Protestants, when did the Catholic Church go bad?

  • Thread starter Thread starter smp501
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Radical said:
not sure about the pets…otherwise you are golden
first, it was “somewhat level”
yep, if it is other than perfectly level, then the incline is in my favor (IMHO)
to be precise, the assumptions involved are not so much about the term “household”…we kinda know how that term was used. The assumptions are about the particular situations regarding Lydia’s household and Luke’s usage
it is not whether the term includes children, it is whether Lydia’s household in particular included INFANT children (by “infant” I mean children who are too young to form a belief)…you need an infant child to be present
how much stronger in your opinion? …can you put a percentage on the likelihood of Lydia’s household containing an infant child? Let’s say that you put it at 75%…if that were the only assumption involved, then the field would be slanted in your favor…but you require a second assumption.

thanks for the quote, but you missed this one:
I salute all by name, and in particular the wife of Epitropus, with all her house and children.
Such usage of “household” by Ignatius highlights your second assumption, which is, that in the context, Luke’s usage of “household” would have included infant children (if such even existed in Lydia’s case). IOW, just b/c infant children would be included within a household in some cases, it does not mean that they would be included in all cases. For example, in the NT, belief is strongly connected to the act of baptism…a number of specific instances of baptism are described and in each case the specific person being baptized is a believer. B/c of that and b/c of statements such as “believe and be baptized” there could have been a tacit understanding (between Luke and his readers) that only believers would be included w/i those baptized. It then becomes a question of whether the term “household” could be used in a fashion that would not always include infant children, even though infant children existed within the household under consideration. That brings us to the usage of the term by Igantius. He seems to distinguish between “household” and wives and children. If you want to suggest that Epitopus’ kids had moved out (and that is why they are listed separate from “household”) then:

a) if kids are moving out in that culture, such a thing would reduce the likelihood of your first assumption; and

b) the problem with that suggestion is that it conflicts with Ignatius’ specific mention of wives (who would not have moved out).

As such, it would seem that we have a usage of “household” (by Ignatius) that does not necessarily include chlidren. So then, in the face of those considerations, how strong is your assumption that Luke’s usage of “household being baptized” would have included infant children being baptized? Is it a 67% likelihood?

IMHO the allocation of a 75% likelihood to your first assumption may not be too generous, but the allocation of a 67% likelihood for your second assumption is too generous…even still, if you rely on two asssumptions with likelihoods of 75% and 67% respectively, then you are still only at a 50% likelihood for the thing actually occurring.
chew on the above.
Click to expand...
Clearly you have a dizzying intellect…
 
When did Some Followers of Christ “Go Bad” ?
  1. Judas comes to mind
  2. John 6:67 After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.
 
Matt 19: 14
Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
LittleSoldier said:
Please tell me I misread this; that you are not supporting abortion! :eek:
Click to expand...
LittleSoldier,

God hates abortion. I hate abortion.

Seriously… How is it in any way possible that a quote, taken directly from God’s word, could in any stretch of the imagination … justify abortion?
 
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Oh but wait a minute…you said one must make a conscious-decision in order to be baptized…the ONLY method according to you and FULLY immersed,not buts or ifs. But you make exceptions for those already circumcised? Was their circumcision void according to your standards?

1voice, still waiting on a response to this one…c’mon, now.
 
Lochias said:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Oh but wait a minute…you said one must make a conscious-decision in order to be baptized…the ONLY method according to you and FULLY immersed,not buts or ifs. But you make exceptions for those already circumcised? Was their circumcision void according to your standards?

1voice, still waiting on a response to this one…c’mon, now.
Click to expand...
John 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.
 
LittleSoldier said:
I hope it’s OK if I step in here. I agree with this statement; well, kind of. The bible is silent on so much. It can’t possibly cover every contingency.

And that is the Word of God. So he who believes and is baptised will be saved, assuming there are no other qualifiers and that the Scripture is not taken out of context, etc.

When I checked I did find something. You didn’t post all of Mark 16:16. This is the whole statement:

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
[Mark 16:16, KJV (I normally use the Douay-Rheims but I wanted to use a Protestant bible in this case)]

It does not say that one must believe first and be baptised second in order to be saved (in fact, it doesn’t even say that one must be baptised to be saved but that is irrelevant as it doesn’t address the point you are trying to make). One could certainly read this sentence as meaning that one can be baptised and then later believe and will be saved and if this is true, infants can certainly be baptised and then believe when they have the ability to believe.
Click to expand...
Mark 16:16
Douay-Rheims (DRA)
16He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.

Based on the above verse … Baptism, before belief, is a useless exercise.

Here is further/ conclusive evidence of the sequence …
Acts 8
Douay-Rheims (DRA)

36And as they went on their way, they came to a certain water; and the eunuch said: See, here is water: what doth hinder me from being baptized?
Code: 
37And Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

38And he commanded the chariot to stand still; and they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch: and he baptized him.
In verse 36 he asks “what doth hinder me to be baptized?”

Philip’s clear answer, “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.”

That is pretty clear. You may get baptized if you believe. The eunuch then answers, “I believe”. And only after that did Philip baptize him.
 
1voice said:
Mark 16:16
Douay-Rheims (DRA)
16He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.

Based on the above verse … Baptism, before belief, is a useless exercise.

Here is further/ conclusive evidence of the sequence …
Acts 8
Douay-Rheims (DRA)

36And as they went on their way, they came to a certain water; and the eunuch said: See, here is water: what doth hinder me from being baptized?
Code: 
37And Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

38And he commanded the chariot to stand still; and they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch: and he baptized him.
In verse 36 he asks “what doth hinder me to be baptized?”

Philip’s clear answer, “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.”

That is pretty clear. You may get baptized if you believe. The eunuch then answers, “I believe”. And only after that did Philip baptize him.
Click to expand...
Both of these verses deal with adult converts, not children. Again, show us where the Bible says that one must have cognitive ability to be baptized and where it says that children lose their salvation once they gain cognitive ability.
 
1voice said:
Mark 16:16
Douay-Rheims (DRA)
16He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.

Based on the above verse … Baptism, before belief, is a useless exercise.

Here is further/ conclusive evidence of the sequence …
Acts 8
Douay-Rheims (DRA)

36And as they went on their way, they came to a certain water; and the eunuch said: See, here is water: what doth hinder me from being baptized?
Code: 
37And Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

38And he commanded the chariot to stand still; and they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch: and he baptized him.
In verse 36 he asks “what doth hinder me to be baptized?”

Philip’s clear answer, “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.”

That is pretty clear. You may get baptized if you believe. The eunuch then answers, “I believe”. And only after that did Philip baptize him.
Click to expand...
I’m not going to say that what Philip states here only applies to eunuchs, although the passage certainly indicates that. An adult who asks about baptism *would *be told what he was told by Philip. An adult should believe and understand before baptism. This is true in the Catholic Church - the Church does not baptise people who don’t understand and believe. But Philip was talking to an adult - not an infant!

Because adults need to believe and understand before baptism does *not *mean that infants need to believe and understand before baptism. The people who represent them (the parents and godparents) need to believe and understand and do what they are to do to make sure that the child is brought up and educated in the Faith.

What you have presented is not conclusive evidence.
 
batman1973 said:
Can’t say the church went bad per se, but, when the priesthood, and the papacy and indulgences went up for sale, the stains of the inquisitions, it’s hard not to imagine that people would think that the church went bad. I would say that she has had some good black eyes given over the years, but she’s always come back.
Click to expand...
I agree, its the People why betray God that hurt him and his Church, It all began with one of his own Apostles. Judas was the first and unfortunatly was not the last.

But Christ warned us many will mask themself in his name to try to bring down his Church, but he also warned us they will never succeed! Praise God.
 
1voice said:
Matt 19: 14
Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
Click to expand...
If the Kingdom already belongs to them then why do they lose it upon hitting a certain age? Where does the Bible say THAT?
 
1voice said:
Matt 19: 14
Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

LittleSoldier,

God hates abortion. I hate abortion.

Seriously… How is it in any way possible that a quote, taken directly from God’s word, could in any stretch of the imagination … justify abortion?
Click to expand...
This *is * serious; it’s *very *serious! It is not the Word of God that concerned me. It was your words, or lack of words, or perhaps ambiguous wording, or my lack of understanding your words, that did.

In post #634 you stated the following:

Stating that something is true and then basing it solely on the fact that it is not recorded in the Bible is distorted logic. That fits the definition of putting words in someone’s mouth.

I can only rely on that which is recorded… that record … proves fact.

What is recorded … is a specific/ simple and very clear definition.

To answer your question … Jesus says it right here …

Mark 16:16 - He Who Believes and Is Baptized Will Be Saved

and again… Peter said the same thing … simply and clearly …

Acts 2:38 - Repent and Be Baptized for the Remission of Sins.

… In both cases it is a 2 step process. … Cognitive choice is required as a prerequisite to taking the next step … and both scriptures confirm each other.
In post #635 Cat Herder responded. His/her response was the following:

So you are indeed making it impossible for babies and children to have a right to eternal life because they do not have cognitive choice.
Sounds like something that came straight out of a Planned Parenthood abortuary.​

In your post #639 you responded with the following:

I am quoting the word of God.
You are editorializing.

But I think God covered that base as well…

Matt 19: 14
Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
You made no direct response to Cat Herder’s remark about the PP abortuary. This bothered me. I have run across “pro-choice Catholics” and I have know Protestants who have had abortions and so I was hoping that you were not pro-abortion. I am very happy to see that you are not. 🙂

I have no disagreement with the Word of God and am actively pro-life; that is why I was concerned enough to post seeking clarification and making my feelings known.
 
Addendum to post #726:

I meant to post that the Catholic Church does not baptise adults (and children who have reached the age of reason) that do not believe and understand.

I apologize for my poor wording.
 
It never went ‘bad’, its just that protestants don’t agree or interpret things the same as Catholics.
 
The Catholic Church as holding the fullness of truth and being the only Church founded and commisioned by Christ didn’t go bad. Certainly some of it’s members were sinners, but since that who Christ came to call that shouldn’t surprise anyone. Christ warned us that there would be wolves in the sheepfold. What went wrong is when certain members rather than working from within the Church to right the abuses of some of these wolves started breaking off and starting their own man-made religions. This was in direct contradiction to Christ’s prayer in the garden “Father that they might be one”. Saint Paul gave us lot’s of instruction as to how to deal with “the wolves” but breaking away from the faith and starting your own church wasn’t one of them. As it stands now we have thousands of denominations each teaching something a little or a lot different. Our Lord prayed that this wouldn’t happen.

It’s time to come home and be one!
 
Polycarp1 said:
The Catholic Church as holding the fullness of truth and being the only Church founded and commisioned by Christ didn’t go bad. Certainly some of it’s members were sinners, but since that who Christ came to call that shouldn’t surprise anyone. Christ warned us that there would be wolves in the sheepfold. What went wrong is when certain members rather than working from within the Church to right the abuses of some of these wolves started breaking off and starting their own man-made religions. This was in direct contradiction to Christ’s prayer in the garden “Father that they might be one”. Saint Paul gave us lot’s of instruction as to how to deal with “the wolves” but breaking away from the faith and starting your own church wasn’t one of them. As it stands now we have thousands of denominations each teaching something a little or a lot different. Our Lord prayed that this wouldn’t happen.

It’s time to come home and be one!
Click to expand...
Pray that this happens.

Jon
 
Please remember Luther had no intention of breaking away from the Church, it happened yes, but never his original intent. He was a devoted monk who said he’d kill for the Pope, and wrote many letters to try and make his case. its just too bad how things turned out for sure. I’m not on either side, but just the truth of the matter.🙂
 
Luvtosew said:
Please remember Luther had no intention of breaking away from the Church, it happened yes, but never his original intent. He was a devoted monk who said he’d kill for the Pope, and wrote many letters to try and make his case. its just too bad how things turned out for sure. I’m not on either side, but just the truth of the matter.🙂
Click to expand...
I’m sure Luther had valid reasons for being unhappy with some of the abuses being committed by some members of the Catholic Church at that time. But he had some strange ideas of his own too.

“…with regard to God, and in all that bears on salvation or damnation, (man) has no ‘free-will’, but is a captive, prisoner and bondslave, either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan.” (From the essay, ‘Bondage of the Will,’ 'Martin Luther: Selections From His Writings, ed. by Dillenberger, Anchor Books, 1962 p. 190.)

“Those pious souls who do good to gain the Kingdom of Heaven not only will never succeed, but they must even be reckoned among the impious; and it is more important to guard them against good works than against sin.” (Wittenberg, VI, 160, quoted by O’Hare, in 'The Facts About Luther, TAN Books, 1987, p. 122.)

“Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides… No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.” ('Let Your Sins Be Strong, from ‘The Wittenberg Project;’ ‘The Wartburg Segment’, translated by Erika Flores, from Dr. Martin Luther’s Saemmtliche Schriften, Letter No. 99, 1 Aug. 1521).

And finally, he admitted adding the word ‘alone’ to Rom. 3:28 of his own volition: “If your Papist annoys you with the word (‘alone’), tell him straightway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and *** are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom.” (Amic. Discussion, 1, 127,‘The Facts About Luther,’ O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 201.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top