N
Nicea325
Guest
Radical– “This thread has been like so many others here. The OPoster asks for an opinion from Protestants. …it is really a request to ‘Tell me what you believe so that I can tell you how ridiculous it is.’ …the Protestant Responder will be invariably swarmed by about a half dozen or so Catholics,”
It’s a Catholic website. What do you expect?
Seriously, though, the reason you get swarmed is because we cannot believe that people embrace such beliefs in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. Nor will you ever convince any well-informed Catholic of your position, because we have 2000 years of tradition & the Apostolic Succession to rely upon. With all due respect, all you have is your own fallible human reasoning & that of your Reformation leaders. That makes a debate about infant baptism or any other point of doctrine rather pointless.
Furthermore, LittleSoldier & Stewstew03 have already demonstrated to you that infant baptism was most probably practiced by the immediate post-Apostolic Church, but you evade like the plague their most telling points & focus only on the arguments to which you think you can raise a barely plausible objection.
If, on the other hand, it could be demonstrated that the post-Apostolic Church did in fact call itself Catholic, that it did in fact embrace the majority of specifically Catholic beliefs, that it repudiated the majority of beliefs that are peculiar to Protestantism, & that the Bishop of Rome even probably exercised supreme jurisdiction within the lifetime of the Apostles, would that not end the discussion?
No-- because you would reject the evidence. Note that I don’t even say that these things can be proven beyond any possibility of a doubt, because they cannot. But if all the evidence that we possess is consistent with the Catholic position, & virtually none of it with those of the Protestant denominations, would that not at least strongly suggest where the truth lies? It certainly has done so with respect to a large number of former Protestants who have embraced Catholicism.
David J. Webster, a former fundamentalist Baptist Pastor who converted, sums it up, “I (have) found over 40 clear references to distinctly Catholic tenets of faith in the 135 year period immediately following the New Testament era…(A.D.100-235). Most of these references indicate these Catholic tenets were universally taught & believed throughout the Church at the time. Since they were believed so universally at such an early date, to deny they were part of the Apostolic teaching would be foolish. Protestantism then is not only based on misunderstanding & misinterpretation of Scripture, but ignorance of the plain facts of history.”
To begin with, when LittleSoldier quotes St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies, II 22:4), “He [Christ] came to save all through Himself-- all, I say, who through Him are reborn in God-- infants, & children, & youths & old men”; your answer (& by extension, that of E. Ferguson) makes no sense. How are unbaptized infants, still in Original Sin, to be “reborn in God”, as you say, thru the birth & resurrection of Jesus-- in whose birth & resurrection they are unable to participate until they are baptized? Obviously Irenaeus was referring to baptism-- a fact with which Webster agrees, & which helped lead him to the Catholic Church. For his previous Baptist faith also rejected infant Baptism, as yours does. The fact that Irenaeus used the word elsewhere to refer to Jesus’ sacrifice cannot trump the fact that he could not have been using it in that sense here. The difference is that Webster was in good faith about this, seeking the truth, which you evidently are not.
But returning to my key point, St. Ignatius of Antioch, the 3d Bishop of Antioch, was the successor in that position of St. Peter. Webster writes, “Because the 7 letters attributed to him (c. 107-110 A.D.) present such a strong case for the hierarchical…Church, they have long been questioned by Protestant scholars. The genuinity of the letters has now, however, been long since vindicated by J.B. Lightfoot. Adolph von Harnack, Theodore Zahn, & F.X. Funk; & their authenticity is now almost universally accepted.” All of the scholars cited by Webster, note, are Protestant.
In his Letter to the Ephesians, Ignatius writes: “…the bishops…are the will of Jesus Christ…we must look upon the bishop as the Lord Himself.” [3:2; 5:3; 6:1]
In his Letter to the Trallians, the Saint writes: “In like manner let everyone respect…the bishop as a type of the Father…” [3:1; 7:2]
In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans he writes: “You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father… Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” [8:1,2] Ignatius doesn’t even bother to explain his use of the term “Catholic”. Clearly he expected his readers to understand exactly what he meant, as if the expression was already in common use.
Clearly Ignatious is speaking in his letters of Catholic bishops.
Radical without admitting is trying to re-write history better known as revisionism. Does not matter what Radical says,presents, or argues against, cannot change the facts of history. I have heard people like Radical for years and not one iota of early church history has changed to suit their novelties.Code:more to follow <
But I’m afrad I don’t have $35.00 so unless I can find it online I will not be able to read it. I’ll search for it online and keep an eye on it on Amazon.
This is something I had not thought of - that Judas would reflect on Jesus. Excellent post!! 
