Protestants, when did the Catholic Church go bad?

[graceandfaith]

You folks ask me for Biblical evidence … and one of you even rejected the dictionary. Yet you readily go to outside sources.

The Didache is not an outside source. It is a document from the Apostolic Age. Written around 90-100 AD. It was an extremely important document for the Early Church fathers. It reinforces Catholic doctrines to this day. It was widely used until the Canon of Scripture was officially compiled in the 5th century.

 

[LittleSoldier]

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?

I don’t understand it either.

 

[graceandfaith]

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?

Therein lies the problem! Allowing everyone to read Scripture and interpret it him/herself leads to vastly different interpretations! I leave the interpreting up to those who are schooled in history, theology, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Church history.

As a former Protestant, I know all to well what the Reformation splits have done to Christianity. The Church has greatly suffered due to the innumberable amount of splits that have taken place since Martin Luter, Zwigli, and Calvin. I encourage everyone to read early church documents such as the Diache! It is so important to know what the Early Church believed, taught, and in many cases died for! They did not die so that the Church would remain splintered with beliefs and practices going every which way. Christ said he would preserve His Church! I believe what He said!

 

[Publisher]

I don’t understand it either.

Yet from my side of the fence…I wonder WHY it’s such an issue since most of us who are Protestants simply do not believe we are members of a “different church”…we are members of One Church made perfect in Christ…“a glorious church without spot or wrinkle”…it boils down again to the defintion of what constitutes “Church”…and it’s that definition of which we disagree.

 

[LittleSoldier]

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.

And Catholics are “outsiders?”

 

[LittleSoldier]

You folks ask me for Biblical evidence … and one of you even rejected the dictionary. Yet you readily go to outside sources.

If you are referring to me as the one who rejected the dictionary, I merely said that it was not an official Church document. And it isn’t.

 

[Publisher]

And Catholics are “outsiders?”

Not to me you’re not…to me you’re my brother in Christ and we are members of the same Church…“outsiders” in regard to Protestant thought and practice…my “circle” encompasses you completely as a full member of Christ’s Church by virtue of the One Baptism by His Holy Spirit…through which we are baptized into His Body…there are no “outsiders” in God’s Family…but then…you know that.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

Answering some back and forth multi quotes: Kathryn’s responses in blue.

“for clarity I think it to be a Christian Church, just not the one true Church.”

---

For clarity, it is The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

“well since you asked, here is my opinion: I don’t think that you can draw a clear line as the error is quite varied. There is nothing wrong with the mid 2nd century view of Mary as the new Eve, but there is most certainly something wrong with the elevation of Mary to sinless, co-mediatrix.”

****Thousands of years of Church tradition disagree with the above opinion

“Another example would be the elevation of the bishop to a monarchical position. That seemed to start about the time of Ignatius, but it wasn’t the situation throughout the empire at that time. Ignatius’ insistence on the centrality/necessity of the bishop may have even been a practical and good solution to battle heresy, but to make it the required form of Church governance for all time is just wrong. From there, the situation wrt a ministerial clergy just seemed to get worse (in some regards). The view of the Lord’s Supper went down the wrong path and as a result a priestly caste was needed to officiate (even though the term “priest” is essentially unused in the first two centuries of the Church wrt offices within the church). The more matters one considers, the more complicated the whole issue becomes.”

Read Hebrews: Speaking of Christ Himself: "He is a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek (7:1-29)

“If you are determined to have a time specified, then I would say that by the end of the second century the problems are well on their way and by the end of the 4th century they are pronounced (though the problems would continue to grow in size and number…perhaps Vatican II would represent a step back in the right direction). In any event, one could go on and on discussing the introduction of various errors and development of those errors into ever more serious errors, but it is impossible to say when such error achieved a critical mass.”

**And the thousands upon thousands of combined protestant and “New Age” belief systems that do not agree with each other, this is error at a critical mass. **

 

[Nicea325]

graceandfaith:
Therein lies the problem! Allowing everyone to read Scripture and interpret it him/herself leads to vastly different interpretations! I leave the interpreting up to those who are schooled in history, theology, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Church history.

As a former Protestant, I know all to well what the Reformation splits have done to Christianity. The Church has greatly suffered due to the innumberable amount of splits that have taken place since Martin Luter, Zwigli, and Calvin. I encourage everyone to read early church documents such as the Diache! It is so important to know what the Early Church believed, taught, and in many cases died for! They did not die so that the Church would remain splintered with beliefs and practices going every which way. Christ said he would preserve His Church! I believe what He said!

And that is the other issue: failure to study early church history and accepting it as Christian history.

 

[1voice]

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]

Well, given the choice between the facts as stated in the Bible…(without adding or subtracting) … and your conjecture… I choose Gods word as written. No offense.

You are making the assumption that there were children that could not decide for themselves.
You can do that if you choose. The Bible does not provide any evidence of your assumption.
It does, on the other hand, provide a specific definition of baptism. If you want to change the definition to fit your paradigm … you can do that as well. But facts are still facts.
I prefer to accept the specific, stated facts… not conjecture on your part.

 

[Cat_Herder]

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.
…

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.

You folks ask me for Biblical evidence … and one of you even rejected the dictionary. Yet you readily go to outside sources.

Either admit your position is that babies and children who lack cognitive ability are unsaved, or show us where in the Bible it says that they lose their salvation and become eligible for baptism once they hit some age.

 

[graceandfaith]

1voice,

Scripture does state that “entire families” or entire 'households" were baptized at a time. This insinuated that indeed children and infants were baptized. Whole families/households would consist not just adults…but children and infants as well.

Here is a link with Scripture and statements of early Chuch Fathers supporting Infant Baptism. biserica.org/Publicatii/2000/NoVII/XIV_index.html

Here is an article from Catholic Answers. It is a great article!

catholic.com/tracts/infant-baptism

 

[1voice]

Originally Posted by 1voice
You folks ask me for Biblical evidence … and one of you even rejected the dictionary. Yet you readily go to outside sources.

If you are referring to me as the one who rejected the dictionary, I merely said that it was not an official Church document. And it isn’t.

To me … that didnt matter … the point I was making was that some Catholics use the terms interchangeably and those that do so … know what the Catholic Sacrament is… and know exactly what each other is referring to.

 

[Nicea325]

Well, given the choice between the facts as stated in the Bible…(without adding or subtracting) … and your conjecture… I choose Gods word as written. No offense.

You are making the assumption that there were children that could not decide for themselves.
You can do that if you choose. The Bible does not provide any evidence of your assumption.
It does, on the other hand, provide a specific definition of baptism. If you want to change the definition to fit your paradigm … you can do that as well. But facts are still facts.
I prefer to accept the specific, stated facts… not conjecture on your part.

Conjecture? You wthout admiting it you are placing words in the mouth of God…no offense. Where does Jesus exclusively state or make reference: One must be capable of making a conscious-decision in order to be baptized? The 12 Apostles? St.Paul? Where is that the only norm or standard and all others are void?

Your position is also pure conjecture. NO WHERE in the Bible does it state baptism is **only administered **on mere means of a conscious-decision as you insist.

As I said in a previous reply,if it is absolute one must make a sound-decision in order to be baptised,then show us an example of one young child (ages 7-17 years) makes a decision to be baptized?

The Bible also provides no support for your restrictive belief on baptism. You follow a novel belief one must have some form of intelligence in order to be baptised.

BTW: You have not answered me.

Did millions of Jewish baby boys make a conscious-decision to be circumcised after 8 days?

 

[graceandfaith]

Good point Nicea.

How about mentally challenged individuals who will never have the capacity to profess and understand fully? Do we with-hold baptism from them because of their inability to “understand”. No! Baptism/Salvation is for all!

 

[Nicea325]

Good point Nicea.

How about mentally challenged individuals who will never have the capacity to profess and understand fully? Do we with-hold baptism from them because of their inability to “understand”. No! Baptism/Salvation is for all!

Exactly! Baptism is not exclusive for a few only or salvation. The belief one **must be able to **“comprehend” or be “accountable” is not Biblical at all or the ONLY standard practice in the early church. Can sound-minded adults decide? Yes. Some young folks? Yes Is it Biblical? Yes. Is it the only means or standard to hold? No.

 

[1voice]

Conjecture? You wthout admiting it you are placing words in the mouth of God…no offense. Where does Jesus exclusively state or make reference: One must be capable of making a conscious-decision in order to be baptized? The 12 Apostles? St.Paul? Where is that the only norm or standard and all others are void?

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.

 

[Cat_Herder]

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.

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.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Not to me you’re not…to me you’re my brother in Christ and we are members of the same Church…“outsiders” in regard to Protestant thought and practice…my “circle” encompasses you completely as a full member of Christ’s Church by virtue of the One Baptism by His Holy Spirit…through which we are baptized into His Body…there are no “outsiders” in God’s Family…but then…you know that.

Thank you; I have never meant to offend you. I understand what you mean by one Church and I agree.

One minor thing, though - I’m your *sister *in Christ. :curtsey:

 

[Radical]

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

I referred to the view that “if it ain’t expressly endorsed in scripture, then it ain’t permitted” being eliminated…with that view eliminated, how does your question make any sense at all?

]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.”

that qualifier would be necessary only if the household included children (which seems to be your unsupported assumption). Further, Ignatius uses phrases such as “I greet the household of X and her children”…which is kinda redundant if “households” automatically included kids. Given that, you might be right to say that the playing field isn’t level…but you are confused as to the direction of the incline.

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.

of course the word “family” can include infant children…it can also include dead grandparents. It is an assumption though, to assume that any particular household/family includes infant children or that an act done by a household would automatically invovle the infants and dead grandparents. It is also an assumption that by using the term “household” that the author was including the infant children (if such even existed). The word "household’ would have also included slaves, client freedmen and other relatives…(all if such existed and if the author thought that they were important enough that their mere existence necessitated their inclusion in the term).

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

certainly work? …when you must work off of tenuous assumptions it should tell you alot about the strength of your position…the simple fact is that “we cannot give the name of anyone before the fourth century not in an emergency situation who was baptized as an infant”… see E Ferguson, BAPTISM IN THE EARLY CHURCH p. 379 quoting Wright.