A
AmateurPianist
Guest
In order to prevent this thread from being more sidetracked, I am going to start a thread on this topic.
Protestants, How could an Infallible book be of use to you, w/o an Infallible Interpreter?
- Status
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I can understand your point, however I have to questiion what appears to be your view that each and every person has to have a foreknowledge, understanding, prior to baptism. Let me explain why.
Matthew 8:5 - 13 tells us of a centurion who sought Jesus out to ask Him to heal their servant. Jesus tells the centurion, He would go and heal the servant. But, the centurion said he was not worthy that Christ should enter his house and if Jesus would only say the word his servant would be healed. Jesus marvelled at the centurion’s faith, saying He had not seen a faith so great in Israel. Because of the centurion’s faith, Christ healed the servant and the scripture tells us it was the ‘selfsame’ hour.
Now, whose faith caused the servant to be healed, the servant’s or the centurion’s? Scripture clearly tells us this miracle was because of the centurion’s faith.
Another instance of Christ’s ‘cleaning’ someone is found in Matthew 15:22 - 28, where a mother approached Jesus seeking cleansing for her daughter who was not present. Again, Jesus recognized a great faith and told the woman, ‘be it done to thee as thou wilt’ and the scripture tells us the daughter was cured from that hour.
Whose faith caused the girl grievously troubled by a devil to be cured, the daughter’s or the mother’s? Scripture clearly tells us she was cured because of the mother’s faith.
If we read Luke’s account of the centurion’s servant being healed, we see the servant was found ‘whole’ upon the centurion’s return.
If we read Mark’s account of the woman’s daughter being cured, we see the woman went home and found her daughter laying in bed and that the devil was gone out.
Now, if Christ ‘cleaned’ people without us being told that they believed, but on the faith of those requesting, why is it an infant cannot be cleansed through baptism and through the faith of the parents?
T
tweetymom
Guest
Cool let me know.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
Prodigal Son1:
Prodigal Son1:
Pax
You’ve provided NOTHING that so much as even MENTIONS The Catholic Church or infallibility or unaccountability. NOTHING about the divine imparative that everyone is just to accept whatever it and it itself exclusively says “with docility.” NOTHING that says that if God leads, one - The Catholic Church - thus WILL constantly, perpetually and infallibly - will follow. NOTHING. Nothing whatsoever.Josiah:
The Church designates itself with the support of scriptures, as I’ve provided.
Prodigal Son1:
Ah, then you think teachers of doctrine ARE accountable for what they teach as such! Does that include The Catholic Church (better read your Catechism # 87 before you answer that - in fact, you should have done that before you posted what you did). Back it up - with WHAT? Who then arbitrates if the teaching has been normed by that WHAT? Oh, you sometimes sound so very Protestant. Maybe you want to retract what you posted?
… and so you have this mysterious contradiction:
- Interpreters are accountable for what they teach/ The Catholic Church is incapable of error and whatever it says is just to be accepted with docility.
- It’s wrong for self to designate self as the sole authoritative interpreter of Scripture/ The Catholic Church is right in designating itself as the sole authoritative, infallible, unaccountable interpreter of Scripture.
- Self agreeing with self has nothing to do with self being correct/ The Catholic Church is correct in its interpretation because it agrees with itself.
- Self having an interpretation - perhaps one of many - has zero relevance to that one being correct/ When The Catholic Church has an interpretation - perhaps among many - it’s interpretation is thus correct.
- There needs to be a rule/canon OUTSIDE of the view under review and an arbitration BEYOND the one holding to the view/ The Catholic Church alone needs no rule/canon and it is the sole arbiter for whether its views are correct.
Pax
- Josiah
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
All of these are good examples for your view. I think it is wrong for anyone to say it could not happen that way. It of course could if that is what God wants. Reading the scripture though, it was always adults and it followed repenting, believing, or being taught. The earliest church manual on baptism, the Didache, also indicates adult baptism as well. However, the practice of infant baptism starts early. You can argue easily that it starts 150 AD. But is it the norm, or the exception? That is the debate.
But back to the Bible, I think anyone would agree the clearest and certainly most common reading indicates adults after one of the three things. In order to baptize infants, I would have to have a very clear reason to not do things the way it is described. The only biblical argument that comes close is the issue of households being baptized. However, Luke does not elaborate if the houses including children or if he was even thinking about children when he wrote that. Let me give a another wrench in the discussion. I do not often give links to support my views but this is very well done in my view.
apologeticspress.org/articles/2287
T
tweetymom
Guest
Very well done and very agreed upon. Thank you so much. God Bless
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
We have archeological evidence that predates the time of 150AD.
**Mar 10:13 And they brought to him young children, that he might touch them. And the disciples rebuked them that brought them.
Mar 10:14 Whom when Jesus saw, he was much displeased and saith to them: Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Luk 18:15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he might touch them. Which when the disciples saw, they rebuked them.
Luk 18:16 But Jesus, calling them together, said: Suffer children to come to me and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.**
Using two of the synoptic Gospels to view the same story, we see Luke defines the age of ‘young children’ as ‘infants’. Either way, these were young children. Could they understand that they were being brought forth to the Messiah for Him to lay hands upon?
I read the article of the link you provided and want to note, I did not use Colossians 2:11 - 12, even though I have that passage catalogued under my topics of infant baptism. There are more than just two scriptures to guide us in the truth.
In the instances of ‘whole households’ being baptized, and how some deny it means children, usually by saying, it doesn’t say children were in the household’, we have to look at how households and faith are related in other parts of the Bible and compare them to some households being baptized.
**Jos 24:15 But if it seem evil to you to serve the Lord, you have your choice: choose this day that which pleaseth you, whom you would rather serve, whether the gods which your fathers served in Mesopotamia, or the gods of the Amorrhites, in whose land you dwell: but as for me and my house we will serve thee Lord
Act 16:31 But they said: believe in the Lord Jesus: and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Act 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying: If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and abide there. And she constrained us.
Act 16:33 And he, taking them the same hour of the night, washed their stripes: and himself was baptized, and all his house immediately.
1Co 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanus. Besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. **
Note how Acts 16:31 is phrased, "…believe in the Lord Jesus: and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Act 2:38 But Peter said to them: Do penance: and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 2:39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call.
Mark 10:13 and 14, and Luke 18:15 and 16, tell us that Christ wanted ‘little children/infants’ to come to Him. Jesus, the second person of the Godhead, called the little children/infants to come to Him.
I will end on two more notes. First, you wanted examples of baptism in the Bible that did not call for repentence prior to baptism. The first thing that came to my mind was Jesus’ baptism. The mystery of He, who was without sin, was baptized.
Second, is the words of Christ in John 3:5. Christ said, ‘…unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ This is the only verse I’m aware of that Christ, Himself, did not mention believing or faith prior to being baptized. I only mention this, as it doesn’t really prove anything as we assume belief/faith is a part of baptism, but it also stands to reason that we can aassume baptism is a part of belief/faith. As from the examples of the centurion and the woman from Canaan, we saw ‘cleansing’ from Christ for others than those whose faith requested the cleansing.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Can you provide the link where your information came from? Radiocarbon dating was not around in 1900 but I cannot be sure that is what it is saying. Radiocarbon dating was developed at the University of Chicago mid century. But maybe I am not reading it right.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Josiah,
Repeating the same arguments over and over does not prove a point, for either of us it appears. Also repeating that nothing was provided, over and over, is false. I have made the Biblical argument that men received authority over the Church, from Christ, even if you disagree with the interpretation. Any honest person has to recognize that it is derived from an interpretation of scriptures. I have also explained the context of Christ speaking specifically to the men of His Church, promising the Holy Spirit/Spirit of Truth would teach/guide them in all things, and that He would be with them until the consummation of the world, in scriptures. Again, even if they disagree with the interpretation, I feel any honest person could, at the very least, recognize the belief comes from an interpretation of scriptures.
Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit/Spirit of Truth teaching and guiding in all things, and Jesus being with us until the consummation of the world, is in itself ‘infallibility’. Through men of the Church, He applies His infallibility. I don’t know any other way to explain it and feel it’s stated rather clearly.
Protestants have not explained how a unified infallible of truth is delivered through the multiple truths taught through the multiple interpretations, with those multiple interpretations come from people, all claiming the teaching/guiding of the Holy Spirit. I’m sorry if it’s too hard a question, or request. It is a real problem when viewed by Catholics who feel they receive a unified message, even if it’s not understood or followed by all Catholics…
So, I have provided something and that something was from scriptures. You on the other hand, have only provided an opinion, mixed with rants against the Catholic Church.
Martin Luther did not question that the Church in the Bible, was the Catholic Church. His objections was over the actions of sinful men within the Church. As a Lutheran, would you please explain when that came into question, specifically when did Lutherans begin to deny that the Church of the Bible was the Catholic Church?
If you don’t want to answer it, that’s fine, but I kindly ask that you stop posting the same exact opinions and rants, as well as the false accusations that I have provided nothing. It gets us no where and if you decide it’s necessary to repeat these things, I will not respond to the same exact points again.
I am comfortable with my posts, as I am sure you are with your posts. Let them speak for themselves.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I have links to “The History of Infant Baptism” by theologian W. Wall, which was written previously to 1900. I believe 1900 is the date the volumes were printed and bound in London.
I also have links to a Methodist Reverend’s response to a question, where he posted the information provided.
I assume the radiocarbon information was provided in one of the related articles, in various archeological journals, mentioned in the reference line, as you pointed out that the technique for radiocarbon was developed in 1949.
I have written the Rev. requesting the specific article providing that information, and don’t know when to expect a response, but I will share that with you as soon as I receive it. In my receipt for my question sent to the Rev. I was provided a link if I do not receive a response within 3 days, so hopefully the answer is forthcoming in a short period of time.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
Friend, then Jesus never said any such thing - and you now seem to finally be admitting that. It is the interpretation of The Catholic Church alone (that you proclaim) that “says” it. Apples and oranges. Jesus said “church” - He didn’t say “The Catholic Church.” Jesus never once so much as even uttered the words “infallible” or “unaccountable” - you placed them into the text. The Catholic Church alone “interpreting” the text so as to insist that Jesus promised all these remarkable, accountability-evading things exclusively and perpetually to The Catholic Church is simply itself teaching that about itself - Jesus never said it. Perhaps we’re finally making some progress…
Interpretation means an explaination “FROM THE WORD.” If there is no word to interpret, there is no interpretation. You might be confusing eisegesis with exegesis. One takes FROM the text (exegesis - the words must be there), the other just inserts invisible words into the text. Truth is, Jesus never said ANYTHING about The Catholic Church. Or infallibility. Or unaccountability. He never said ANYTHING is except from accountability. What He said - repeatedly and boldly - in actual words (so that interpretation there is possible) is that we are to beware of false teachers, antichrists, those that lead many astray. He never said that The Catholic Church - specifically, exclusively, perpetually - is infallible and that we are to accept whatever it alone says with docility. And, IMHO, to claim that He did is NOT a difference in interpretation, it’s simply not true.
Of course, He never said any such thing.
Then it’s a false premise - illogical and unbiblical. There’s NO connection - anywhere - between being rightly taught and the student ERGO being infallible, unaccountable. Do you believe that God taught and lead Adam and Eve? Yet even these PERFECT people in a perfect world didn’t do as you insist is unavoidable - they didn’t perfectly follow and God certainly did not regard them as unaccountable.
You are simply conveying the Catholic Church’s apologetic here: It (you suggest by the interpretation of itself uniquely and exclusively - and I would argue entirely without any base or credibility) declares that it alone is right cuz it just is. Friend, have you studied the LDS or the cults? Have you studied there epistemology, their stance on accountability and norming? If you have, it should be obvious how moot this rubric is - and it CAN be profoundly dangerous. IMHO, the teacher who insists on exempting self from accountability, who insists on circumventing norming, who substitutes instead the demand of self that everyone just accept whatever self exclusively says “with docility” has zero relevance to that one being correct. I know you disagree.
Self agreeing with self is a remarkably poor indicator of self being correct.
Ironcially, this rubric (occasionally suggested by Catholics) is actually boldly rejected by The Catholic Church (or so my teachers explained), it agrees: self agreeing with self is moot to the issue of correctness.
Yes, I know that The Catholic Church - officially, formally and currently - agrees exclusively with The Catholic Church alone in all issues that The Catholic Church alone currently views are right to agree on. We all know that. I just can’t for the life of me understand the significance of that. The same is true for every other teacher - so applying your rubric here - they are all correct, too.
Yes, The Catholic Church might have “one” interpretation of a verse - not 2, at least not two currently, officially and formally. How does that indicate that it is correct? The LDS may have “one” interpretation of a verse - not 2, at least not two currently, officially and formally. By your rubric, the LDS must be correct. See, I’m not at all sure you agree with yourself in your own apologetics. But then, here’s the deal: Catholics aren’t suppose to norm what The Catholic Church itself says, The Catholic Church alone insists rather that all just accept whatever as true “with docility.” Thus, the tensions you’ve presented - where you make a defense and then show that you don’t accept it as valid.
.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
I am skeptical because it would almost be a slamdunk and I would think it would already available. BUT sometimes things do not get out on the net and it surprises me.
I am apparently giving up CAF for Lent. I am going to give up all the forums I am on.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I provided as much information, including links, that I could. The Rev. response to the question about infant baptism was an interesting read and, as I said, I’ll be sure to share the response with all.
Have a blessed Lent Rightly.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
Friend, then Jesus never said any such thing - and you now seem to finally be admitting that. It is the interpretation of The Catholic Church alone (that you proclaim) that “says” it. Apples and oranges. Jesus said “church” - He didn’t say “The Catholic Church.” Jesus never once so much as even uttered the words “infallible” or “unaccountable” - you placed them into the text. The Catholic Church alone “interpreting” the text so as to insist that Jesus promised all these remarkable, accountability-evading things exclusively and perpetually to The Catholic Church is simply itself teaching that about itself - Jesus never said it. Perhaps we’re finally making some progress…
Interpretation means an explaination “FROM THE WORD.” If there is no word to interpret, there is no interpretation. You might be confusing eisegesis with exegesis. One takes FROM the text (exegesis - the words must be there), the other just inserts invisible words into the text. Truth is, Jesus never said ANYTHING about The Catholic Church. Or infallibility. Or unaccountability. He never said ANYTHING is except from accountability. What He said - repeatedly and boldly - in actual words (so that interpretation there is possible) is that we are to beware of false teachers, antichrists, those that lead many astray. He never said that The Catholic Church - specifically, exclusively, perpetually - is infallible and that we are to accept whatever it alone says with docility. And, IMHO, to claim that He did is NOT a difference in interpretation, it’s simply not true.
Of course, He never said any such thing.
Then it’s a false premise - illogical and unbiblical. There’s NO connection - anywhere - between being rightly taught and the student ERGO being infallible, unaccountable. Do you believe that God taught and lead Adam and Eve? Yet even these PERFECT people in a perfect world didn’t do as you insist is unavoidable - they didn’t perfectly follow and God certainly did not regard them as unaccountable.
You are simply conveying the Catholic Church’s apologetic here: It (you suggest by the interpretation of itself uniquely and exclusively - and I would argue entirely without any base or credibility) declares that it alone is right cuz it just is. Friend, have you studied the LDS or the cults? Have you studied there epistemology, their stance on accountability and norming? If you have, it should be obvious how moot this rubric is - and it CAN be profoundly dangerous. IMHO, the teacher who insists on exempting self from accountability, who insists on circumventing norming, who substitutes instead the demand of self that everyone just accept whatever self exclusively says “with docility” has zero relevance to that one being correct. I know you disagree.
Self agreeing with self is a remarkably poor indicator of self being correct.
Ironcially, this rubric (occasionally suggested by Catholics) is actually boldly rejected by The Catholic Church (or so my teachers explained), it agrees: self agreeing with self is moot to the issue of correctness.
Yes, I know that The Catholic Church - officially, formally and currently - agrees exclusively with The Catholic Church alone in all issues that The Catholic Church alone currently views are right to agree on. We all know that. I just can’t for the life of me understand the significance of that. The same is true for every other teacher - so applying your rubric here - they are all correct, too.
Yes, The Catholic Church might have “one” interpretation of a verse - not 2, at least not two currently, officially and formally. How does that indicate that it is correct? The LDS may have “one” interpretation of a verse - not 2, at least not two currently, officially and formally. By your rubric, the LDS must be correct. See, I’m not at all sure you agree with yourself in your own apologetics. But then, here’s the deal: Catholics aren’t suppose to norm what The Catholic Church itself says, The Catholic Church alone insists rather that all just accept whatever as true “with docility.” Thus, the tensions you’ve presented - where you make a defense and then show that you don’t accept it as valid.
.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Even though I said I wouldn’t respond to the same points, I feel it important to point out the falsehoods you are portraying.
First, you did not respond to the point I raised in reference to Martin Luther’s acceptance that the Catholic Church was the Church in the Bible, specifically the one that Christ built. This is entirely a new objection that seems to also invalidate the Lutheran Church, as well as the Catholic Church, since Martin Luther who was a Catholic priest founded the Lutheran Church. It seems to be ‘stooping’ to whatever level necessary to invalidate a Church that it appears you despise for whatever reason.
Second, do you believe Jesus was infallible?
Jesus spoke the words below, ONLY, to the men He appointed over His Church.
**Joh 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
Joh 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. **
In Catholic opinion Christ is infallible, even if the term was not specifically used in the 30s AD. He said, ‘But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things…’ He also said, ‘When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth…’ In the same sentence Jesus said, ‘…and he will declare to you the things that are to come.’ Lastly, I give you another statement from Christ, ‘…behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.’
Even though it reads rather clear to me, I emphasized parts to try and make a point to you. In summary, The Holy Spirit/Spirit of Truth/Jesus is with His Church, teaching/guiding it in ALL truth. Catholics believe Christ is infallible and through His promises to the men of His Church, we have confidence in His infallibility to work through His Church.
Now, you may not agree with the Catholic interpretation, but anyone should be able to recognize the belief is based on scriptures, EVEN if they don’t agree with the interpretation. And yes, we depend on Catholic interpretation, that’s part of being with the Catholic Church. Do you think we should depend on another Church to interpret scriptures for us? Especially in light of our belief that men of the Church wrote scriptures, defined the canon of scriptures and preserved those scriptures, unto the present day.
Here’s a quote on scriptures, from the founder of your Church.
Who can better interpret a ‘Catholic’ book better than Catholics? We have, and had, the scriptures, along with the traditions that explain the interpretations offered through the Church. For those interpertations not offered, we read them in the Traditions of the living Church.
The term Catholic was ‘keyed’ at a later date, by men of the Church Christ built. Just as you make a point to say Christ did not say ‘Catholic’, it would probably mean something if you showed me where He said, ‘Lutheran’, but He doesn’t do that either.
Now, in your repeated post of what’s not in the Bible, specifically, please provide where the Bible states it is the ONLY authority.
Show us where the ‘sole authority’ listed the letters and epistles that were to be included within the New Testament.
Show us, with scriptures, where interpretations were to be different, or that individuals were supposed to interpret them for themselves.
Show us where the Bible tells us how to know which interpretations of scriptures could be taken as correct and which were not correct.
Lastly, why not offer your interpretation of the scriptures provided in this post, so that we may critique it as you’ve critiqued ours?
There are direct questions and points where your participation is requested. If you ignore those questions and points again, this discussion between us is over. It’s not an interrogation where you hammer your points and I listen. I address your points and you address mine. That’s why it’s called a discussion.
M
Matthew_P_Muehl
Guest
Back to my request… Please show me in the bible where infants and children were not baptized !!! You say no. Please back up your answer. I know you won’t because you can’t!
There is far to much in the bible that supports infant baptism.
The burden is on you to prove otherwise.
Matthew
L
larkin31
Guest
Who cares? And why? Really, HOW important is this?
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
In light of the scripture above, I think it’s of the utmost importance.
L
larkin31
Guest
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Why would an agnostic want to impress his views on believers? Think about it. We express our view in hopes of everyone achieving eternal life. If you truly question the existence of God, what benefit does your belief offer anyone? How do you benefit from convincing others that you are right?
These are sincere questions.
- Status