; parents and children

Burden of proof is on those who say infants were NOT part of the household in a Jewish family.

 

[larkin31]

Larkin where did I ever say that the Adult Colossians were baptised as infants?

Colossians was quoted as evidence of infant baptism. I have been explaining how I think that that passage is NOT about infant baptism, but baptism in general.

 

[larkin31]

Silent? Not entirely. Scripture does say households were baptized.Now many Protestants say Catholics have to prove it included infants.

There is no such thing as “proof” either way on this matter.

I just keep asking if there is anything else other than these few scriptural passages. I know that it says some households were baptized. These, and Colossians…anything else?

 

[larkin31]

And Larkin no disrespect but we do not go by what you do or do not think. We go by what the Apostles taught that is why we go by the teachings of the Church.

No offense taken in this post.

Of course you do not go by what I say. It’s just a conversation. I am not trying to convert anyone to my way of thinking. I am trying to learn what the scriptural justification is for infant baptism, Unless someone provides something more, I will assume that I have seen it all. As I said, I can remember my baptism, and I don’t begrudge in any way my parents for doing this.

 

[Nicea325]

There is no such thing as “proof” either way on this matter.

I just keep asking if there is anything else other than these few scriptural passages. I know that it says some households were baptized. These, and Colossians…anything else?

No, there is ‘proof’ regardless how minor in your eyes. The fact scripture does state ‘households’ pulls a lot more weight than those who deny infant baptisms. Again,burden is on those opposing it showing where infants were EXCLUDED from a Jewish family unit.

 

[Joshua27]

First, let me say that your font is SO much easier on the eyes, I wish it was the standard font (and not something we needed to always set).

Well not necessarily. It is true that Christianity will always be Judeo-Christian in tradition. And that is what we have always claimed. But one cannot go back to the OT concept of salvation because Jesus has already fulfilled it.

The Bible in fact cannot be read correctly without reading it through the lense that is Christ. Christ is what makes sense out of the Bible.

At the same time, one cannot understand Christ without a reference to the OT because He is the fulfilment of the OT.

Maybe I was unclear, because yours was the point I was trying to make. “How do protestants defend the canon of the NT?” By supporting whichever NT book that stands on the foundation of the OT. Truly, the NT is the fulfillment of the OT, but we can’t know “what” was fulfilled without the OT. IMO, it’s not enought to say “Christ is the fulfillment of the Law”…what does that mean? “What law” should be the question most ask but many (Catholic & non-Catholic) do not. Also “fulfillment” does not mean “complete, so done away with”. “Until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter is removed from the law until ALL are fulfilled”.

So you are quite wrong to say that we have to go back to Judaism. Judaism was waiting for the Messiah. In Christianity, the Messiah had already come.

Judaism was the “Lock”, while Christ is the “Key”. We can’t know what the key fits into without having the lock present. This is the reason why I say, “we have to go back to Judaism” in order to understand the “why” for many of Christ’s teachings and actions. Judaism provides the prophetic shadowpictures that Christ is to fulfill. Many have been fulfilled, and many more still need to be fulfilled upon the Second Advent.

So Cardinal Newmans; statement still stands as it is because Protestantism is not a fullfillment of Christianity but to a degree (depending on which denomination you belong to) is corruption of it. Here I must explain that when I mean corruption, I only refer to doctrine and not to the follower.

I agree with the assessment on corrupt doctrine, but it’s widespread in the whole of Christianity, and Catholicism was not imune to corruption. I’d dare say that “Christianity” itself is not a fulfillment of Christ, as Christ did not come to start a religion, but a church (a statement which most readers overlook).

But that begs the question because one has to declare first that the OT is indeed inspired. This is the quandary that you are in.The God of the OT did not make an appearance to someone and declared these books of the OT are canonical.

But the issue is not whether Protestants believe the NT is inspired by God. We all believe God inspires scripture. The issue was whether supporting the NT (as a collection born out of the CC’s decision) gives authority to the CC…well the answer is in all of our common belief of “Inspiration”.

It’s like asking if Judas’ betrayal was of his own decision (authority), Satan’s, or in God’s. Many could argue and say “if Judas didn’t choose to betray Christ, there would not be salvation, so Judas was the reason for Salvation”…others could argue, “if Satan didn’t inhabit Judas, then there would be no Salvation, so Satan caused Salvation”…But from Roman 8:28 [NT (lol)] “…we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.”

So ultimately, God was the authority behind the betrayal because it was His plan to save us. Likewise, regardless of who physically authored or collected the NT (or OT for that matter), the credit returns to God…not man.

 

[rinnie]

No offense taken in this post.

Of course you do not go by what I say. It’s just a conversation. I am not trying to convert anyone to my way of thinking. I am trying to learn what the scriptural justification is for infant baptism, Unless someone provides something more, I will assume that I have seen it all. As I said, I can remember my baptism, and I don’t begrudge in any way my parents for doing this.

I know buddy I was just messin with you. But I would really like to hear your comment on the question that I asked you.

But as far as scripture I don’t think we missed much on infant Baptism. But you have to remember you are talking to Catholics. And we do not go by the teachings of the bible only we go by Tradition also. And as far back as can be traced infants were being baptised. That should also stand for alot.

But also never assume remember what they say about assume

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

First, let me say that your font is SO much easier on the eyes, I wish it was the standard font (and not something we needed to always set).

Maybe I was unclear, because yours was the point I was trying to make. “How do protestants defend the canon of the NT?” By supporting whichever NT book that stands on the foundation of the OT. Truly, the NT is the fulfillment of the OT, but we can’t know “what” was fulfilled without the OT. IMO, it’s not enought to say “Christ is the fulfillment of the Law”…what does that mean? “What law” should be the question most ask but many (Catholic & non-Catholic) do not. Also “fulfillment” does not mean “complete, so done away with”. “Until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter is removed from the law until ALL are fulfilled”.

Judaism was the “Lock”, while Christ is the “Key”. We can’t know what the key fits into without having the lock present. This is the reason why I say, “we have to go back to Judaism” in order to understand the “why” for many of Christ’s teachings and actions. Judaism provides the prophetic shadowpictures that Christ is to fulfill. Many have been fulfilled, and many more still need to be fulfilled upon the Second Advent.

I agree with the assessment on corrupt doctrine, but it’s widespread in the whole of Christianity, and Catholicism was not imune to corruption. I’d dare say that “Christianity” itself is not a fulfillment of Christ, as Christ did not come to start a religion, but a church (a statement which most readers overlook).

But the issue is not whether Protestants believe the NT is inspired by God. We all believe God inspires scripture. The issue was whether supporting the NT (as a collection born out of the CC’s decision) gives authority to the CC…well the answer is in all of our common belief of “Inspiration”.

It’s like asking if Judas’ betrayal was of his own decision (authority), Satan’s, or in God’s. Many could argue and say “if Judas didn’t choose to betray Christ, there would not be salvation, so Judas was the reason for Salvation”…others could argue, “if Satan didn’t inhabit Judas, then there would be no Salvation, so Satan caused Salvation”…But from Roman 8:28 [NT (lol)] “…we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.”

So ultimately, God was the authority behind the betrayal because it was His plan to save us. Likewise, regardless of who physically authored or collected the NT (or OT for that matter), the credit returns to God…not man.

Well I don’t know where to start First of all there is only one person to blame for Judas’ betryal and that was Judas. No one can be blamed for it but him. Jesus gave us all free will. Judas choose to do what he did. There is no way you can say the Devil made him do it And rather Judas betrayed Jesus or not, God came here to die on the cross for ours sins. So Judas’ betrayal never killed Jesus

And I disagree with you that Catholic Doctrine is not imune to corruption. We have it straight from the Mouth of Jesus. acts: 15:28 the apostles tallk with the voice of Christ. Among many many more scriptures.

And I am not sure what you are talking about in the fulfillment of the law? Jesus did fulfill all of the O.T there is no more to do. And it was completed. Jesus did everything possible to give us eternal life in Christ. All we have to do now is wait for him to come again in glory and judge each and every one of us.