Scripture does not interpret itself

[AmericanJosiah]

People privately interpreting scriptures for themselves is not in the Bible. The Bible does not say the Holy Spirit will teach each person the interpretation of scriptures.

… nor does it say that the Holy Spirit teaches The Catholic Church - specifically, exclusively, solely and infallibly. Or even at all.

Your “issue” with self appointing self as the sole authoritative and infallible interpreter is one I wholly agree with, but your issue is exclusively with ONE: The Catholic Church. It is the only one on the planet in all of Christian history to do what you are renouncing. Read what The Catholic Church says in the Catechism of The Catholic Church, # 85. Search all you want, you will find NO OTHER Catechism of NO OTHER in all of history where self makes this designation of self.

.

 

[Dokimas]

I think the confusion came because you said the Eucharist is Jesus: His Body and Blood, soul and divinity.

Actually it was ProdicalSon that said the above, not WMScott.

 

[Dokimas]

What does the Bible say about human cloning or embryonic stem cell research?

It says there is but One Creator God; us humans should stop playing with things only God should do.​

Human stem cell research is quite a different thing.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If the evidence points to baptism being for those who have repented then babies are excluded because they can’t repent. If the evidence points to baptism for those who have made some sort of choice, then babies are excluded because they can’t choose. ETC.

Luk 18:15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he might touch them. Which when the disciples saw, they rebuked them.
Luk 18:16 But Jesus, calling them together, said: Suffer children to come to me and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Luk 18:17 Amen, I say to you: Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a child shall not enter into it.

**Mat 9:2 And behold they brought to him one sick of the palsy lying in a bed. And Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the man sick of the palsy: Be of good heart, son, thy sins are forgiven thee.
Mat 9:3 And behold some of the scribes said within themselves: He blasphemeth.
Mat 9:4 And Jesus seeing their thoughts, said: Why do you think evil in your hearts?
Mat 9:5 Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins are forgiven thee: or to say, Arise, and walk?
Mat 9:6 But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then said he to the man sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thy house.
Mat 9:7 And he arose, and went into his house. **

They brought to him a sick one and seeing their faith, Jesus said, ‘thy sins are forgiven thee’.

Now, let’s consider Matthew 8.

The centurion sought healing for his servant. Jesus told the centurion that He would go and heal the servant, but the centurion stating, he was not worthy that Christ should enter his household and added, “but only say the word, and my servant shall be healed.” At hearing this, our Lord marvelled and told the centurion He had not found a faith so great in Israel. Then our Lord told the centurion, because he had believed, it would be done.

In Matthew 15 we see the mother requesting her daughter to be healed.

The mother seeking healing for her daughter. Christ saw her faith as great and granted her will that her daughter be healed. This was requested on the coasts of Tyre, Sidon. We see the mother is from Canaan. When she returned home she saw that her daughter was laying in the bed and the devil had gone out her, in Mark 7.

The Bible tells us the sick were healed from the hour from request, but if we read Luke’s account of the centurion, we see the sick was found whole, when those who were sent returned to the house.

Who’s faith caused our Lord to heal?

I’m afraid you haven’t shown me a contradiction. Can you at the very least agree that infant baptism comes from an interpretation of scriptures, even if you do not agree with the interpretation now?

Perhaps, you’d like to share one of the Protestants contradiction to scriptures, for discussion?

The Bible does not tell us it’s the only authority.

The Bible does not teach us that each individual should interpret scriptures for themselves.

Or, would you prefer to bring up another ‘contradiction’ of Catholicism?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

… nor does it say that the Holy Spirit teaches The Catholic Church - specifically, exclusively, solely and infallibly. Or even at all.

Your “issue” with self appointing self as the sole authoritative and infallible interpreter is one I wholly agree with, but your issue is exclusively with ONE: The Catholic Church. It is the only one on the planet in all of Christian history to do what you are renouncing. Read what The Catholic Church says in the Catechism of The Catholic Church, # 85. Search all you want, you will find NO OTHER Catechism of NO OTHER in all of history where self makes this designation of self.
.

Stop cutting and pasting the same exact arguments we’ve discussed. You cannot produce scriptures showing each individual is to interpret scriptures for themselves. A Church is an authoritative group, appointed and ordained by Christ.

You have more than proven you reject the Catholic interpretation, yet you have produced nothing showing you have such an authority to reject any interpretation and present yours as superior.

As I’ve explained to you on threads and in the private messages you initiated with me, I have no desire to continue a discussion with you as it appears you have an ‘ax to grind’ with the Church, you wish to tell me what I believe, you call me a ‘Protestant in the pews’, you say I have a 'problem with the Catholic Church and you twist anything I take time to articulate that I believe. You only wish to use ad hominem worded arguments intended to inflame and I feel it best we discontinue our discussions. I don’t want either of us becoming a stumbling stone for the other. I fully accept the Catholic Church as the one Holy Apostolic Church built by Christ, and there’s no sense in using hypotheticals with you since you’ve proven to twist anything I say to deny me my faith as I explain it. So, without hypotheticals, I fully accept what the Catholic Church teaches.

This is my last response to you.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

St. Justin Martyr (150 AD):

“And both men and women who have been Christ’s disciples since infancy, remain pure, and at the age of sixty or seventy years …” (Justin Martyr, First Apology,15:6 – AD 110-165)

**St. Irenaeus

Against Heresies (Book II, Chapter 22)**

1. Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master, He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged by all as a Master. For He did not seem one thing while He was another, as those affirm who describe Him as being man only in appearance; but what He was, that He also appeared to be. Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law which He had appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself— all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence, Colossians 1:18 the Prince of life, Acts 3:15 existing before all, and going before all.

Archeological discoveries in the Roman catacombs have long-ago proven that infant baptism was common in the primitive Roman Churches. Two clear examples, among dozens of similar inscriptions, are all that we really need to support this claim. A man with the resounding Roman/Latin name of Murtius Verinus placed on the tomb of his children the inscription: “Verina received Baptism at the age of ten months, Florina at the age of twelve months.” The date of this tomb has been firmly established by radio-carbon dating of the children’s bones as being 105 AD +/- 4 years. Another tomb, not far away from this one, has the inscription: “Here rests Achillia, a newly-baptized infant; she was one year and five months old, died February 23rd…” and then follows the year of the reigning emperor, which dates her death to 91 AD. [see W. Wall, “History of Infant Baptism”, 2 Vols., London, 1900. and other related articles in various archeological journals from early this century.]

 

[wmscott]

It says there is but One Creator God; us humans should stop playing with things only God should do.​

Human stem cell research is quite a different thing.

Chapter and verse please that deals with human cloning and stem cell research.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

You cannot produce scriptures showing each individual is to interpret scriptures for themselves.

You and I AGREE that is not sound for self to appoint self alone as the exclusive, authoritative, infallible interpreter of Scripture. MY POINT is that while we totally agree on this, your rebuke is limited to ONE: The Catholic Church. Read The Catholic Catechism which was formed, written, approved and authorized exclusively and solely by The Catholic Church, read specifically paragraph # 85. Here The Catholic Church ALONE designates The Catholic Church ALONE as the sole, authoritative interpreter of Scripture (add # 87 and you get the infallible part). Self appointing self alone as the sole interpreter. Yes, I know you are rather consistently rebuking that, and we have consistently agreed on that point. What you’ve not shown is where ANY other Catechism of ANY other does the very thing you are rebuking; we seem to just have one that does what you are rejecting, The Catholic Church.

You have more than proven you reject the Catholic interpretation

Where? What I’ve said is that I agree with you: self designating self exclusively as the sole authoritative, infallible, unaccountable interpreter is not a polity I regard as sound. We AGREE on that.

As I’ve explained to you, I have no desire to continue a discussion with you as it appears you have an ‘ax to grind’ with the Church

Then don’t reply to my posts.

I have no “ax” to grind. I’m simply agreeing with you in your general discomfort with self designating self as the sole, authoritative, infallible, unaccountable interpreter.

I feel it best we discontinue our discussions.

You might want to consider not replying to my posts. But I have no need to not respond to yours; I hope you don’t mind.

I fully accept the Catholic Church as the one Holy Apostolic Church built by Christ,

Wonderful! And if there is ever a thread about acts of faith in regard to our various denominations, I promise you I will respect yours to the EXACT same degree and manner as you accept the same act of faiths by non-catholics vis-a-vis their teachers/denominations/doctrines. I’m sure you feel that is kind and gracious and good.

I fully accept what the Catholic Church teaches.

As a former Catholic myself, and in light of CCC 87, etc., I FULLY understand that. But I don’t recall any threads here about what is believed, most of them are about which is correct. Neither of us - I’m SURE - question the faith, sincerity, integrity, honesty or piety of ANY here - Mormon or Catholic, Lutheran or Muslim, Baptist or Orthodox, JW or Presbyterian. You may “accept” whatever. And, again, of course, I will afford you EXACTLY the same respect for that choice of faith as you show for non-Catholics; I’m sure you think that more than fair.

Thanks for the discussions. I’m sad to see you discontinue in them.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[Dokimas]

Prodigal Son1- in black; Doki - in color;

Luk 18:15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he might touch them. Which when the disciples saw, they rebuked them.
Luk 18:16 But Jesus, calling them together, said: Suffer children to come to me and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Luk 18:17 Amen, I say to you: Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a child shall not enter into it.​

The above is not about baptism.

**Mat 9:2 And behold they brought to him one sick of the palsy lying in a bed. And Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the man sick of the palsy: Be of good heart, son, thy sins are forgiven thee.
Mat 9:3 And behold some of the scribes said within themselves: He blasphemeth.
Mat 9:4 And Jesus seeing their thoughts, said: Why do you think evil in your hearts?
Mat 9:5 Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins are forgiven thee: or to say, Arise, and walk?
Mat 9:6 But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then said he to the man sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thy house.
Mat 9:7 And he arose, and went into his house. **

They brought to him a sick one and seeing their faith, Jesus said, ‘thy sins are forgiven thee’.​

Thank God for forgiveness, but these verses are not about baptism.

Now, let’s consider Matthew 8.

The centurion sought healing for his servant. Jesus told the centurion that He would go and heal the servant, but the centurion stating, he was not worthy that Christ should enter his household and added, “but only say the word, and my servant shall be healed.” At hearing this, our Lord marvelled and told the centurion He had not found a faith so great in Israel. Then our Lord told the centurion, because he had believed, it would be done.​

Thank God for healing; again not about baptism.

In Matthew 15 we see the mother requesting her daughter to be healed.

The mother seeking healing for her daughter. Christ saw her faith as great and granted her will that her daughter be healed. This was requested on the coasts of Tyre, Sidon. We see the mother is from Canaan. When she returned home she saw that her daughter was laying in the bed and the devil had gone out her, in Mark 7.​

Thank God our faith touches God for our children. Once again not about baptism.

The Bible tells us the sick were healed from the hour from request, but if we read Luke’s account of the centurion, we see the sick was found whole, when those who were sent returned to the house.

Who’s faith caused our Lord to heal?

I’m afraid you haven’t shown me a contradiction. Can you at the very least agree that infant baptism comes from an interpretation of scriptures, even if you do not agree with the interpretation now?​

I’m afraid you haven’t shown me anything about baptism.

Perhaps, you’d like to share one of the Protestants contradiction to scriptures, for discussion?​

I have already shared a couple or is it a few.

The Bible does not tell us it’s the only authority.​

It doesn’t tell us to follow the teachings of the CC either.

The Bible does not teach us that each individual should interpret scriptures for themselves.​

We’ve been here with each other several times now … I have told you repeatedly that I agree the Bible isn’t for private interpretations. I don’t see why you stlll make it a point of contention.

Or, would you prefer to bring up another ‘contradiction’ of Catholicism?

 

[Dokimas]

Chapter and verse please that deals with human cloning and stem cell research.

I think you are trying to make a point. As you know there is nothing directly in the Bible about human cloning or embronic stem cell reasearch. So have at me, then.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You and I AGREE that is not sound for self to appoint self alone as the exclusive, authoritative, infallible interpreter of Scripture. MY POINT is that while we totally agree on this, your rebuke is limited to ONE: The Catholic Church. Read The Catholic Catechism which was formed, written, approved and authorized exclusively and solely by The Catholic Church, read specifically paragraph # 85. Here The Catholic Church ALONE designates The Catholic Church ALONE as the sole, authoritative interpreter of Scripture (add # 87 and you get the infallible part). Self appointing self alone as the sole interpreter. Yes, I know you are rather consistently rebuking that, and we have consistently agreed on that point. What you’ve not shown is where ANY other Catechism of ANY other does the very thing you are rebuking; we seem to just have one that does what you are rejecting, The Catholic Church.

Evidently 'm not explaining myself well enough to you or you refuse to understand what I take time to explain to you in as simple terms as possible. I have stated I fully agree with all that the Catholic Church teaches, including EVERYTHING in the Catechism. Pulling out one or two paragraphs of the Catechism is the same thing as trying to present a story, or context, of the Bible by pulling out one or two verses. The Catechism and the Bible must be read in context of the whole message.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78

112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79

The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

You may continue to respond to my posts, but I will correct the false misrepresentations you make towards me. I do not rebuke, point a finger at, have a problem with or even an issue with the Catholic Church and ALL it’s teachings.

It’s that kind of persistent insinuations that I’m not interested in responding too. Not only do you persist on ‘hammering’ at me and my faith, you fail to produce scriptures granting you the authority to self designate your interpretation as correct over the Church that Christ built, or anyone else for that matter. You also are very persistent to keep the ‘discussions’ one sided and do not respond to anything addressed to your attention, questions or points raised.

There are discussions and not an interrogation that you make them.

God Bless you on your journey.

 

[wmscott]

I think you are trying to make a point. As you know there is nothing directly in the Bible about human cloning or embronic stem cell reasearch. So have at me, then.

It is not a matter of having at you or ah ha I got you. The point is to illustrate your assertion that infant baptism is not in the Bible does not necessarily mean it is invalid or that it should not be performed. Prodigal Son1 has provided evidence from the EFCs that infant baptism was being performed.

Taken from this cite:

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, “For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him” (2:39).

From the CCC

1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole “households” received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.

Acts 16:15
And when she was baptized, with her household, she besought us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.

Acts 16:33
And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their wounds, and he was baptized at once, with all his family.

Acts 18:8
Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with all his household; and many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.

1 Corinthians 1:16
(I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)

Looking forward to your thoughts. Peace.

 

[Dokimas]

wmscott in black; Doki in color;

It is not a matter of having at you or ah ha I got you. If I had to be gotten by someone I’m glad it was by you. The point is to illustrate your assertion that infant baptism is not in the Bible does not necessarily mean it is invalid or that it should not be performed. Prodigal Son1 has provided evidence from the EFCs that infant baptism was being performed.

Taken from this cite:

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, “For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him” (2:39). Notice: repentance (infants can’t repent nor do they have sins to repent of. Can the infants receive the Holy Spirit?)

From the CCC

1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole “households” received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.

Acts 16:15
And when she was baptized, with her household, she besought us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.

Acts 16:33
And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their wounds, and he was baptized at once, with all his family.

Acts 18:8
Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with all his household; and many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.

1 Corinthians 1:16
(I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)

Of the many thousands of people in the NT that got baptized, only 4 or five families where recorded to be baptized. The chance of these families NOT having infants is quite high, IMO.

Looking forward to your thoughts. Peace.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Reading this discussion again, I have another question for Josiah and Dokimas (and any other Protestant that would like to participate):

**Do you believe that Catholics have less freedom of thought in regards to Scripture? If so, why?

**P.S. Here’s a thread titled “Things We believe that aren’t in the Bible” which is sorta relevant to our discussion.

 

[Dokimas]

Reading this discussion again, I have another question for Josiah and Dokimas (and any other Protestant that would like to participate):

**Do you believe that Catholics have less freedom of thought in regards to Scripture? If so, why?

**P.S. Here’s a thread titled “Things We believe that aren’t in the Bible” which is sorta relevant to our discussion.

To be a good, upstanding catholic, do you have to hold to all the beliefs of the catechism?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Is it fear of being in any sort of agreement with a Catholic that prevents you from even agreeing you can see the teaching is received from an interpretation of scripture, even if you disagree with the interpretation?

The implication is there among the scriptures I provided. Similar to the belief in the Trinity. It’s implied by scriptures, but it doesn’t say ‘Trinity’ anywhere.

Since you say, infants must have a knowledge of salvation, or haven’t repented yet, do children without knowledge, repenting, that die go to hell? They haven’t received salvation yet, because as you say they’re too young to understand and haven’t repented yet.

How did an 8 day old child understand the sign of the covenant, with the old covenant, by receiving circumcision? Why did God require that of an 8 day old child and all of a sudden exclude children in the new and everlasting covenant?​

I’m afraid you haven’t shown me anything about baptism.

And you, on the other hand, what have you shown? You call it a contradiction, but you haven’t produced a teaching specifically against infant baptism. What you have done is produce an opinion that is not stated in scriptures and accused Catholics of contradicting scriptures.

The Bible does not tell us it’s the only authority.​

It doesn’t tell us to follow the teachings of the CC either.

Wait a minute now, you say infant baptism is a ‘contradiction’ because it’s not in the Bible, but when asked about the Bible being the only authority your response is, ‘It doesn’t tell us to follow the teachings of the CC either.’ What kind of honest response is that?

It is also a double standard to say, infant baptism is not in scriptures and then avoid discussing a Protestant teaching that is clearly not in the Bible.

The Bible does not teach us that each individual should interpret scriptures for themselves.​

We’ve been here with each other several times now … I have told you repeatedly that I agree the Bible isn’t for private interpretations. I don’t see why you stlll make it a point of contention.

No, you have said the Holy Spirit is the interpreter of scriptures. You have not shown us the scriptures to tell someone how to know which interpretation is truly from the Holy Spirit in the case of having multiple interpretations. How does the Holy Spirit of a single truth tell different people different things and it remain truth?

 

[Dokimas]

Is it fear of being in any sort of agreement with a Catholic that prevents you from even agreeing you can see the teaching is received from an interpretation of scripture, even if you disagree with the interpretation? WWHHAATT??

The implication is there among the scriptures I provided. Similar to the belief in the Trinity. It’s implied by scriptures, but it doesn’t say ‘Trinity’ anywhere. Wild thought.

Since you say, infants must have a knowledge of salvation (Did I say that or is this a distortion of what I’ve said?), or haven’t repented yet, do children without knowledge, repenting, that die go to hell? NOPE, IMO. Some of us were accused of limiting God recently. To believe an infant needs to be baptized to go to Heaven is they die, is very much limiting God’s love, God’s grace and God’s mercy (not to mention His very character.)They haven’t received salvation yet, because as you say they’re too young to understand and haven’t repented yet (There you go again limiting God.).

How did an 8 day old child understand the sign of the covenant, with the old covenant, by receiving circumcision? (Comparing apples and oranges.) Why did God require that of an 8 day old child and all of a sudden exclude children in the new and everlasting covenant? As an outward sign of the covenant He made to the children of Israel. Every time a male Israelite looked down, he saw a reminder. Does the water stay on the forehead ot the baby to remind it of its salvation? BTW, only boys got circumcized. Why are girls baptized too in your little comparison?​

And you, on the other hand, what have you shown? You call it a contradiction, but you haven’t produced a teaching specifically against infant baptism. Not true. I’ve shown that adults (old enough to understand sin and the need to repent) are the ones that got baptized. What you have done is produce an opinion that is not stated in scriptures and accused Catholics of contradicting scriptures. Please show me one real documented infant baptism in the Bible, JUST ONE.

The Bible does not tell us it’s the only authority.​

Wait a minute now, you say infant baptism is a ‘contradiction’ because it’s not in the Bible, but when asked about the Bible being the only authority your response is (Isn’t this a slight distortion of the conversaiton?), ‘It doesn’t tell us to follow the teachings of the CC either.’ Destortion, IMO. What kind of honest response is that? Mine. Is it dishonest?

It is also a double standard to say, infant baptism is not in scriptures and then avoid discussing a Protestant teaching that is clearly not in the Bible. Again, we’ve had this discussion. Shall we repeat it.

The Bible does not teach us that each individual should interpret scriptures for themselves. Do tell, please.​

No, you have said the Holy Spirit is the interpreter of scriptures. Actually Peter did. He’s your authority, isn’t he? BTW, he’s a pretty good authority to follow. You have not shown us the scriptures to tell someone how to know which interpretation is truly from the Holy Spirit in the case of having multiple interpretations. How does the Holy Spirit of a single truth tell different people different things and it remain truth? We’ve discussed this one too.

Do you purposely destort?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Dokimas,
It appears when a Catholic view is articulated, you go back to posting in a quote to make it difficlut to respond to all your ‘points’. :tsktsk:

Is it fear of being in any sort of agreement with a Catholic that prevents you from even agreeing you can see the teaching is received from an interpretation of scripture, even if you disagree with the interpretation? WWHHAATT??

The implication is there among the scriptures I provided. Similar to the belief in the Trinity. It’s implied by scriptures, but it doesn’t say ‘Trinity’ anywhere. Wild thought.

Why is it a ‘wild thought’? You cannot see how infant baptism is implied through the Catholic explained interpretation?

Since you say, infants must have a knowledge of salvation (Did I say that or is this a distortion of what I’ve said?), or haven’t repented yet, do children without knowledge, repenting, that die go to hell? NOPE, IMO. Some of us were accused of limiting God recently. To believe an infant needs to be baptized to go to Heaven is they die, is very much limiting God’s love, God’s grace and God’s mercy (not to mention His very character.)They haven’t received salvation yet, because as you say they’re too young to understand and haven’t repented yet (There you go again limiting God.).

You said a child cannot be baptized because it has not repented yet. If it has not repented, does the child go to hell if it should die? You are limiting God by keeping children from Him through baptism. Jesus said suffer the little children to come to him, but you hold them back from a sacrament and then have the audacity to, repeatedly, throw out an ad hominem to inflame. :tsktsk:

How did an 8 day old child understand the sign of the covenant, with the old covenant, by receiving circumcision? (Comparing apples and oranges.) Why did God require that of an 8 day old child and all of a sudden exclude children in the new and everlasting covenant? As an outward sign of the covenant He made to the children of Israel. Every time a male Israelite looked down, he saw a reminder. Does the water stay on the forehead ot the baby to remind it of its salvation? BTW, only boys got circumcized. Why are girls baptized too in your little comparison?

Do you not believe baptism leaves an indelible mark? It’s not apples and oranges. There was an old covenant and a new and everlasting covenant. Now who’s limiting God’s plan for salvation?

And you, on the other hand, what have you shown? You call it a contradiction, but you haven’t produced a teaching specifically against infant baptism. Not true. I’ve shown that adults (old enough to understand sin and the need to repent) are the ones that got baptized. What you have done is produce an opinion that is not stated in scriptures and accused Catholics of contradicting scriptures. Please show me one real documented infant baptism in the Bible, JUST ONE.

Whole households, of people who believed in the law to be fruitful and multiply, were baptized. Yet, it doesn’t name every person and their age in the scriptures, so that can be totally rejected. Where do you get your infallible authority over interpretations of scriptures?

The Bible does not tell us it’s the only authority.​

Wait a minute now, you say infant baptism is a ‘contradiction’ because it’s not in the Bible, but when asked about the Bible being the only authority your response is (Isn’t this a slight distortion of the conversaiton?), ‘It doesn’t tell us to follow the teachings of the CC either.’ Destortion, IMO. What kind of honest response is that? Mine. Is it dishonest

It’s not a distortion at all, go back and see I typed what you said, word for word. Now you call it a distortion.

Then you say, ‘Is it dishonest?’ What do you call it when a question is answered with a question? It’s avoiding responding to the Bible being the only authority. You still haven’t responded to that request.

If it’s a ‘contradiction’ as you call it, show us the scriptures forbidding the baptism of children. If it’s not in scriptures, you’ve taken your opinion and stated we have contradicted scriptures.

It is also a double standard to say, infant baptism is not in scriptures and then avoid discussing a Protestant teaching that is clearly not in the Bible. Again, we’ve had this discussion. Shall we repeat it.

You have not shown us in scriptures where the Bible is the only authority, nor where it is written that the Holy Spirit will interpret scriptures for everyone.

The Bible does not teach us that each individual should interpret scriptures for themselves. Do tell, please.-

Condescending? More avoidance to maintain the double standard you hold Catholics too. :tsktsk:

No, you have said the Holy Spirit is the interpreter of scriptures. Actually Peter did. He’s your authority, isn’t he? BTW, he’s a pretty good authority to follow. You have not shown us the scriptures to tell someone how to know which interpretation is truly from the Holy Spirit in the case of having multiple interpretations. How does the Holy Spirit of a single truth tell different people different things and it remain truth? We’ve discussed this one too.

Peter said the unlearned, unstable and unwise will wrest scriptures, even to their own destruction. But, that’s not applicable for some reason.

No, it’s not been ‘discussed’, even though we have seen several snarky responses insinuating a superior interpretation of scriptures, which is still unsubstantiated.

These one sided ‘discussions’ really show some ‘anti’ sentiments…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Do you purposely destort?

I do not distort. Anyone can read back through and see exactly what was said.

Do you purposely call something a contradiction that is not specified in scriptures, because it doesn’t fit your theology? Show me in scriptures where infants are to be excluded from baptism? If it’s not there, there is NO contradiction of scriptures. It seems it’s only a contradiction of what you believe.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

I do not distort. Anyone can read back through and see exactly what was said.

Do you purposely call something a contradiction that is not specified in scriptures, because it doesn’t fit your theology? Show me in scriptures where infants are to be excluded from baptism? If it’s not there, there is NO contradiction of scriptures. It seems it’s only a contradiction of what you believe.

If you grant Dokimas’ argument that there’s no infant baptism recorded in Scripture, then it’s essentially an argument from silence. If it’s an argument from silence, then infant baptism can go either way since both sides are speculating on supposed non-event. An absence cannot be a contradiction–it’s silent on the subject. However, given that Scripture might use a positive to prove that adults must be baptized since they must repent and infants don’t have any actual sins or awareness of original sin. But one need not have awareness of original sin to need God’s grace…

Yet Scriptures point to circumcision in the OT and whole household were baptized. There’s nothing to say they were all adults in the household or that these household had infants. It can go either way. But Catholics aren’t limited to Sola Scriptura and can point to the witness of ECFs that infant baptism is practiced in early Christianity.

In both Protestant and Catholic tradition, infants are covered by God through infant baptism or a special act of grace.

Now can we get to the subject at hand?