Question for all protestants

[PRmerger]

The fact is that infant baptism did not become a part of the Catholic church until the fourth century.

Source for this, please.

 

[PRmerger]

Wasn’t Jerome and Augustine Catholic?

I love that you acknowledge this, poco.

That’s a huge admission, vis a vis the Church being present from the earliest days, that the Church promoted Scripture, that the Church had the Eucharist, the sacraments, bishops…

(Things discussed by Sts. Jerome and Augustine)

Does your church have all the things that Jerome and Augustine mention?

 

[pocohombre]

I love that you acknowledge this, poco.

Your welcome. I acknowledge only that to you they are Catholics as in Roman, as I quess you agree they allowed freedom of thought on some topics, some interpretations for their time.

That’s a huge admission, vis a vis the Church being present from the earliest days, that the Church promoted Scripture, that the Church had the Eucharist, the sacraments, bishops…
(Things discussed by Sts. Jerome and Augustine)
Does your church have all the things that Jerome and Augustine mention?

Yes.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Scitor:

Catholics claim Peter was the first Pope and you mention the Early Church Fathers. If that is your basis, let’s use the earliest church fathers…the apostles and authors of the New Testament. There is no record of infant baptism from apostolic and post-apostolic writers. Please show me one example of infant baptism. It was Peter in the first sermon on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 says, “Repent and be baptized.” Infants cannot repent. In every example of baptism in the bible, baptism is preceded by belief in Christ and repentance.

"But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that “She was baptized, with her household” (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that “the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family” (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas” (1 Cor. 1:16). "

Are we to think that his whole household was adults? What about the fact that an INDIVIDUAL was evangelized and then went and that day his while family was baptized? His whole family…not one of them refused the gospel? Or were they baptized on the faith of the head if their household?

In Him [Jesus] you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead (Colossians 2:11-12).

Were only adults circumcised? Why did they not wait till the child was old enough to choose to enter God’s covenant ? Why use an example of circumcision if children were not in question?

The fact is the Bible does not tell us yes or no explicitly, so you imply one way and we another and this is why we need apostolic tradition to aid the interpretation.

As for your statement that it was not performed prior to the fourth century try these on for size.

• “He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Irenaeus - Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]). *

*“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (Hippolytus - The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]). *

*“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (Origen - Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]). *

*“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Origen - Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]). *

*“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Cyprian - Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]). *

*“If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” (ibid., 64:5). *

These are just some of the pre 300AD quotes. I can give you a tremendous amount more for the fourth century from many church fathers including Augustine.

 

[rinnie]

Your question comes down to one of “by who’s authority.” For high protestant churches this is probably not as big an issue as for fundamentalist. Fundamentalist will refer to scripture as the foundation and pillar of the truth. But what does scripture say? Read 1 Timothy 3:15. It states that the “church” is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Once one understands that the truth is entrusted to the church one must start asking “which church.” Remember all religious traditions, even non-Christian, contain some portion of the truth but one must search for the entire truth…

You are correct it does. And the Pope is who claims that authority. In MHO it should be a huge issue for everyone.

 

[rinnie]

First, given you are Catholic it is my assumption you believe the “Catholic” church was formed at the point when Christ said to Peter “on this rock I will build my church.” If this is the case you are incorrect in stating the Catholic church has been baptizing infants for 2000 years. The fact is that infant baptism did not become a part of the Catholic church until the fourth century. And if you study early church history you will know that there was much disagreement within the church about infant baptism at this time all the way up to the Reformation. Infant baptism became the norm through intimidation and cruel force. A law of the Emperors Honorius and Theodosius II in the year 413 says, “If any person is convicted of having undertaken the rebaptism of a member of the Catholic Church, the one who has committed this shameful crime together with the one provided he is of accountable age who has allowed himself to be baptized shall be punished with death without mercy.” Consequently, infant baptism reigned supreme because people didn’t want to lose their lives.

Catholics claim Peter was the first Pope and you mention the Early Church Fathers. If that is your basis, let’s use the earliest church fathers…the apostles and authors of the New Testament. There is no record of infant baptism from apostolic and post-apostolic writers. Please show me one example of infant baptism. It was Peter in the first sermon on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 says, “Repent and be baptized.” Infants cannot repent. In every example of baptism in the bible, baptism is preceded by belief in Christ and repentance.

Not trying to pick a fight or point fingers. Just laying out the facts. As far as OSAS, well, it is very biblical, but I want go into it unless you ask.

Really? The Church started baptising babies until the fourth century. Does St Peter know this. Because according to the bible when he stated for everyone to repent and be baptised, it stated entire households were being baptised.

Now since you have all the facts, how do you explain this one. Or didnt they have infants back then?

And by the way when you were baptised did you repent? I would imagine you did, and it is still by the way the Church still does it today for someone who is able to do so. But that is for actual sin.

Infants could skip the repenting by the way because they could not commit actual sin, so what could they repent. They are saved from Original sin the one we inherited from Adam and Eve and that one we don’t have to repent. We just have to be Baptised in the name of the Trinity.

 

[rinnie]

I would consider myself a fundamentalist and scripture is authoratative and a pillar of truth for sure, as even you would agree (with the caveat that it is not alone with you, having tradition as it’s equal). However "pillar of truth’ is a biblical term to describe the church, as you would also agree (with the caveat you say it is the CC). I can’t recall ever using that phrase towards scripture, however. For the church to be the pillar of truth she must be “biblical”, and to the extent that she is, she is “a pillar of truth”.
No church has all perfection, hence the term “full” is what the world calls “Utopian”. Don’t think it is biblical and I know you have your scriptural interpretations that say otherwise. We are perfect to the extent we are properly aligned with God’s truth, and only “then” and in the hereafter, will we be like Him and know as He knows. Yet John says we “know all things” in this dispensation (guess the next one will be even better).

Hold on here I can’t let this one go. Okay you said Scripture is authoritative and the pilar of truth for sure.

Then you say for the Church to be the pilar she must be bibilical to the extent she is? Could you explain this, I am not sure what you mean.

 

[rinnie]

Wasn’t Jerome and Augustine Catholic? Yes, that is my paraphrasing, street lingo ,but pretty much says how it is.
. Hmmm, I know what you mean but…is it, "“My sheep know the CC voice” or is it, “My sheep know my voice” ?
While Augustine acknowledges the church and the preacher (Ambrose) , he also acknowledged that He (Christ) teaches us. A bit like “divinely taught, divinely caught”. You must listen to what the Spirit of God says whether speaking thru nature, or your parents or spouse or friend or teacher/pastor /bishop, church, scripture, etc., etc., etc…

Okay sorry I can;t let this one go either. Where in the bible, simce you says its authorititive state the Holy Spirit speaks to us thru nature. This I need to see.

 

[rinnie]

Well we are moving along here, and truly have not come up with an answer to my question yet.

As I stated the Pope is who has authority to speak and teach in the name of God so we can be united in one truth. It really makes sense also. Because if you don’t have that you can never be united in one truth.

Now I am adding another twist, If he did not leave someone to have the last say on truth, how would it be possible to unite everyone in one truth?

It seems to me God would give the Apostles a task that would be impossible to carry out. If they did not have the Pope to be the deciding vote and unite with him, Even we would not have absolute truth. There had to be a Vicar of Christ.

If all the Apostles had the keys to the kingdom, there would be no absolute truth in the RCC either.

Because to have the keys to the kingdom means to bind and loose anything. And if Paul could loose what Matt, said, and Matt could bind what John said, and then they all loose what Peter said there would be no fullness of the truth in the RCC.

Only the Pope can bind and loose and they all must obey. That is the only way the fullness of the truth can be possible. And the Pope has the keys and the final say by the power of God. And that is why there is no question in the RCC. They also know he has the power which is why they obey him.

 

[adf417]

Well we are moving along here, and truly have not come up with an answer to my question yet.

Its only because you just wont let anything go!

 

[rinnie]

Its only because you just wont let anything go!

You sound like my husband now!

 

[dronald]

Well we are moving along here, and truly have not come up with an answer to my question yet.

As I stated the Pope is who has authority to speak and teach in the name of God so we can be united in one truth. It really makes sense also. Because if you don’t have that you can never be united in one truth.

Now I am adding another twist, If he did not leave someone to have the last say on truth, how would it be possible to unite everyone in one truth?

It seems to me God would give the Apostles a task that would be impossible to carry out. If they did not have the Pope to be the deciding vote and unite with him, Even we would not have absolute truth. There had to be a Vicar of Christ.

If all the Apostles had the keys to the kingdom, there would be no absolute truth in the RCC either.

Because to have the keys to the kingdom means to bind and loose anything. And if Paul could loose what Matt, said, and Matt could bind what John said, and then they all loose what Peter said there would be no fullness of the truth in the RCC.

Only the Pope can bind and loose and they all must obey. That is the only way the fullness of the truth can be possible. And the Pope has the keys and the final say by the power of God. And that is why there is no question in the RCC. They also know he has the power which is why they obey him.

I feel like this question has been answered so I don’t want to go through this again; so let me ask you a question.

What does one do if the Pope has absolute power and you disagree with one of his statements? I feel like I’m being redundant but I’ll use papal bull against Luther, number 33. “Burning heretics is not against the will of the Spirit.” was declared a heresy by Leo X. I would take Luther’s side on this one but I could be called a heretic, excommunicated and burned for my disagreement.

What are my options?

 

[rinnie]

I feel like this question has been answered so I don’t want to go through this again; so let me ask you a question.

What does one do if the Pope has absolute power and you disagree with one of his statements? I feel like I’m being redundant but I’ll use papal bull against Luther, number 33. “Burning heretics is not against the will of the Spirit.” was declared a heresy by Leo X. I would take Luther’s side on this one but I could be called a heretic, excommunicated and burned for my disagreement.

What are my options?

Well your opinions are the same as mine opinions. I do not claim to speak with 100% authority of God do you?

Now could I be wrong here are you accusing the Church of burning heretic’s?

Because the Church executed no one. The Church’s rold was to determine if the acused was a heretic or not.

Then they were turned over to the state for sentence. Where did the Church ever go against the teaching of God, Unless you feel that a person can go against the teaching of the Church and not be heretic?

 

[dronald]

Well your opinions are the same as mine opinions. I do not claim to speak with 100% authority of God do you?

Now could I be wrong here are you accusing the Church of burning heretic’s?

Because the Church executed no one. The Church’s rold was to determine if the acused was a heretic or not.

Then they were turned over to the state for sentence. Where did the Church ever go against the teaching of God, Unless you feel that a person can go against the teaching of the Church and not be heretic?

As soon as the Holy Spirit is brought in it ceases to be a, “secular issue” and thus becomes a Religious one.

When the Head of the biggest Church in existence makes the same claim you’re making right now and states that, “burning heretics is the will of the Spirit” in opposition of one who disagrees we then have a problem.

So what are my options when your official “head of the visible Church” makes that statement and I could suffer being burned after being deemed a heretic for my disagreement?

 

[rinnie]

In order to put this matter to rest the truth must be said.

Bishops were to se if the accused hereitcs in their diocesses were examined by knowledgegable Church men using Rome laws of evidence.

Secular authorities perspective was heretics were traditors of God and King and deserved death.

But the Church’s Perspective (PLEASE listen very close here) was that they were the lost sheep that swayed from the flock and they had a duty to live up to their promise to GOd and bring them back into the fold.

So while the mediecal secular leaders were trying to safeguard the kingdom the Church was trying to save lives.

How did they do this. It is very IRONIC that this fits into this thread quite well. Another way to prove RCC authority.

The inquistion was a means for the HERETICs to ESCAPE death and return to the community.

IF they were found of grave error they could confess, do pentence and return to the body of Christ,

If they refused to repent and remain a heretic there was nothing the Church could do.

SO now tell me how can you blame the Church, and what else do you feel the Church could possibly do in this time and age?

 

[rinnie]

As soon as the Holy Spirit is brought in it ceases to be a, “secular issue” and thus becomes a Religious one.

When the Head of the biggest Church in existence makes the same claim you’re making right now and states that, “burning heretics is the will of the Spirit” in opposition of one who disagrees we then have a problem.

So what are my options when your official “head of the visible Church” makes that statement and I could suffer being burned after being deemed a heretic for my disagreement?

What is false in that statement! Its is true both now and then.

Back then it was how the world was ruled. IF you refused to accept the word of God you received a Physical burning. The Church had no control over how the world was run back then.

And today if you refuse to obey the word of God you can receive not physical burning but eternal death of the soul and have eternal burning of the soul in hell.

So now you tell if you know something the Church does not. How can you not accept God and his teachings refuse to repent, confess, be baptised and separate yourself to him completely and still escape the eternal fires of hell?

If there is a way it was not revealed to us by the word of God, While the Church never condemns anyone to hell, they still have a duty to warn that it indeed exists.

What was the reason for Jesus comming back and giving us commands if they were not needed? Why obey his word at all if there is another way?

 

[rinnie]

As soon as the Holy Spirit is brought in it ceases to be a, “secular issue” and thus becomes a Religious one.

When the Head of the biggest Church in existence makes the same claim you’re making right now and states that, “burning heretics is the will of the Spirit” in opposition of one who disagrees we then have a problem.

So what are my options when your official “head of the visible Church” makes that statement and I could suffer being burned after being deemed a heretic for my disagreement?

Please show me how he is wrong making this statement.

Jesus speaks of Gehenna unquenchable fire for those who refuse to be converted where both body and soul are lost forever.

Where is the Pope making a statement that contradicts the word of God. Its in line word for word!!

 

[dronald]

Back then it was how the world was ruled. IF you refused to accept the word of God you received a Physical burning. The Church had no control over how the world was run back then.

On the contrary, the Church had full control on how the west was run back then. It was the Holy Roman Empire, the Church ran the Politics and the Religion.

Please show me how he is wrong making this statement.

Jesus speaks of Gehenna unquenchable fire for those who refuse to be converted where both body and soul are lost forever.

Where is the Pope making a statement that contradicts the word of God. Its in line word for word!!

Hm, today I learned that burning human beings alive is in line with the Catholic interpretation of Scripture.

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that the majority of Catholics here disagree with you, but for the ones who do agree I’ll say this:

I have every right as a believer in Jesus Christ to read His words and determine that burning a human being alive is not His will. It is not the Holy Spirits will that another human being is burned for not accepting the Church. There is a lot of evidence of this in Christ’s words and I’m ashamed for my Catholic brethren that I even have to defend my position on the validity of burning heretics.

First, Muslims have a sharia law that states apostasy is worthy of death, along with adultery. According to you, it is in line with Scripture to do what the Muslims do and murder heretics (even by burning.)

Secondly, Jesus rebuked His disciples for wanting to reign fire on a city that did not accept His message.

Third, Jesus said to wipe the dust off your shoes and carry on if they do not accept your message. Nothing about burning alive anyone who rejects Him. Your misinterpretation is a grevious one that your Catholic brethren most certainly disagree with.

Pope Francis would never permit the burning of another human being (a “heretic” like myself) for speaking out against the CC.

 

[rinnie]

On the contrary, the Church had full control on how the west was run back then. It was the Holy Roman Empire, the Church ran the Politics and the Religion.

Hm, today I learned that burning human beings alive is in line with the Catholic interpretation of Scripture.

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that the majority of Catholics here disagree with you, but for the ones who do agree I’ll say this:

I have every right as a believer in Jesus Christ to read His words and determine that burning a human being alive is not His will. It is not the Holy Spirits will that another human being is burned for not accepting the Church. There is a lot of evidence of this in Christ’s words and I’m ashamed for my Catholic brethren that I even have to defend my position on the validity of burning heretics.

First, Muslims have a sharia law that states apostasy is worthy of death, along with adultery. According to you, it is in line with Scripture to do what the Muslims do and murder heretics (even by burning.)

Secondly, Jesus rebuked His disciples for wanting to reign fire on a city that did not accept His message.

Third, Jesus said to wipe the dust off your shoes and carry on if they do not accept your message. Nothing about burning alive anyone who rejects Him. Your misinterpretation is a grevious one that your Catholic brethren most certainly disagree with.

Pope Francis would never permit the burning of another human being (a “heretic” like myself) for speaking out against the CC.

Oh my. You not only blame the RCC for the evils of medieval secular Leaders, you claim the RCC was the medieval secular Leaders.

Then you accuse the Pope of also being a heretic to the RCC

You are saying the Pope rejects the Churchs teaching that Gehenna is a unquenchable fire for those who refuse to be converted both body and soul.

You accuse the Church of agreeing to murder, without proof. You claim they were the medieval secular leaders. Even though they were not. You deny hell which is the eternal fire, and you accuse the Pope of being a heretic.

 

[rinnie]

On the contrary, the Church had full control on how the west was run back then. It was the Holy Roman Empire, the Church ran the Politics and the Religion.

Hm, today I learned that burning human beings alive is in line with the Catholic interpretation of Scripture.

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that the majority of Catholics here disagree with you, but for the ones who do agree I’ll say this:

I have every right as a believer in Jesus Christ to read His words and determine that burning a human being alive is not His will. It is not the Holy Spirits will that another human being is burned for not accepting the Church. There is a lot of evidence of this in Christ’s words and I’m ashamed for my Catholic brethren that I even have to defend my position on the validity of burning heretics.

First, Muslims have a sharia law that states apostasy is worthy of death, along with adultery. According to you, it is in line with Scripture to do what the Muslims do and murder heretics (even by burning.)

Secondly, Jesus rebuked His disciples for wanting to reign fire on a city that did not accept His message.

Third, Jesus said to wipe the dust off your shoes and carry on if they do not accept your message. Nothing about burning alive anyone who rejects Him. Your misinterpretation is a grevious one that your Catholic brethren most certainly disagree with.

Pope Francis would never permit the burning of another human being (a “heretic” like myself) for speaking out against the CC.

And again how in the world do you get me saying that the RCC had no control over the burning of bodies back then as saying they condoned it.

It was YOU who claim they had the control not I.

Let me repeat what I said You had to have missed it.

While the medieval SECULAR LEADERS were trying to safeguard the kingdom, the CHURCH was trying to SAVE LIVES.

SO if they had control! There would be no inquistion.