Protestants, when did the Catholic Church go bad?

[stewstew03]

In the comparison Paul points out that the source of corruption (the old man) is removed/ cut off by God in baptism … in circumcision the source of corruption was removed. In one case by men in the other by Christ.
He attributes this change, as a result of the act of baptism, to the individuals faith in the power of God. Cognitive agreement is integral to his description of baptism.

Paul is describing a covenant with God - signified by circumcision (Old) and baptism (New). The Jews in Colossae knew exactly what he was talking about, and the question of whether infants should be allowed to participate in this covenant wasn’t an issue (in fact, to this day Jewish fathers are required to bring their sons into their faith via circumcision, or brit milah). However, if I read your post correctly, you seem to be saying that Paul attributes this new covenant with God to man’s ability to “cognitively agree.” In other words, what Paul is teaching the Colossians is that cognition is required for the new covenant, and therefore infants (and anyone else who lacks cognition) are to be excluded from this covenant. This is a gross misrepresentation of Paul’s theology. We don’t deserve ANY credit for this new covenant with God. And if you think you deserve credit for reaching a certain age or “cognitively agreeing” to wade into a baptismal pool then I sincerely ask that you re-read the text of Paul’s letters, and ask the Holy Spirit for guidance on the matter.

 

[Ubenedictus]

Jharek is correct on all points except my gender

wow! I alway thought you were a she, cat sounds like ‘she’.
Ubenedictus

 

[stewstew03]

actually it merely eliminates a win for the opponents on the basis of “if it ain’t expressly endorsed in scripture, then it ain’t permitted.”

I don’t see “altar call” expressly endorsed in scripture, so it’s not permitted?

It makes the playing field, as far as scripture goes is somewhat level.

Actually, it’s not a level playing field at all. It’s mere speculation to assume that children or infants were not baptized because you would have to add a qualifier to the text. In other words, you’d have to read “she was baptized with her household… except for any children.” Household means “family.” It’s not conjecture to assume that “family” includes children, but one would have to look for more evidence to assume that the word family excluded any children. That’s why when opponents of infant baptism debate this issue, they never cite the verses in Acts to bolster their case; that doesn’t mean they can’t argue against it, but those verses certainly work in favor of proponents of infant baptism.

 

[1voice]

1voice:

Jesus said,
He who believes and is baptized shall be saved
… Mark 16:16

That is not what I asked you. Show me one verse clearly showing a young child making a conscious decision to be baptized? No where does the above mention the age of an individual. Pure conjecture on your part.

You are setting up a scenario that there is no evidence to support ( Can you point out a place in the Bible where young children are specifically discussed in regard to Baptism?) and then you are asking me to prove that your conclusion (based on your false scenario) is not valid.

In the Bible … a conscious decision … as well as the faith of the individual is included as part of the definition of baptism. When John the Baptist was baptizing … he clearly stated that a choice/ decision was integral to the process.

Jesus clearly stated: He who believes … and is baptized … shall be saved.
…

 

[stewstew03]

I’m sure your reference to “snake handlers” was not meant in any disparaging way…however I can only guess at the “flack” a Protestant would get if they sought to mention Catholics who walk on their knees on broken glass into church or get crucified on Good Friday as somehow…‘normative’ of Catholic belief…just thought I’d mention these few “less than charitable” characterizations to some of your points…I was just curious as to why you used them…I must confess…didn’t really pay too much more attention to your post after I read “cracker” and “snake handling”…just felt I “knew” where your comments were going and in what 'vein" they were offered after that…forgive me if I was incorrect in my assumptions.

Publisher, I believe the point LittleSoldier was making was that, in light of the many different Protestant denominations, there seem to be very few practices that are normative in the Protestant tradition. He was using snake handling as an example to illustrate this point.

 

[Publisher]

Publisher, I believe the point LittleSoldier was making was that, in light of the many different Protestant denominations, there seem to be very few practices that are normative in the Protestant tradition. He was using snake handling as an example to illustrate this point.

Yet we know “snake handling” is not “normative” by any stretch of the imagination was my point…no more than “walking on one’s knees in glass” or being crucified on Good Friday for Catholics…

 

[stewstew03]

Yet we know “snake handling” is not “normative” by any stretch of the imagination was my point…no more than “walking on one’s knees in glass” or being crucified on Good Friday for Catholics…

Right - that’s why it helps illustrate his point.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Question Little Soldier…since you reference “crackers” as being part of “Protestant communion”…am I to understand that crackers could not be used to confect the eucharist by a priest? Far be it from me to “guess” what you were trying to imply by using the word “cracker” instead of simply using “bread and wine” as a memorial rememberance…just wondering as I felt it was not meant as a “charitable” use of “cracker”…but somehow disparaging? I have no dog in this fight…just was wondering.

Here you go again; putting all Protestant denominations into one category. I did not say that part of “Protestant communion” is using crackers. What I said was that some Protestant denominations teach that Communion is simply bread (or crackers) and wine (or grape juice) that represents the Body and Blood of Jesus. I didn’t even say they *used *them themselves. You have mischaracterized my position (more on that later).

I will have to assume that you are referring to a Catholic priest in your first sentence as you did not specify (please correct me if I am wrong). The ingredients in the host as used by Catholic priests (before the host is transformed into the Body and Blood of Jesus) are specific. I should have stated “store crackers” or “saltines” instead of using the more general term “cracker.” I apologize for that. However, I thought it was obvious that I was using my statement about crackers and grape juice in order to show the differences between Protestant denominations. It was not meant to be uncharitable in any way or sense. What did I say that was disparaging? I merely noted the practice. It is you who seem to be saying those practices are wrong - I never said they were.

I hope this answers your question.

To friend Ryan’s point…simplifying does help sometimes…

I believe I used the term “over-simplifying.” I just checked and yes - that is the word I used. There is a major difference between the two words. They are not synonyms.

I’m sure your reference to “snake handlers” was not meant in any disparaging way.

You’re right. Again, it was used to show that there are differences between different Protestant denominations.

…however I can only guess at the “flack” a Protestant would get if they sought to mention Catholics who walk on their knees on broken glass into church or get crucified on Good Friday as somehow…‘normative’ of Catholic belief…just thought I’d mention these few “less than charitable” characterizations to some of your points…I was just curious as to why you used them…I must confess…didn’t really pay too much more attention to your post after I read “cracker” and “snake handling”…just felt I “knew” where your comments were going and in what 'vein" they were offered after that…forgive me if I was incorrect in my assumptions.

And now you directly accuse me of posting “‘less than charitable’ characterizations.” I did not do so. I never said anything about anyone who walks on his/her knees on broken glass into church or who is crucified on Good Friday. And I would not give a Protestant (of any denomination) “flack” for mentioning Catholics who walk on their knees on broken glass into church or who are crucified on Good Friday. Are you saying that *Christians *who handle snakes are somehow deficient in their faith? I never said or implied *any *such thing and any “uncharitable” remarks you are implying I may have made must have originated in your mind - not mine. I used the examples to show why your putting all Protestants into one category is confusing me and I asked for clarification. Here are my exact words:

“As far as I know there really is no ‘Protestant’ way or claim or whatever. And so I am again confused and wonder why you seem to be putting all Protestant denominations in one basket, so to speak. I would like to know why you do this. It would help me in my understanding of Protestantism.”

There are major differences between Protestant denominations and my examples show that.

That was my purpose. You, however, continue to place all Protestants into one category. And I find that both uncharitable and disingenuous and I believe you have introduced a straw man - you have mischaracterized my position and are attacking the mischaracterization.

You have also skirted the issue I brought up - that you place all Protestants into one category. Will you please address that issue? Thank you.

Oh - you *were *incorrect in your assumptions.

And I forgive you.

 

[stewstew03]

1voice:

Jesus said,
He who believes and is baptized shall be saved
… Mark 16:16

You are setting up a scenario that there is no evidence to support ( Can you point out a place in the Bible where young children are specifically discussed in regard to Baptism?) and then you are asking me to prove that your conclusion (based on your false scenario) is not valid.

In the Bible … a conscious decision … as well as the faith of the individual is included as part of the definition of baptism. When John the Baptist was baptizing … he clearly stated that a choice/ decision was integral to the process.

Jesus clearly stated: He who believes … and is baptized … shall be saved.
…

Again, you are giving too much credit to man’s cognitive ability - as if to say man’s cognition seals his New Covenant with God.

Furthermore, we can presume “household” or “family” includes children (though I admit this is a rebuttable presumption). However, it’s wild speculation to assume that those terms exclude children unless we have more evidence.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Publisher, I believe the point LittleSoldier was making was that, in light of the many different Protestant denominations, there seem to be very few practices that are normative in the Protestant tradition. He was using snake handling as an example to illustrate this point.

Thank you. I was trying to show that different Protestant denominations have different practices and teachings and therefore, it is confusing when all Protestant denominations are put into one category and claims of the “Protestant” position are made.

 

[1voice]

Please provide chapter and verse where Christ was baptized by total immersion?

Matthew

Matthew 3:16 (KJV) And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

Paul said that through baptism we participate in Jesus burial and resurrection.

The Greek defines the word baptize, as used in the New Testament to indicate immersion.

 

[1voice]

Again, you are giving too much credit to man’s cognitive ability - as if to say man’s cognition seals his New Covenant with God.

Furthermore, we can presume “household” or “family” includes children (though I admit this is a rebuttable presumption). However, it’s wild speculation to assume that those terms exclude children unless we have more evidence.

You are the one making the assumption.
What is factual is what the Bible clearly states … a conscious decision is part of the definition of baptism.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Yet we know “snake handling” is not “normative” by any stretch of the imagination was my point…no more than “walking on one’s knees in glass” or being crucified on Good Friday for Catholics…

Does a Protestant denomination use snake handling? If so it shows that putting all Protestant denominations into one category (which you do an awful lot) is inappropriate and confusing.

And that is *my *point.

 

[Publisher]

Here you go again; putting all Protestant denominations into one category. I did not say that part of “Protestant communion” is using crackers. What I said was that some Protestant denominations teach that Communion is simply bread (or crackers) and wine (or grape juice) that represents the Body and Blood of Jesus. I didn’t even say they *used *them themselves. You have mischaracterized my position (more on that later).

I will have to assume that you are referring to a Catholic priest in your first sentence as you did not specify (please correct me if I am wrong). The ingredients in the host as used by Catholic priests (before the host is transformed into the Body and Blood of Jesus) are specific I should have stated “store crackers” or “saltines” instead of using the more general term “cracker.” I apologize for that. However, I thought it was obvious that I was using my statement about crackers and grape juice in order to show the differences between Protestant denominations. It was not meant to be uncharitable in any way or sense. What did I say that was disparaging? I merely noted the practice. It is you who seem to be saying those practices are wrong - I never said they were.

I hope this answers your question.
I believe I used the term “over-simplifying.” I just checked and yes - that is the word I used. There is a major difference between the two words. They are not synonyms.
You’re right. Again, it was used to show that there are differences between different Protestant denominations.And now you directly accuse me of posting “‘less than charitable’ characterizations.” I did not do so. I never said anything about anyone who walks on his/her knees on broken glass into church or who is crucified on Good Friday. And I would not give a Protestant (of any denomination) “flack” for mentioning Catholics who walk on their knees on broken glass into church or who are crucified on Good Friday. Are you saying that *Christians *who handle snakes are somehow deficient in their faith? I never said or implied *any *such thing and any “uncharitable” remarks you are implying I may have made must have originated in your mind - not mine. I used the examples to show why your putting all Protestants into one category is confusing me and I asked for clarification. Here are my exact words:

“As far as I know there really is no ‘Protestant’ way or claim or whatever. And so I am again confused and wonder why you seem to be putting all Protestant denominations in one basket, so to speak. I would like to know why you do this. It would help me in my understanding of Protestantism.”

There are major differences between Protestant denominations and my examples show that.

That was my purpose. You, however, continue to place all Protestants into one category. And I find that both uncharitable and disingenuous and I believe you have introduced a straw man - you have mischaracterized my position and are attacking the mischaracterization.

You have also skirted the issue I brought up - that you place all Protestants into one category. Will you please address that issue? Thank you.

Because there is a distinct difference between most Protestant views of “church” and Catholic view of “church”…most of us…Protestants…can worship with our brothers and sisters…including Catholics… and embrace them as members of His Church…“denomination” does not mean “different churches” since there is only One Church…Catholics don’t acknowledge that point in Protestant thought…for most Protestants…the denomination we attend is is not “the Church” but merely the organization through which various members of The Chruch operates and works…we believe we ARE members of His One Church…which comprises all who have entered into relationship with Him and received forgiveness of sin…in that One Church we include Catholics, Orthodox, Coptics as well as most Protestants.

You would find some Protestants…just as you will Catholics who do not believe some of us who confess Christ are “Christians”…our “differences” aren’t as important to us as they are to you…so we can view one another as members of His Church without focusing on what denomination we belong to…and worship together…there are those Protestants that deny “open communion”…but most Protestants don’t make it an issue.

 

[stewstew03]

You are the one making the assumption.

Such as…?

The Bible clearly states that a conscious decision is part of the definition

Okay, and if my household is baptized, then I have made a conscious decision to baptize my children. [Cf., Acts 16:15, 31, & 33; 1 Cor 1:16]

 

[Nicea325]

1voice:

You are setting up a scenario that there is no evidence to support.

Exactly! Therefore your argument that one MUST make a sound-conscious decision does not hold water as being the ONLY acceptable method. More important, apparently you are not aware the first converts were adults,thus no cradle Christians existed,but it does not prove it is the only way of receiving baptism. You are merely assuming because no where does Scripture say it is the ONLY method.

Can you point out a place in the Bible where young children are specifically discussed in regard to Baptism?

St.Paul mentions baptizing entire households. Does it mean households exlcuded infants and young children? Yes he does not mention there specific ages,but it is implicit. Likewise,Paul never says he only baptized those who made a conscious decision.

and then you are asking me to prove that your conclusion (based on your false scenario) is not valid.

False? Why? Because it now contradicts your own argument as being the only acceptable method?

In the Bible … a conscious decision … as well as the faith of the individual is included as part of the definition of baptism.

Yes…because again,the first converts were adults. If you truly believe baptism only is received by conscious decision…then odd that no where is it displayed by young children making a conscious-decision to be baptized. You claim it is included as part of the definition of baptism?

When John the Baptist was baptizing … he clearly stated that a choice/ decision was integral to the process.

Yes,but no where does he state those no capable of using reason are to be rejected. You are merely restricting to intelligence and no other means.

Jesus clearly stated: He who believes … and is baptized … shall be saved.

Okay…and? Did million of Jewish boys at 8 days have the intelligence to know and understand circumcision?

 

[stewstew03]

…our “differences” aren’t as important to us as they are to you…so we can view one another as members of His Church without focusing on what denomination we belong to…and worship together…there are those Protestants that deny “open communion”…but most Protestants don’t make it an issue.

Seems to me those differences are very important to Protestants. They are important enough to establish new churches/denominations to carry out that distinction anyway. If Southern Baptists worshiped with Lutherans, or if Calvinists worshiped with Seventh Day Adventists, etc., then I could take your point more seriously; since they don’t, I cannot.

 

[Nicea325]

Seems to me those differences are very important to Protestants. They are important enough to establish new churches/denominations to carry out that distinction anyway. If Southern Baptists worshiped with Lutherans, or if Calvinists worshiped with Seventh Day Adventists, etc., then I could take your point more seriously; since they don’t, I cannot.

That is something I have never understood from non-Catholics. If their differences are not very important as many claim, then it begs the question:

Then why found new and separate denominations? Why the need or reason to branch off?

 

[Publisher]

Seems to me those differences are very important to Protestants. They are important enough to establish new churches/denominations to carry out that distinction anyway. If Southern Baptists worshiped with Lutherans, or if Calvinists worshiped with Seventh Day Adventists, etc., then I could take your point more seriously; since they don’t, I cannot.

It may seem so more to an “outsider”…as a Friend I have never undergone the outward ritual of water baptism…YET…I have filled in as interim pastor in a Mennonite Brethren church…as well as a Nazarene church. I have served communion in a Methodist church and Episcopal church I attended when a Friends meeting wasn’t within a reasonable driving distance. I have taught Sunday School at a Christian and Missionary Alliance…as well as Free Will Baptist. …yet all these denominations practice water baptism…and while I could not formally be placed on the rolls of a Mennonite Brethren fellowship as I have never received water baptism…I have worshipped, taught, prayed, and served along side of them…not as a Friend…but as a Christian.

Some of us kneel…some of us stand…some of us use liturgy…others use order of service…in Christ we are one…and members of One Church…denominational preference and practice does vary…but the name on the sign outside of the building isn’t as important as the Name we meet together in…He is there in our midst…He is our Unity in the Holy Spirit.

 

[Publisher]

That is something I have never understood from non-Catholics. If their differences are not very important as many claim, then it begs the question:

Then why found new and separate denominations? Why the need or reason to branch off?

Some reasons have to do with congregational policy…some have to to with a point of doctrine that a group feels needs to be more in the forefront…some has to do with ministry…Methodists and Salvation Army was formed to work among the poor…Nazarenes and Weslyan Holiness groups felt the distinct and second work of grace of entire santification was not being taught as much as it should have been…Friends were formed when a more simple life of personal holiness and service was found lacking in the established fellowships of the day.

Even Friends have faced our divisions…when doctrine became more important than individuals and personal holiness of life…and slowly our divisions are healing…and we found a point where we could join…all Friends…very liberal to very conservative meet and work together under the banner of American Friends Service Committee…when we return home…we attend those meetings we came from…some to pastoral Friends church to non-programmed Friends meetings…in service we find unity…Margaret Fell Fox said “Doctrine divides…service unites”…and it certainly has been found true among Friends…

Some of us feel a need to separate ourselves from one another becasue we find a practice or “disipline” that speaks to the lives of some…some Mennonites have separate denominations becasue of national orign…Mennonite Brethren tend to be very evangelical…and have their historical foundations in Russia…while Mennonite Church USA remains separate…they work together in service through Mennonite Central Committee.

The need to conform to each others practice and congregational policy isn’t as important to us as it may be to you…but we still offer the “right hand of fellowship” just the same…they sitll are One with us in Christ…it’s not the church organizations the Church works through that makes us one…it is Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit that join us together.