Protestants, when did the Catholic Church go bad?

[Nicea325]

nor does it say to baptize infants and other non-believers

Nor does it say NOT to baptize them. Your arguments are circular.

 

[Stilldreamn]

@radical

Would your church require a new member to be re-baptized if they had been baptized as an infant?

 

[Nicea325]

@radical

Would your church require a new member to be re-baptized if they had been baptized as an infant?

Re-baptism was hammered out centuries ago and declared wrong,re-baptizing someone has no real effect.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Radical,

Luke 3:21-22
Suitability has nothing to do with truth. It is at most inconclusive for children and infants. However a universal inclusion is favored over an interpreted exclusion.

Acts 10:47
Do you have proof that the Holy Spirit is not received by children and/or infants?
Can the Holy Spirit bring children and infants to the parents/clergy for baptism?
Can you forbid water to the child whose parents have been led by the Holy Spirit into baptism? Because it is not only the Catholic Church who baptizes children and infants. Do you have the authority to go against these Churches?
You can have all the personal interpretations you want. Authority to establish doctrine is a whole different story.

Acts 16:15-17

BTW thanks for including Acts 16:31

NKJV
Vv31 – So they said (to the keeper of the prison, who was by himself), “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
Again, a universal inclusion is favored over an interpreted exclusion. The same with
Lydia’s house.

Further, Paul and Silas clearly say that his belief goes beyond him alone and that it extends to his household. In vv33 it says that “… he and ALL his family were baptized.”
It is impossible for me to interpret a universal inclusion with a possible exclusion.

Also known as universal affirmative vs particular affirmative (The negatives don’t apply to this issue because there are no negatives given! Further support for the universal affirmative).

Now, can you clearly show where in the Bible it specifically says to NOT baptize children and infants?

Can you please provide evidence of how “the baptism of infants in the NT era extremely unlikely.” Not opinions or interpretations, but actual empirical evidence where the Apostles and their disciples did not baptize children and infants.

In Him.

 

[stewstew03]

In any event, I would suggest that one looks at the context.

You’re on the right track.

…the ability to repent would have been required.

For everyone? Any exceptions?

nor does it say to baptize infants and other non-believers

Nor does it say not to baptize infants. Is it your contention that infant baptism is prohibited?

One doesn’t preach to infants and infants don’t come to believe…

Right. Remember what you said about context? You’re weakening your own argument.

Luke expected his readers to employ common sense…

Luke expected his readers to understand baptism in the context of the Old Covenant (as Paul describes). So they would’ve understood that they were expected to bring their children up in the faith.

Returning to Acts 16:15-17 I had addressed that passage earlier in response to another poster.

That poster was me. And your response didn’t help you even when it was directed toward me.

You seem to be making two asssumptions. First, you are assuming that Lydia’s household included INFANT children (by “infant” I mean children who are too young to form a belief)…you need infant children to be present.

Second, you assume that Luke’s usage of “household being baptized” would have included infant children being baptized (and not meant those in the household who believed).

It’s a valid assumption based on early Christian history. What you’re assuming is just conjecture.

Let’s say that you put it at 75%…if that were the only assumption involved, then you would stand strong, but you require that second assumption.

This is conjecture, and is begging the question.

Ignatius wrote:
“I greet the households of my brothers with the wives and children.” How does this statement help your argument?

“I salute all by name, and in particular the wife of Epitropus, with all her house and children.”

How does this statement help your argument? Are you familiar with the fallacy of suppressed evidence?

IOW, just b/c infant children would be included within thje term “household” in some cases, it does not mean that they would be included in all cases.

Nobody has made this claim.

For example, in the NT, belief is very 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.

Again, you’re begging the question and making a hasty generalization. You don’t deny that it’s possible that the term “household” includes infants. Now you are presupposing that “in each case” baptism did not include infants.

B/c of that and b/c of statements such as “believed and were baptized” there could have been a tacit understanding (between Luke and his readers) that only believers would be included w/i those baptized.

At this point, you barely sound convinced of your own argument. “Could have been a tacit understanding…”?

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.

Huh?

That brings us to the usage of the term by Igantius. He seems to distinguish between “household” and wives and children.

Actually, no, he doesn’t seem to be making any distinction - he seems to be elaborating. You seem to be suggesting that wives and children weren’t part of the household.

As such, it would seem that we have a usage of “household” (by Ignatius) that does not necessarily include chlidren.

Hasty generalization.

Returning to Acts 16: 31-34 we see Luke stating that the whole household believed which means that either that household had no infants or Luke was using the term “household” in a manner that did not include “infants”.

False dichotomy. Either (1) the household had no infants, or (2) if it did, Luke wasn’t including them when he said “household”? Just so I understand what you’re saying, Luke intentionally withheld this information under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? This is not a serious argument.

As such, I wouldn’t agree with you that Luke’s use of “household” clearly supports the practice of infant baptism and I would assert that the strong connection between believing and baptism established by Luke (and the other NT writers) makes the baptism of infants in the NT era extremely unlikely.

Extremely unlikely? Hasty generalization. And you reach this conclusion despite the fact that early Christians practiced infant baptism…?

 

[Radical]

And how ironic how you have failed miserably to present ONE ECF explicitly teaching the RP of the Eucharist is heretical or a great usurpation of Christ.

you need to be more precise WRT what you mean by RP. Everett Ferguson described the presence at a Passover meal as follows:

The Passover meal commemorated the death of the firstborn of the Egyptians and the deliverance of the Israelites (Ex 12:14). More than that, it was a reliving in the present of those events, a bringing of them into the present so that those participating could think of themselves as experiencing the exodus. As the Mishnah put it, “In every generation a man must so regard himself as if he came forth himself out of Egypt (Pesahim 10.5). I consider Jesus’ words, “This is my body” (Mark 14:22), in the same way. The bread brings the body into the present. The presence is real, but not literal. The meaning of the event is made present once more. Similarly, the remembrance (anamnesis) of 1 Corinthians 11:24-25, according to the Jewish background, was neither simply mental recollection nor the actual repetition of something but the celebration of a past event in order to live in its experience and to participate in its redemptive qualities. The historical deliverance is unrepeatable, but its effects are reaffirmed.

One would be right in saying that it wasn’t mere symbolism, but it ain’t a real bodily presence…one might call it a real memorial presence. The early Lord’s Supper continued in the exact same vein and then Platonic philosophy was also added to the mix. With that philosophy true reality existed in the realm of ideals and the reality of the material world was downplayed. The reality of the thing could be identified with the power that it possessed rather than with its substance (to borrow an Aristotlean term)…as with the memorial presence, the presence was “Real”, but it surely wasn’t a real bodily presence. The term “Platonic Real Presence” would be appropriate. As explained to you before, the scholars that I have cited place the immergence of a “real bodily presence” with the 4th century Antiochean school.

Amazing nearly 1,000 years of great works and no mention of the RP being heretical and a false teaching?

well, right after the idea of a real bodily substance was introduced by the 4th century Antiochean school, we have a Pope and another Father stating that a change of substance does not take place (I have given you those quotes). As you know, I am convinced that Augustine didn’t believe in a real bodily presence and my position (as you also know) is backed up by world renowned scholars…specialists in Augustine. I note that in the 1000 years of great works we don’t have any condemnation of these three fellows who rejected a change in substance…

And you can stop using the cop-out excuse because it was not taught in the early church. If it was not taught as you claim,then back it up with empirical evidence.

The only way you can have it (a real bodily presence) taught in the early church before the 4th century is by blurring the proper distinction between a real memorial presence, a real Platonic presence and a real bodily presence.(sticking one’s head in the sand so as to avoid that real distinction looks like cop-out #1 from over here). It seems that you think that those three views are the same apart from a little “divinely inspired development”. (pretending that the differences can be legitimately explained as a deveolpment is a continuation of cop-out #1) Blurring the distinction is a means to read back one’s own view of a real bodily presence back into the first few centuries…but it is not legitimate. Your response to the scholars and analysis of Augustine that I have produced amounted to little more than muttering about revisionist history (cop-out #2 it would seem)…if you truly want to understand how the view of a real presence (not bodily) existed in a varied fashion in the early church you would have to study the matter in detail and not just look for what validates your preconceptions…I ain’t holding my breath.

 

[Cat_Herder]

you need to be more precise WRT what you mean by RP.

Either Christ is REALLY there or He isn’t.

Everett Ferguson described the presence at a Passover meal as follows:

This is backwards typology. God reveals Himself progressively through a series of expansive covenants with man. In each expansion, God becomes more present to man, culminating with the Incarnation, God actually becoming man. What you want to do is to hold that God becomes less present in the Eucharist (New Covenant) than He was in the Passover (Old Covenant), because the Passover had a real effect on the Jews who celebrated it–it actually spared them from death–and you would call the Eucharist only a symbol. You have it exactly backwards.

One would be right in saying that it wasn’t mere symbolism, but it ain’t a real bodily presence…one might call it a real memorial presence. The early Lord’s Supper continued in the exact same vein

[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 11:24-30[/BIBLEDRB]

well, right after the idea of a real bodily substance was introduced by the 4th century Antiochean school, we have a Pope and another Father stating that a change of substance does not take place (I have given you those quotes).

Not everything a Pope says necessarily involves the use of the infallible magisterium. Several bishops and saints denied the Immaculate Conception until it was finally and solemnly resolved to have been part of the original deposit of faith. It does not then follow that the IC is incorrect.

The only way you can have it (a real bodily presence) taught in the early church before the 4th century is by blurring the proper distinction between a real memorial presence, a real Platonic presence and a real bodily presence.(sticking one’s head in the sand so as to avoid that real distinction looks like cop-out #1 from over here).

If you want to engage in quote-mining and setting ECFs against the Catholic Church, you can do that until the cows come home, but it doesn’t make you correct. Paul’s admonition in 1 Corinthians, quoted above, is something that YOU stick your head in the sand about. Your going on about how the ECFs supposedly sparred over the Real Presence doesn’t change the fact that the Bible, which trumps all of them in antiquity, is crystal clear on the matter–because you can’t be guilty of murder by desecrating a mere memorial symbol.

 

[Radical]

Peace to you, Radical.

and to you

In the Catholic Church infants are baptised because the Sacrament confers grace upon the infant and removes Original Sin and the stain of Original Sin. We believe that baptism is so holy and sacred that all babies should receive the Sacrament. Their parents and godparents stand in for them.

understood…you know, if you and your church were correct on this matter, then Catholic babies should enjoy a distinct advantage over Baptist babies, b/c right out of the gate the Catholic babies would be freed from original sin (whereas the baptist babies would have to wait a decade or so). I would think that being thusly freed of original sin (such being no small matter) should manifest itself in an observable difference in behavior…after all, Paul wrote:

Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

…and you Catholics here seem to think that Paul has baptism (by itself) serving to cut off one’s sinful nature, just as circumcision cut off the foreskin. With the benefit of having had their sinful natures cut off by a Catholic infant baptism I would think that Catholics kids (as a whole) would be considerably less sinful than baptist children (who are still plagued by their sinful natures)…what do you think?..would a study show any actual benefit (in the real world) for infant baptism?

 

[Stilldreamn]

Re-baptism was hammered out centuries ago and declared wrong,re-baptizing someone has no real effect.

Since re-baptizing has no real effect, then the original baptism was effective? As an infant?

 

[Cat_Herder]

understood…you know, if you and your church were correct on this matter, then Catholic babies should enjoy a distinct advantage over Baptist babies, b/c right out of the gate the Catholic babies would be freed from original sin (whereas the baptist babies would have to wait a decade or so). I would think that being thusly freed of original sin (such being no small matter) should manifest itself in an observable difference in behavior…

You are confusing the guilt of original sin with concupiscence.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Since re-baptizing has no real effect, then the original baptism was effective? As an infant?

Why wouldn’t it?

As Roman Catholics we also practice the Sacrament of Confirmation

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a2.htm.

 

[Nicea325]

Since re-baptizing has no real effect, then the original baptism was effective? As an infant?

What logical & sacramental reason would make an infant’s baptism null or void?

 

[Nicea325]

you need to be more precise WRT what you mean by RP. Everett Ferguson described the presence at a Passover meal as follows:

The Passover meal commemorated the death of the firstborn of the Egyptians and the deliverance of the Israelites (Ex 12:14). More than that, it was a reliving in the present of those events, a bringing of them into the present so that those participating could think of themselves as experiencing the exodus. As the Mishnah put it, “In every generation a man must so regard himself as if he came forth himself out of Egypt (Pesahim 10.5). I consider Jesus’ words, “This is my body” (Mark 14:22), in the same way. The bread brings the body into the present. The presence is real, but not literal. The meaning of the event is made present once more. Similarly, the remembrance (anamnesis) of 1 Corinthians 11:24-25, according to the Jewish background, was neither simply mental recollection nor the actual repetition of something but the celebration of a past event in order to live in its experience and to participate in its redemptive qualities. The historical deliverance is unrepeatable, but its effects are reaffirmed.

One would be right in saying that it wasn’t mere symbolism, but it ain’t a real bodily presence…one might call it a real memorial presence. The early Lord’s Supper continued in the exact same vein and then Platonic philosophy was also added to the mix. With that philosophy true reality existed in the realm of ideals and the reality of the material world was downplayed. The reality of the thing could be identified with the power that it possessed rather than with its substance (to borrow an Aristotlean term)…as with the memorial presence, the presence was “Real”, but it surely wasn’t a real bodily presence. The term “Platonic Real Presence” would be appropriate. As explained to you before, the scholars that I have cited place the immergence of a “real bodily presence” with the 4th century Antiochean school.

well, right after the idea of a real bodily substance was introduced by the 4th century Antiochean school, we have a Pope and another Father stating that a change of substance does not take place (I have given you those quotes). As you know, I am convinced that Augustine didn’t believe in a real bodily presence and my position (as you also know) is backed up by world renowned scholars…specialists in Augustine. I note that in the 1000 years of great works we don’t have any condemnation of these three fellows who rejected a change in substance…

The only way you can have it (a real bodily presence) taught in the early church before the 4th century is by blurring the proper distinction between a real memorial presence, a real Platonic presence and a real bodily presence.(sticking one’s head in the sand so as to avoid that real distinction looks like cop-out #1 from over here). It seems that you think that those three views are the same apart from a little “divinely inspired development”. (pretending that the differences can be legitimately explained as a deveolpment is a continuation of cop-out #1) Blurring the distinction is a means to read back one’s own view of a real bodily presence back into the first few centuries…but it is not legitimate. Your response to the scholars and analysis of Augustine that I have produced amounted to little more than muttering about revisionist history (cop-out #2 it would seem)…if you truly want to understand how the view of a real presence (not bodily) existed in a varied fashion in the early church you would have to study the matter in detail and not just look for what validates your preconceptions…I ain’t holding my breath.

Yes that is right…REVISIONIST history…no matter what you say or present from your highly scholars who were not alive during the early church. All you ever use is St.Augustine and truly believe you have won the battle. Seriously? One ECF and that makes you correct? How lovely and all the same rhetoric from you. Cop-out # 1,000 from you. That is not what I asked from you. Frankly, I can care less what Everett Ferguson has to say, something ole revisionism of history. Is Everett a ECF? Far from it!

I’ll ask again:

Present to me ONE ECF explicitly teaching the RP of the Eucharist is heretical or a great usurpation of Christ. Can you do it Radical or will you continue to dance in your own denials?

It is truly amazing how the ECF were capable of fighting other heresies for centuries,but the something so unorthodox as the RP they are silent?

 

[stewstew03]

…right out of the gate the Catholic babies would be freed from original sin (whereas the baptist babies would have to wait a decade or so). I would think that being thusly freed of original sin (such being no small matter) should manifest itself in an observable difference in behavior…

Using your definition, baptist children (after age 10 or so) become considerably less sinful?

 

[Stilldreamn]

What logical & sacramental reason would make an infant’s baptism null or void?

My apologies to you and Isaiah - I personally have no doubts whatsoever about infant baptism, my remarks were directed to Radical, as his logic seemed confused (ie, infant baptism does nothing; but his church didn’t re-baptized older converts).

All 7 of our kids were baptized as infants.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

My apologies to you and Isaiah - I personally have no doubts whatsoever about infant baptism, my remarks were directed to Radical, as his logic seemed confused (ie, infant baptism does nothing; but his church didn’t re-baptized older converts).

All 7 of our kids were baptized as infants.

The peace of our Lord be with you.

All good Stilldreamn .

Sadly, Radical has no logic to sustain his interpretation.

In Him.

 

[Radical]

You are confusing the guilt of original sin with concupiscence

Interesting distinction to make…but I don’t see Paul making that distinction in Colossians (which was the passage under consideration). Here it is again (NJB):

In him you have been circumcised, with a circumcision performed, not by human hand, but by the complete stripping of your natural self. This is circumcision according to Christ.

You have been buried with him by your baptism; by which, too, you have been raised up with him **through your belief **in the power of God who raised him from the dead.

You were dead, because you were sinners and uncircumcised in body: he has brought you to life with him, he has forgiven us every one of our sins.

He has wiped out the record of our debt to the Law, which stood against us; he has destroyed it by nailing it to the cross;

emboldenment added by Radical

Now the Catholics around here want to to say that Paul was describing what baptism achieved (and not just what a believer’s baptism achieved, but what any Catholic baptism of an infant achieves). They do this b/c they want baptism to be the new circumcision, something that can be applied to infants as well. The clear involvment of belief (that I have already pointed out and which an infant wouldn’t be able to contribute) seems to rule out the inclusion of infant baptism. Further, how do you explain Paul’s claim of a “complete stripping of your natural self”?..how does that relate to the distinction that you hope to make between the guilt of original sin and concupiscence?

 

[Radical]

@radical

Would your church require a new member to be re-baptized if they had been baptized as an infant?

Require? No. Strongly encourage? Yes. Consider the Ethopian Eunuch and the joy he experienced with a believer’s baptism…why deprive any believer of that joyful experience?

 

[Radical]

St.Paul’s 1st epistle to the Corinthians10:2 and all were baptised in Moses
St.Paul’s epistle to the Hebrews 11:29 By faith they passed thorugh the Red Sea.

What the children went through the sea too! how could they they had no “faith”
All baptised in Moses??? ALL but how? children can’t…

did you think passing through the Red Sea was an actual baptism…and that Paul wasn’t speaking metaphorically?

The parent’s faith carried the children through the water…

legs and arms carried the kids…

…infant baptism can be supported by scripture.

almost anything can be supported by scripture…it is what can be legitimately supported that matters

disallowing the children to come to the kingdom is prohibited by Jesus himself.

I just don’t get how you Catholics keep missing this…there is so much that is wrong with the way you want to use that passage:

a) the kids weren’t baptized

b) those kids had acquired the kingdom of heaven

c) therefore baptism was not the means by which those kids obtained the kingdom of heaven

d) as such, the passage has nothing to do with infant baptism

e) the disciples were hindering the kids in coming to Christ…not “disallowing the children to come to the kingdom”…the kingdom already belonged to such as those

 

[Radical]

Now, can you clearly show where in the Bible it specifically says to NOT baptize children and infants?

you know, I can’t show where the Bible specifically says NOT to accept historicity of the Book of Mormon either.

Can you please provide evidence of how “the baptism of infants in the NT era extremely unlikely.” Not opinions or interpretations, but actual empirical evidence where the Apostles and their disciples did not baptize children and infants.

empirical eveidence? It seems that you are confusing the way that science is done with the way that history is done.