J
josiah
Guest
sorry for not addressing your question in a promptly manner…but I will try to get to this when I have time to answer it without posting a one sentence answer
- Status
O
oudave
Guest
The catholic church is so far off when it comes to baptism. I think scripture is very clear on the subject. First in the baptizing of infants and second baptizing by sprinkeling, The greek definition is to submerse or to emerse, ie under water. It is very symbolic of the death, burriel and reserection of Christ. Besides, It is the way Christ was baptized. If he is the example, i am to follow. I ate to say it but most catholic’s have not been baptized, therefore have not recieved the gift of the Holy Spirit. Read Math 7:13-14, it’s very scary. Don’t take the chance, do it the right way. Put your trust in the scriptures, not in man.
S
Shibboleth
Guest
There is no way that something this beautiful could be wrong…
http://www.lcvalleyofthesun.org/i/baby_baptism.jpg
http://www.lcvalleyofthesun.org/i/baby_baptism.jpg
T
TNT
Guest
Prophecies fulfilled in the True Church of Christ.
Is 52:15 He shall sprinkle many nations, kings shall shut their mouth at him: for they to whom it was not told of him, have seen: and they that heard not, have beheld.
Ezechiel 36:25 And I will pour upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness, and I will cleanse you from all your idols.
Psalms 50:9 Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be cleansed: thou shalt wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow.
Isaiah and Ezechiel would be most satisfied.
Dunking Only? No Prophecy given.
C
Catholic4aReasn
Guest
Well if this isn’t “salvation by works” I don’t know what is.
A couple of assumptions you make here:
- What you personally see as “very clear” in scripture is necessarily correct.
- That Jesus’ baptism means not only THAT we should be baptised but the only valid means by which we should do so. If Jesus is the examply you are to follow and, in order not to be a hypocrite, you MUST be baptised in a river. Scripture does not tell us that any other venue is valid therefore don’t take the chance. You’d better go get re-baptised in a river to be certain that it’s valid. If you find that argument to be ridiculous I’d have to ask you how is it any more ridiculous than what you are proposing?
In Christ,
Nancy
C
Catherine_S
Guest
Hello…
"** The Catholic Church is so far off when it comes to baptism." You got that wrong BIG time!!** **“I think scripture is very clear on the subject” **You got that right !:clapping: ! “I hate to say it but most catholic’s have not been baptized, therefore have not recieved the gift of the Holy Spirit” Sorry…you are dead wrong again and will definately hate the truth…it is not Catholics who are not properly baptized…sorry about that !:crying: ! **I will supply you with Catholic teaching…you lack considerable clarity on just what the Catholic Church teaches and why. We know our Scripture…we gave you guys the bible !!
**God Bless You,
Shalom,
Catherine
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0012sbs.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0201frs.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0201frs.asp
catholic.com/library/baptism_immersion_only.asp
C
Catherine_S
Guest
In addition…on full immersion…" The greek definition is to submerse or to emerse, ie under water. It is very symbolic of the death, burriel and reserection of Christ." You got that one wrong too !! Sorry about that !!!
After Peter’s first sermon, three thousand people were baptized in Jerusalem (Acts 2:41). Archaeologists have demonstrated** there was no sufficient water supply** for so many to have been immersed. Even if there had been, the natives of Jerusalem would scarcely have let their city’s water supply be polluted by three thousand unwashed bodies plunging into it. **These people must have been baptized by pouring or sprinkling.
**Even today practical difficulties can render immersion nearly or entirely impossible for some individuals: for example, people with certain medical conditions—the bedridden; quadriplegics; individuals with tracheotomies (an opening into the airway in the throat) or in negative pressure ventilators (iron lungs). Again, those who have recently undergone certain procedures (such as open-heart surgery) cannot be immersed, and may not wish to defer baptism until their recovery (for example, if they are to undergo further procedures).
Other difficulties arise in certain environments. For example, immersion may be nearly or entirely impossible **for desert nomads or Eskimos. Or consider those in prison—**not in America, where religious freedom gives prisoners the right to be immersed if they desire—**but in a more hostile setting, such as a Muslim regime, where baptisms must be done in secret, without adequate water for immersion.
What are we to do in these and similar cases? Shall we deny people the sacrament because immersion is impractical or impossible for them? Ironically, the Fundamentalist, who acknowledges that baptism is commanded but thinks it isn’t essential for salvation,** may make it impossible for many people to be baptized at all in obedience to God’s command. The Catholic, who believes baptism confers grace and is normatively necessary for salvation, **maintains that God wouldn’t require a form of baptism that, for some people, is impossible. **
**The Didache was written around A.D. 70 and, though not inspired, is a strong witness to the sacramental practice of Christians in the apostolic age. In its seventh chapter, the Didache reads, “Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” These instructions were composed either while some of the apostles and disciples were still alive or during the next generation of Christians, and they represent an already established custom.
Then there is the artistic evidence. Much of the earliest Christian artwork depicts baptism—but not baptism by immersion! If the recipient of the sacrament is in a river, he is shown standing in the river while water is poured over his head from a cup or shell. Tile mosaics in ancient churches and paintings in the catacombs depict baptism by pouring. Baptisteries in early cemeteries are clear witnesses to baptisms by infusion. The entire record of the early Church—as shown in the New Testament, in other writings, and in monumental evidence—indicates the mode of baptism was not restricted to immersion. **
**
Shalom**
**
**
M
mark_a
Guest
Are there similarities between Christian infant baptism and Jewish infant circumcision?
Are there similarities between Catholic confirmation and Protestant (adult only) Baptism?
Are there similarities between Catholic confirmation and Protestant (adult only) Baptism?
C
Catherine_S
Guest
mark a:
On your first question “yes” As the New Testament initiation ritual, baptism is the Christian equivalent of circumcision or “the circumcision of Christ,” as Paul states: “In him you were also circumcised . . . with the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead” (Col. 2:11–12). Thus, like circumcision, baptism can be given to children as well as adults. The difference is that circumcision was powerless to save (Gal. 5:6, 6:15), but “Baptism . . . now saves you” (1 Pet. 3:21).
On your second question…thats a little trickier… as some protestants do not believe that water baptism is necessary…I have personally thought them a little similair mainly because most pentecostals that I have known have been fallen away Catholics so had been baptized as babies…and were just now making the commitment that comes at comfirmation…some protestant ministers even re-baptize in water these folks…I so admire the Catholic Church as it will not do this when they know there was a valid baptism by water in another church…the terrible disrespect of many towards the Catholic Church certainly speaks volumes about their Christianity.…however…since we are dealing with the topic of being “born again,” it is best to start where that phrase is used—in John 3. In the first chapter of John’s gospel, he speaks of the baptism of Christ, where the heavens open and the Holy Spirit descends. Two chapters later, the Lord says, "Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God. . . Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven" (John 3:3,5). Immediately after saying this, Jesus takes his disciples to baptize others (John 3:22). Therefore, one is born again when he is baptized.
If someone asks, “Have you been born again?” We Catholics would much prefer to refer them to these and other verses and let them know we were “born again” the Bible way—as an infant at baptism.
God Bless You,
Shalom,
Catherine
Hello Mark…Blessings to you in the New Year !
On your first question “yes” As the New Testament initiation ritual, baptism is the Christian equivalent of circumcision or “the circumcision of Christ,” as Paul states: “In him you were also circumcised . . . with the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead” (Col. 2:11–12). Thus, like circumcision, baptism can be given to children as well as adults. The difference is that circumcision was powerless to save (Gal. 5:6, 6:15), but “Baptism . . . now saves you” (1 Pet. 3:21).
On your second question…thats a little trickier… as some protestants do not believe that water baptism is necessary…I have personally thought them a little similair mainly because most pentecostals that I have known have been fallen away Catholics so had been baptized as babies…and were just now making the commitment that comes at comfirmation…some protestant ministers even re-baptize in water these folks…I so admire the Catholic Church as it will not do this when they know there was a valid baptism by water in another church…the terrible disrespect of many towards the Catholic Church certainly speaks volumes about their Christianity.…however…since we are dealing with the topic of being “born again,” it is best to start where that phrase is used—in John 3. In the first chapter of John’s gospel, he speaks of the baptism of Christ, where the heavens open and the Holy Spirit descends. Two chapters later, the Lord says, "Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God. . . Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven" (John 3:3,5). Immediately after saying this, Jesus takes his disciples to baptize others (John 3:22). Therefore, one is born again when he is baptized.
If someone asks, “Have you been born again?” We Catholics would much prefer to refer them to these and other verses and let them know we were “born again” the Bible way—as an infant at baptism.
God Bless You,
Shalom,
Catherine
J
josiah
Guest
J
josiah
Guest
Test for Canonicity:
In relation to the OT books this meant having the authority of a lawgiver or a prophet behind them. In connection with NT books, this meant having the authority of an apostle behind the books that were accepted into the canon. This meant that the book either had to be written by an apostle or backed by one so that either way there was apostolic authority behind the book. For example, Peter was considered to be the apostle behind the writings of Mark, and Paul the apostle behind the writings of Luke.
Concerning Philemon…
I would agree that there doesn’t appear to be much instruction or teachings…IE thus says the Lord… However, if I’m not mistaken I believe all of the Church Fathers accepted Philemon.
Hebrews is a much debated book even in some of my circles. Internally, the book has some similarities to other Pauline writings. I know that the Muratorian Canon omited Hebrews. However, there is a break in the manuscript so we can’t be certain that Hebrews was omitted.
I personally believe that the Bible is self authenticating since its books were God-breathed (2Tim 3:16). The books were canonical the moment they were written. It was not necessary to wait until various councils could determine if they were acceptable or not. People and councils only recognized and acknowledged what is true because of the intrinsic inspiration of the books as they were written. No bible book became canonical by action of some church council.
T
TNT
Guest
**Josiah’s Attempt to answer some questions. Part I
2Thes:2:15: Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Q: So, before I was able to read or understand Scripture, was I saved or not?
Q:If I have a retarded child not able to understand Scripture or even to read it, are they saved or not; Perfect or not?
Josiah answers:
** Q: So, before I was able to read or understand Scripture, was I saved or not?
So to answer your question, I would say no you would not have to be able to read Scripture to be saved, but **you would **have to be able to understand it if someone orally communicated the Gospel.
Now, the simple question was: before I was able to read or understand Scripture, was I saved or not?
Josiah’s answer is: **
**
no you would not have to be able to read Scripture to be saved.
but **you would **have to be able to understand it if someone orally communicated the Gospel
****But of course, that was the question: BEFORE I was…able to Understand!
So, your answer is NO because one could not even understand.
Not only that, I would need the “WORKS” of another in having it orally communicated if I could understand!
So, the answer I see is: NO you cannot be saved if you are not capable of understanding. Therefore the retarded are never saved, nor are those below the age of reason.
This is your belief? Did I get it right?
Next is Part II
2Thes:2:15: Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Q: So, before I was able to read or understand Scripture, was I saved or not?
Q:If I have a retarded child not able to understand Scripture or even to read it, are they saved or not; Perfect or not?
Josiah answers:
**I **seriously question if the oral teachings (traditions) of the catholic church that are taught today are in line with the apostles taught (I know this is should be discussed in another thread). My biggest hang up is that there seems to be contradictions between catholic tradition and scripture. (TNT. Which means to me that yes I believe it but no, those did not get properly preserved. So we cannot know anything about them and can no longer follow them because I have a big hangup, and that is what determines truth for me. Josiah calls that Faith.)
** Q: So, before I was able to read or understand Scripture, was I saved or not?
Rom 10:17 Then faith is of hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.
So to answer your question, I would say no you would not have to be able to read Scripture to be saved, but **you would **have to be able to understand it if someone orally communicated the Gospel.
Now, the simple question was: before I was able to read or understand Scripture, was I saved or not?
Josiah’s answer is: **
**
no you would not have to be able to read Scripture to be saved.
but **you would **have to be able to understand it if someone orally communicated the Gospel
****But of course, that was the question: BEFORE I was…able to Understand!
So, your answer is NO because one could not even understand.
Not only that, I would need the “WORKS” of another in having it orally communicated if I could understand!
So, the answer I see is: NO you cannot be saved if you are not capable of understanding. Therefore the retarded are never saved, nor are those below the age of reason.
This is your belief? Did I get it right?
Next is Part II
T
TNT
Guest
Josiah’s Attempt to answer some questions. Part II
Originally Posted by TNT Continued from #4: For:josiah Ref Protantism: A heresy #167
Q: I do not believe that Hebrews belongs in the Scriptures, same for Philemon. I do not see anywhere that they reek of Divine Inspiration. Would you please prove to me that they ARE Divinely Inspired and that they must be contained in the 27 Books of Inspired Scripture?
Q: Why must there be 27 and not 25 or 28 books in your NT?
Josiah answers on the Bible canon and its certitude:
Concerning Philemon…
I would agree that there doesn’t appear to be much instruction or teachings…IE thus says the Lord… However, if I’m not mistaken I believe all of the Church Fathers accepted Philemon.
Now, my insistence must be NO EX-BIBLE tradition! The Church Fathers is an EX-Bible tradition. They have no authority towards doctrine, right? So your answer fails…completely, as that is your ONLY excuse for accepting Philemon.Unless you embrace Catholic Tradition.
In other words, you have no clue to accept its authenticity except fragments of Church Tradition. This is all EX-BIBLE and utterly unacceptable to any BIBLE-only believer. You indicate the failure of the book to “self-authenticate” in the early Church. Self-authentication is then a dead belief, by you own admission.
Part II continues:
Originally Posted by TNT Continued from #4: For:josiah Ref Protantism: A heresy #167
Q: I do not believe that Hebrews belongs in the Scriptures, same for Philemon. I do not see anywhere that they reek of Divine Inspiration. Would you please prove to me that they ARE Divinely Inspired and that they must be contained in the 27 Books of Inspired Scripture?
Q: Why must there be 27 and not 25 or 28 books in your NT?
Josiah answers on the Bible canon and its certitude:
So, Ester was from a lawgiver or a prophet?
either had to be written by an apostle or backed by one so that either way there was apostolic authority behind the book. For example, Peter was considered to be the apostle behind the writings of Mark, and Paul the apostle behind the writings of Luke.
Concerning Philemon…
I would agree that there doesn’t appear to be much instruction or teachings…IE thus says the Lord… However, if I’m not mistaken I believe all of the Church Fathers accepted Philemon.
Now, my insistence must be NO EX-BIBLE tradition! The Church Fathers is an EX-Bible tradition. They have no authority towards doctrine, right? So your answer fails…completely, as that is your ONLY excuse for accepting Philemon.Unless you embrace Catholic Tradition.
much debated book even in some of my circles. ( so, what happened to "self authenticating ") Internally, the book has some similarities to other Pauline writings. I know that the Muratorian Canon omitted Hebrews. However, there is a break in the manuscript so we can’t be certain that Hebrews was omitted.
In other words, you have no clue to accept its authenticity except fragments of Church Tradition. This is all EX-BIBLE and utterly unacceptable to any BIBLE-only believer. You indicate the failure of the book to “self-authenticate” in the early Church. Self-authentication is then a dead belief, by you own admission.
Part II continues:
T
TNT
Guest
Part II Continued:
**
****You just pointed out that Philemon looks uninspired, and Hebrews has no pedigree of author and no self-authentication in the Early Church..
Therefore only a gnostic interior belief makes you believe, on your own gnostic revelation.
Timothy was a Greek, the “sciptures from childhood” could only be the Septuagint. The Septuagint contains the Catholic OT. Therefore, Paul required the very books that you deny, because they lack the gnostic inspiration that you insist upon as any good Mormon uses, and that Philemon lacks.
BTW: a book cannot attest to itself, else the Mormons and Muslims have an equal claim to yours. So much for gnostic inspiration being exclusive to you.
That, my friend is called tradition EX-BIBLE. But not because of “intrinsic inspiration”, else Philemon would never have arrived, by your own admission. Only the tradition of the Church put it there, no one else.
Again, you said Philemon was not sensibly an inspired book. Which is it? Honestly, if you found Philemon today and it was not in the bible, I see no where above that you would object to leaving out without a second thought.
**
Really? Then where did the number 27 come from, Exactly.
Let me give you a clue:
EX-BIBLE #1:
The Synod at Rome was convened in the year 382 AD. This Roman synod must have devoted itself especially to the matter of the canon. The result of its deliberations, presided over, no doubt, by the energetic Pope Damasus himself, are lost to us. Some hold they are partially preserved in the Decretum Gelasianum though this is disputed. The New Testament canon presented there agrees with the present one, and is our first known authorization for 27 specific books in the NT. (Non-Catholic source)
EX-BIBLE #2:
Pope Innocent I, in 405 AD, reaffirmed the canon in a letter to Bishop Exsuperius of Toulouse.
In summary:
You go either to gnosticism (personal revelation) for what books are inspired, or you go to EX-BIBLE tradition, the very thing you deny elsewhere.
Honestly, you leave us stronger in the Roman Catholic Faith that Paul praises so highly, than before we heard from you.
**
**** believe** that the Bible is self authenticating since its books were God-breathed (2Tim 3:16). The books were canonical the moment they were written.
****You just pointed out that Philemon looks uninspired, and Hebrews has no pedigree of author and no self-authentication in the Early Church..
Therefore only a gnostic interior belief makes you believe, on your own gnostic revelation.
Timothy was a Greek, the “sciptures from childhood” could only be the Septuagint. The Septuagint contains the Catholic OT. Therefore, Paul required the very books that you deny, because they lack the gnostic inspiration that you insist upon as any good Mormon uses, and that Philemon lacks.
BTW: a book cannot attest to itself, else the Mormons and Muslims have an equal claim to yours. So much for gnostic inspiration being exclusive to you.
But you just said that Hebrews was not in the early recitations of canon. (Neither was 3John I might add.)
the intrinsic inspiration of the books as they were written. You have already denied this with Hebrews and Philemon!
That, my friend is called tradition EX-BIBLE. But not because of “intrinsic inspiration”, else Philemon would never have arrived, by your own admission. Only the tradition of the Church put it there, no one else.
Again, you said Philemon was not sensibly an inspired book. Which is it? Honestly, if you found Philemon today and it was not in the bible, I see no where above that you would object to leaving out without a second thought.
**
by action of some church council.**Then where again did you get Philemon?
Really? Then where did the number 27 come from, Exactly.
Let me give you a clue:
EX-BIBLE #1:
The Synod at Rome was convened in the year 382 AD. This Roman synod must have devoted itself especially to the matter of the canon. The result of its deliberations, presided over, no doubt, by the energetic Pope Damasus himself, are lost to us. Some hold they are partially preserved in the Decretum Gelasianum though this is disputed. The New Testament canon presented there agrees with the present one, and is our first known authorization for 27 specific books in the NT. (Non-Catholic source)
EX-BIBLE #2:
Pope Innocent I, in 405 AD, reaffirmed the canon in a letter to Bishop Exsuperius of Toulouse.
In summary:
You go either to gnosticism (personal revelation) for what books are inspired, or you go to EX-BIBLE tradition, the very thing you deny elsewhere.
Honestly, you leave us stronger in the Roman Catholic Faith that Paul praises so highly, than before we heard from you.
J
josiah
Guest
Part II Continued:
****You just pointed out that Philemon looks uninspired, and Hebrews has no pedigree of author and no self-authentication in the Early Church..
Therefore only a gnostic interior belief makes you believe, on your own gnostic revelation.
I never said those books were uninspired. I was merely agreeing w/ you about why one would think that.
TNT:
,…
Just because the the apocrypha is contained in the septuagint doesn’t mean that the Jews accepted it in their canon. Ask the Jews today if they accept the Apocryphal books and see what they tell you. Out of the 250 quotes from the OT in the NT, there isn’t even one quote from the apocrypha.
TNT:
, else the Mormons and Muslims have an equal claim to yours. So much for gnostic inspiration being exclusive to you.
I understand your point. However, my point is that the epistles were recognized as Scripture by other apostles like Peter before any council.
2Pe 3:15-16 And think of the long-suffering of our Lord as salvation (as our beloved brother Paul also has written to you according to the wisdom given to him (16) as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable pervert, as also they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction).
TNT:
*But you just said that Hebrews was not in the early recitations of canon. (Neither was 3John I might add.)
*I also said that there was a break in muratorian manuscript, so we can’t be 100% sure that it was omitted.
Question: Does the Catholic church accept Hebrews and Philemon? If so, then why are you shooting yourself in the foot?
One last question. If the catholic argument for leaving biblical interpretation up to the Catholic church is because they supposedly gave us the canon of scripture, then why don’t they allow the Jews to interpret the OT for them, since it was the Jews who gave the Catholic church the OT?
C
Church_Militant
Guest
He can’t because all it would be is HIS personal interp of the Bible because he has set himself up as the only authority on what the Bible says. So far as he’s concernred anyone who disagrees with HIM is wrong…regardless of the clear historical evidence to the contrary. And in spite of all the non-Catholic teaching about being in submission to those in authority over you in the church…he, like all the Prots from day one, have rejected the Divinely appointed authority and remain in rebellion to this day, with the result that they are forever confused and argumentative against what God has set in place. The preachers who came up with the ideas of being “under the covering” of church authority hit on a key point, but they and their followers have never followed it out to it’s logical, historical, and scriptural end.
M
Mickey
Guest
I’ll bet satan is still extremety pleased about the division he caused with the reformation.
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_1_124.gif
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_1_124.gif
T
TobyLue
Guest
Some things to keep in mind: First we must understand that before the Bible was compiled the Church had the Tradition that was handed down to it from the Apostles. When the Canon of the Bible was established, if it contradicted what the Church taught, it was rejected. If it didn’t then it was accepted. So for those sola scripturists, what did the Church teach before the Canon was established?
**Hippolytus **
Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them. (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215])
Origen
Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous. (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248])
**Cyprian **
As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born. (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253])
And one of the clinchers
**Augustine **
What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond. (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400])
So, even though the Bible does not specifially mention the words “infant baptism”, it was universally taught by the only Christian Church of the time that infants were to be baptized because it came from the Apostles themselves. And who taught the Apostles?.. So, there was no question about it until some dude that left the church decided anybody could interpret the bible on their own. And what, ladies and gentlemen, was the result?
**Hippolytus **
Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them. (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215])
Origen
Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous. (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248])
**Cyprian **
As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born. (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253])
And one of the clinchers
**Augustine **
What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond. (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400])
So, even though the Bible does not specifially mention the words “infant baptism”, it was universally taught by the only Christian Church of the time that infants were to be baptized because it came from the Apostles themselves. And who taught the Apostles?.. So, there was no question about it until some dude that left the church decided anybody could interpret the bible on their own. And what, ladies and gentlemen, was the result?
S
Shibboleth
Guest
The reformation is the end of the cause not the beginning.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Excellent post.
Many Protestants seem to regard the Bible as if it were a brand new discovery (found at a garage sale, perhaps), and written like the Operator’s Manual for a new car – just flip to the index and find out how to operate the jack or how to adjust the driver’s seat.
The Catholic Church is not based on the bible. The bible (the New Testament) is based on the Catholic Church. The documents making up the New Testament were chosen BECAUSE they were the best authoratitive support for what the Church taught.
- Status