Protestants, when did the Catholic Church go bad?

[1voice]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1voice
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.

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.”

 

[Cat_Herder]

Quote:

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.”

Then why are you requiring anything of them, like cognitive choice, before they can inherit the kingdom? Doesn’t this indicate that your interpretation of the other scriptures is fatally flawed?

Why are you putting conditions, like cognition, on God’s grace anyway?

 

[1voice]

Then why are you requiring anything of them, like cognitive choice, before they can inherit the kingdom?

I never said, nor do I agree with, any of what you assume here… The scriptures that I quoted in which Jesus and Peter described the requirements that bring people into God’s Kingdom were directed at people that could understand … the infants and young children that Jesus referred to in the story that I quoted … do not have that capacity.

… and the scripture that I quoted showed that Jesus clearly understood the hearts of the children that he had created … and treated them accordingly.

Doesn’t this indicate that your interpretation of the other scriptures is fatally flawed?

I didnt interpret anything. The words I quoted are very clear and stand on their own. The Bible never contradicts itself.

Why are you putting conditions, like cognition, on God’s grace anyway?

I am not the author of the Bible.
I simply quoted Jesus and Peter.

 

[stewstew03]

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.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I never said, nor do I agree with, any of what you assume here… The scriptures that I quoted in which Jesus and Peter described the requirements that bring people into God’s Kingdom were directed at people that could understand … the infants and young children that Jesus referred to in the story that I quoted … do not have that capacity.

… and the scripture that I quoted showed that Jesus clearly understood the hearts of the children that he had created … and treated them accordingly.

I didnt interpret anything. The words I quoted are very clear and stand on their own. The Bible never contradicts itself.

I am not the author of the Bible.
I simply quoted Jesus and Peter.

Then your interpretation that there is a condition of cognition on receiving Grace is wrong, because the Bible is clear that grace is unmerited favor, won for us on Calvary, that we cannot do anything to merit or earn.

 

[Publisher]

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:

LOL Sister then.

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

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.

No where in Matthew,Mark, or Luke does it state that Christ was Baptized by immersion or that it is the only valid method! Sorry but you are in error!

Matthew

 

[1voice]

Then your interpretation that there is a condition of cognition on receiving Grace is wrong, because the Bible is clear that grace is unmerited favor, won for us on Calvary, that we cannot do anything to merit or earn.

Cognition was not involved? … when the people were “pierced to the heart” and then asked “What must we do” after Peter, by the Holy Spirit showed them to be sinners, separated from God … in Acts 2:38 ?

 

[1voice]

No where in Matthew,Mark, or Luke does it state that Christ was Baptized by immersion

As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove.
Mark 1:10

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove.
Mark 1:10

Please show me The Chapter and Verse that states Christ was Baptized by immersion!
Please show me anywhere in the Bible that immersion is the only valid method?
Your statement shows NOTHING about immersion.

Matthew

 

[1voice]

Please show me The Chapter and Verse that states Christ was Baptized by immersion!

Matthew

“Jesus came up out of the water”

But he was not ** in ** the water?

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

“Jesus came up out of the water”

But he was not ** in** the water?

Just because he came out of the water does mean he was under it!
Again please SHOW me the chapter and verse WHERE CHRIST was Baptized by
total immersion? and that it is the ONLY VALID method!

Matthew

 

[Nicea325]

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.

No 1voice…it is you alone placing words in the mouth of God. You are merely finding excuses to avoid the issue at hand. Show me ONE verse stating full immersion is the ONLY valid method? You have yet to show me a single verse. These are words:

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.

*1voice:

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.

Okay which begs the question:

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?

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

 

[Nicea325]

“Jesus came up out of the water”

But he was not ** in** the water?

You know for a fact he was completely immersed-full body in the water? Where does it say he was completely immersed? It is not possible he could have been knee-high in water and merely dipped his head only?

 

[Radical]

Households can include children, or not, or they can include pets or slaves, etc.

not sure about the pets…otherwise you are golden

Earlier you said that because we cannot know, the field was level.

first, it was “somewhat level”

Now you seem to have convinced yourself that you can know, and that the playing field is in your favor.

yep, if it is other than perfectly level, then the incline is in my favor (IMHO)

My point was that the two assumptions about the word “household” were not equivalent.

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’s more likely that the term includes children than does not include children.

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

However, it can be assumed that Lydia’s house included children, and feel that’s a stronger argument than the contrary.

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.

Ignatius actually said, “I greet the households of my brothers with the wives and children.” How does his statement help your argument?

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.

A coherent argument from you would go a long way toward advancing the dialogue

chew on the above.

 

[Nicea325]

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.

And all of your above statement has proven what? The bolded sentence related to the first converts who were adults…swallow that fact!

BTW: Radical whenever you have the couarge to stop dancing and stop presenting absurd rebuttals and excuses,let me know when you can present ONE ECF teaching the RP as heretical or usurpation against Christ. It has been months Radical and still no empirical evidence from you proving your novelty of a symbolic Eucharist being taught by most EFC’s.

 

[1voice]

Just because he came out of the water does mean he was under it!

The word baptize is taken directly from the Greek… there was no english equivalent. Therefore It was not translated … it is transliterated… that is … taken directly from the original language.

BAPTIZO – STRONG’S GREEK DICTIONARY, 907
baptizw baptizo bap-tid’-zo

1. to immerse, submerge;
2. to make whelmed (i.e. fully wet)

---

The Original Greek is never translated “sprinkle” (Ψεκάστε - in the Greek) or “pour” ( Σερβίρετε - in the Greek) … The word sprinkle is not found in the New Testament.

---

Paul describes the act of baptism as participating in Jesus burial and resurrection … When something is buried it is completely covered…

“We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.”
Romans 6:4

“Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.”
Colossians 2:12

“Baptize” is an untranslated word. The Greek term baptizo was simply brought into the English, without translation. The final “o” (omega) was dropped and the English “e” was added to give us the English verb “baptize.” In the case of the Greek baptisma, the final “a” (alpha) was dropped to give us the English noun “baptism.” Therefore, instead of trying to discover the meaning of the English terms—“baptize” and “baptism”—we need to discover the meaning of the Greek terms baptizo and baptisma (and the related baptismos).

From the hundreds of known appearances in ancient times, the ground-idea expressed by forms of baptizo is to "put into or under water (or some other penetrable substance) in such a way as to immerse or submerge. "This act is always expressed in the literal application of the word, and is the basis of its metaphorical uses. Instances were drawn from writers in almost every area of literature and science; from poets, rhetoricians, philosophers, critics, historians, geographers; from writers on animal husbandry, on medicine, on natural history, on grammar, on theology; from almost every form and style of composition; from authors of various nations and religions - pagan, Jewish, and “Christian” - over several centuries. Baptizo retained its central meaning without change from the earliest age of Greek literature for the next two thousand years! The burden of proof is upon someone else to find a single occurrence where the word has any other meaning!! So, there is NO example in any portion of all Greek literature where baptizo (or its related forms) signifies a partial application of water by effusion (pouring) or sprinkling.

clearviewbaptist.us/faith/Baptize.htm

truediscipleship.org/bsub/subjects48.htm

theexaminer.org/volume4/number5/immerse.htm

 

[JustaServant]

Itwin, please study these verses in conjuction with the early church:

Genesis 17
1And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

2And I will **make my covenant **between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.

7And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee **in their generations **for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

10This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; **Every man child among you shall be circumcised. **
11And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

12And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

13He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

23And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham’s house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.

27And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him.

Genesis 21:4
4And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac being eight days old, as God had commanded him.

Colossians 2
11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

13And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Acts 16:15 (King James Version)

15And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

1 Corinthians 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

Acts 2:

38
Peter (said) to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39
For the promise is made **to you and to your children **and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.”

Baptism is the New Testament circumcision of the New Covenant (Jer.31). Even if you ignore the word ‘household’, I can’t see how anyone can get past Colossians./

 

[Nicea325]

The word baptize is taken directly from the Greek… there was no english equivalent. Therefore It was not translated … it is transliterated… that is … taken directly from the original language.

BAPTIZO – STRONG’S GREEK DICTIONARY, 907
baptizw baptizo bap-tid’-zo

1. to immerse, submerge;
2. to make whelmed (i.e. fully wet)

---

The Original Greek is never translated “sprinkle” (Ψεκάστε - in the Greek) or “pour” ( Σερβίρετε - in the Greek) … The word sprinkle is not found in the New Testament.

---

Paul describes the act of baptism as participating in Jesus burial and resurrection … When something is buried it is completely covered…

“We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.”
Romans 6:4

“Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.”
Colossians 2:12

“Baptize” is an untranslated word. The Greek term baptizo was simply brought into the English, without translation. The final “o” (omega) was dropped and the English “e” was added to give us the English verb “baptize.” In the case of the Greek baptisma, the final “a” (alpha) was dropped to give us the English noun “baptism.” Therefore, instead of trying to discover the meaning of the English terms—“baptize” and “baptism”—we need to discover the meaning of the Greek terms baptizo and baptisma (and the related baptismos).

From the hundreds of known appearances in ancient times, the ground-idea expressed by forms of baptizo is to "put into or under water (or some other penetrable substance) in such a way as to immerse or submerge. "This act is always expressed in the literal application of the word, and is the basis of its metaphorical uses. Instances were drawn from writers in almost every area of literature and science; from poets, rhetoricians, philosophers, critics, historians, geographers; from writers on animal husbandry, on medicine, on natural history, on grammar, on theology; from almost every form and style of composition; from authors of various nations and religions - pagan, Jewish, and “Christian” - over several centuries. Baptizo retained its central meaning without change from the earliest age of Greek literature for the next two thousand years! The burden of proof is upon someone else to find a single occurrence where the word has any other meaning!! So, there is NO example in any portion of all Greek literature where baptizo (or its related forms) signifies a partial application of water by effusion (pouring) or sprinkling.

clearviewbaptist.us/faith/Baptize.htm

truediscipleship.org/bsub/subjects48.htm

theexaminer.org/volume4/number5/immerse.htm

To bad no where does it Jesus was FULLY immersed. Chapter and verse…please?

Show me ONE verse stating full immersion is the ONLY valid method? You have yet to show me a single verse. These are your words:

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.

1voice:
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.

Okay which begs the question:

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?

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

 

[1voice]

Itwin, please study these verses in conjuction with the early church:

Genesis 17
1And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

2And I will **make my covenant **between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.

7And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee **in their generations **for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

10This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; **Every man child among you shall be circumcised. **
11And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

12And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

13He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

23And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham’s house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.

27And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him.

Genesis 21:4
4And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac being eight days old, as God had commanded him.

Colossians 2
11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

13And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Acts 16:15 (King James Version)

15And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

1 Corinthians 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

Acts 2:

38
Peter (said) to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39
For the promise is made **to you and to your children **and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.”

Baptism is the New Testament circumcision of the New Covenant (Jer.31). Even if you ignore the word ‘household’, I can’t see how anyone can get past Colossians./

You are adding an argument that Paul himself did not make in the text.

Paul was talking about two completely different physical signs instituted by God. He used circumcision to clarify what happens inside when a person is baptized… he was using that which was familiar to people in order to clarify that which was new and unfamiliar. Thats as far as he goes with the analogy/ comparison. The text does not indicate that Paul was establishing the rules that governed the process. Jesus and Peter (at Pentecost) had already done that. Paul was focused on what actually happens inside a person when they choose to be baptized.

Circumcision was certainly intended to remove the source of corruption as Paul describes in Col 2:11

That is the focus of his comparison. Not the age of the person being circumcised. If both acts are the same in the particulars … as you argue above … then males are the only ones that are to be baptized. Yet we clearly know that is not what Paul implied.

Paul did not talk about age or gender because that was not his focus either … his focus is the corruption of the sinful nature being put off through baptism and compared it to the physical corruption removed by circumcision.

The other quotes of Jesus and Peter that I posted earlier provide the instructions on how to participate in the “spiritual circumcision” by a cognitive choice to repent and be baptized.