Scripture does not interpret itself

[Dancelittleewok]

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

You can ask more question instead of answering my question head on. What gives?

Before trying to defend dogma, we should know what it is and is not. There should be a solid understanding of two terms: doctrine and dogma. While sometimes used interchangeably they are not, strictly speaking, identical. Doctrine is Church teaching in all of its forms. It can refer to the whole of revelation or the deposit of faith. The word dogma comes from the Greek word meaning “to seem.” A dogma is a doctrine that has been expressly taught by the magisterium––either by conciliar or papal definition––to have been divinely revealed and contained in the Word of God, therefore requiring the belief of all Catholics.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “The Church’s magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes in a definitive way truths having a necessary connection with them” (88). All dogma is doctrine, but not all doctrine is dogma.

Stated in a more general fashion, dogmas are infallible statements of truth given by the Church to guide the faithful in the Christian life. “There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas,” the Catechism explains. “Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith” (89).

Source

Here’s an article about freedom of thought.

Catholics and Protestants (generally) view Scripture differently. A Protestant might say “I believe the resurrection because the Bible tells me” while the Catholics turns this inside out “The resurrection happened, and was thus written in Bible but witnessed by the early Christians.”

Catholics don’t believe that truth is created. The Church cannot create new truths, only increase our understanding what has been revealed by God Himself. The Church, whom by Jesus preserves, wouldn’t say something had not St. Paul, St. Peter, St. Ignatius, etc. not said it first. In other words, the Church wouldn’t contradict the Bible (although it might contradict your interpretation), Sacred Tradition or Magerstium for it would violate the deposit of faith.

Dokimas (or any Protestant willing), to be a Protestant in good standing: do you have to believe in the Five Solas created by the Reformers? Can you believe in the Immaculate Conception and be a Protestant? Believe everything contained in the Bible? Pray tell, what truths do Protestant have to hold to be considered a Protestant?

 

[Dokimas]

Prodigal Son1 in black; Doki in color.

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:
Wrong. I guess I get lazy or time to respond is limited. You articualted the CC position very well. I just don’t agree with some of it.

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

What I was refering to with ‘wwhhaatt??’ was the notion that I feared being in agreement with catholics. I dare say I’m in agreement with the CC more that with liberal protestant theology.

You said a child cannot be baptized because it has not repented yet. Okay, I guess we can use this for starters. If it has not repented, does the child go to hell if it should die? I already answered this with ‘NOPE’. You are limiting God by keeping children from Him through baptism. Actually it is you that is limiting God to only be able to save an infant if it is baptized. Very limiting. I say God saves them without ritual by His mercy, grace and love by the Blood of Jesus. 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. Did Jesus say , suffer the little children to come to Me and I will baptize them’? OF COURSE NOT. :tsktsk:

Do you not believe baptism leaves an indelible mark? Only on those who are truly believers before they get baptized. I clearly remember my baptism; it was a wonderful experience that NO infant can claim to have experienced!!! 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? You seem to have all the brains here, you tell me.

 

[Dokimas]

Prodigal Son1 in black; Doki in color.

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 the safe thing is not to read into it that infants were baptized ), so that can be totally rejected. Where do you get your infallible authority over interpretations of scriptures? If I’m correct, from the Holy Spirit (as you and I have discussed several times now.)

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. See the problem with how you do it, I have no clue where to look without spending more time than I have. If you bring forward all the discussion, then we can see.

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. I have no clue what you are referring to. Please explain.

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.​

I have shown over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over that those who repent get baptized. You have not provided one bit of evidence that babies are able to or need to repent.

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.​

Who’s Peter writing to?

2Peter 1:
19 ¶ And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts;
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,
21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.​

Who’s John writing to?

1 John 2:
20 ¶ But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things.
21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.
23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
24 Therefore let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.
25 And this is the promise that He has promised us–eternal life.
26 These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you.
27 But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.

Condescending? More avoidance to maintain the double standard you hold Catholics too. :tsktsk: Or just stating facts as I see them. Please show the double standard so I can understand what you’re referring to.

Peter said the unlearned, unstable and unwise will wrest scriptures, even to their own destruction. But, that’s not applicable for some reason. Paul said the wisdom of God is far greater than those who think they are wise. (Doki paraphrase.)

No, it’s not been ‘discussed’, even though we have seen several snarky responses insinuating a superior interpretation of scriptures, which is still unsubstantiated. Correct understanding isn’t about superiority. The donkey sure wasn’t superior to Baalam.

These one sided ‘discussions’ really show some ‘anti’ sentiments… What one sided discussions? You mean your long discourses?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

These one sided ‘discussions’ really show some ‘anti’ sentiments… What one sided discussions? You mean your long discourses?

The long discourses are over. You are not going to open your mind to even a simple fact that Catholic beliefs are derived from an interpretation of scriptures. You are going to persist that Catholic beliefs are a contradiction to scriptures, even though you have shown no scriptures stating infant baptism is forbidden. The implication is there, with the ‘Gentile’ centurion and the ‘Gentile’ mother, whose servant and daughter received cleansing from Jesus based upon the faith of those asking and not those receiving the cleansing, the same as a parent having their child baptized to receive a cleansing from the Lord would be.

The discussions are one sided, when you are asked a question or to address points raised, you respond with more questions, opinion based assertions or state you’ve already discussed it, failing once again to provide a scriptural support for your own ‘contradictions’. Contradictions is in quotes because the Bible does not state itself to be the sole authority, it is assumed by you even though it does not state such. However, interpreting scriptures is warned against and seems more clearly to be a contradiction. Living in the love of Christ to know His commandments are short of mentioning any scriptures by the passages you provide. Yet, that is acceptable as positive proof one can interpret scriptures for themselves, while ignoring the warnings against such practice. The double standard still exists when you cannot show passages againt infant baptism, but you persist in asserting the Catholic belief is contradicting scriptures.

When Peter warns against unlearned, unstable and unwise misinterpreting scriptures, you provide a verse from Paul as if scriptures are contradicting themselves or that some scriptures can be ignored for those that seemingly support your own theology.

Donkeys, Baalam? Is that your discussion, yet again in the form of a question? It’s clear you have to scriptural support by the grasping of single verses that can be taken from the context of the entire message and made to seem it might be of support.

It was easy to notice that you discarded the writings of the early Church fathers provided referencing people being disciples of Christ since their infancy, or grace given to all including infants. Do you not think those men of the 2nd century knew Christianity better than a modern day theologian? Do you take the Mormon route of considering Christianity to be so corrupt so soon after the formation of Christianity, as to discount any Christian writings from those times?

 

[wmscott]

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?)WMSCOTT responses in red: Can an infant receive the Holy Spirit??? Yes, a resounding Yes, why in the world would you think otherwise? Are you suggesting that a Christian soul should go around for 10, 12, 13, 14, ……25 years or more isolated from the Holy Spirit until they decide to be baptized? Since baptism is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin, only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons. Why would you want a child to carry the burden of original sin until their teens or adulthood when it can be erased early on? What of the 3 year old child that dies, un-baptized, and still with the stain of original sin attached to their soul?
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.My dear friend, this is why a suggested that maybe you and some others try to put God in a box. You and I agree that the Sacred Scripture texts referenced above are the divinely inspired words of God, do we not? That both your Protestant Bible and the Catholic Bible are the same with regard to the NT. That being said, what is the magic number of Sacred Scripture references that is required so that it becomes valid? The OT only recites the Ten Commandments in two places, that is two or three less than the above Sacred Scripture references above on infant baptism. The genealogy of Jesus is only recounted once in the Gospel of Matthew, The temptation of Christ by the devil is recounted only twice, in Matthew and Luke, the parable of the Prodigal Son is only recounted once in Luke. The story of Moses being plucked from the Nile is only recounted once in Exodus, This can go on and on, so what is the magic number that something has to be referenced to be valid? You stated “Of the many thousands of people in the NT that got baptized. The chance of these families NOT having infants is quite high, IMO” are you serious in thinking that these people had no families? Sure, there can be single folks in the crowd, but to suggest that the majority had no families, come on. What about those thousands, is that 2, 3, 4, 10, 15, … thousand? Would you concede that there were at least 100 families mixed in with the thousands that were baptized? How about a 1000? Is it possible that there were 1000 families that were baptized? There are many, and I do mean many times, in which Protestants will use “ONE” verse from Sacred Scripture, to establish their belief in a particular subject, so in the end is it sufficient for the word of God to be proclaimed once and it to be valid?

I really don’t want to beat a dead horse, I think you get my point here. I have another post coming shortly to add to this. Peace of Christ be with you.

Looking forward to your thoughts. Peace.

 

[wmscott]

Dokimas, my brother in Christ, I want to continue with what we were discussing regarding infant baptism.

Taken from the CAF library:

*Catholics From the First

The present Catholic attitude accords perfectly with early Christian practices. Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that “according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants” (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, “The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]). *

With that said there is a long list of Early Church Fathers who wrote and supported infant baptism. They saw the immense significance and importance in doing so. We as parents have a solemn and even holy obligation towards our children and the state of their souls once they are brought into this world. St. Jerome had this to say:

*“While the son is a child and thinks as a child and until he comes to years of discretion to choose between the two roads to which the letter of Pythagoras points, his parents are responsible for his actions whether these be good or bad. But perhaps you imagine that, if they are not baptized, the children of Christians are liable for their own sins; and that no guilt attaches to parents who withhold from baptism those who by reason of their tender age can offer no objection to it. The truth is that, as baptism ensures the salvation of the child, this in turn brings advantage to the parents. Whether you would offer your child or not lay within your choice, but now that you have offered her, you neglect her at your peril.” Jerome, To Laeta, Epistle 107:6 (A.D. 403). *

And this:

*C. Tell me, pray, and rid me of all doubts, why little children are baptized?
A. That their sins may be forgiven them in baptism." Jerome, Against the Pelagians, 3:18 (A.D. 415). *

The following is a list of even more ECFs who deal with the subject of infant baptism, this can be read in full at this site.

Justin Martyr, First Apology, 15:6 (A.D. 110-165).
Aristides, Apology, 15 (A.D. 140).
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180).
Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215).
Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233).
Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).
Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244).
Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251).
Optatus of Mileve, Against Parmenium, 5:10(A.D. 365).
Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:17 (A.D. 381).
Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:28 (A.D. 381).
Ambrose, Abraham, 2,11:79 (A.D. 387).
John Chrysostom, Ad Neophytos (A.D. 388).
Augustine, On Baptism against the Donatist, 4:24:31 (A.D. 400).
Augustine, On forgiveness of sin and baptism, 39[26] (A.D. 412).
Augustine, Epistle 166:8:23 (A.D. 412).
Augustine, Epistle 167,7,21 (A.D. 415).
Council of Carthage, Canon 2 (A.D. 418).
African Code, Canon 47/51 (A.D. 419).
Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, 1:23 (A.D. 420).
Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, 7 (A.D. 428).
Gregory the Great [regn. A.D. 590-604], To Leander, Epistle 43 (A.D. 591).

I do hope that you give it an ernest read and I will be looking forward to your thoughts. Peace of Christ be with you.

 

[wmscott]

Dokimas, did you take the weekend off

 

[Dokimas]

Dokimas, did you take the weekend off

I cooked dinner for my wife and Mother. My Mom’s 79th birthday today.

 

[Dokimas]

The long discourses are over. You are not going to open your mind to even a simple fact that Catholic beliefs are derived from an interpretation of scriptures. You are going to persist that Catholic beliefs are a contradiction to scriptures, even though you have shown no scriptures stating infant baptism is forbidden. The implication is there, with the ‘Gentile’ centurion and the ‘Gentile’ mother, whose servant and daughter received cleansing from Jesus based upon the faith of those asking and not those receiving the cleansing, the same as a parent having their child baptized to receive a cleansing from the Lord would be.

The discussions are one sided, when you are asked a question or to address points raised, you respond with more questions, opinion based assertions or state you’ve already discussed it, failing once again to provide a scriptural support for your own ‘contradictions’. Contradictions is in quotes because the Bible does not state itself to be the sole authority, it is assumed by you even though it does not state such. However, interpreting scriptures is warned against and seems more clearly to be a contradiction. Living in the love of Christ to know His commandments are short of mentioning any scriptures by the passages you provide. Yet, that is acceptable as positive proof one can interpret scriptures for themselves, while ignoring the warnings against such practice. The double standard still exists when you cannot show passages againt infant baptism, but you persist in asserting the Catholic belief is contradicting scriptures.

When Peter warns against unlearned, unstable and unwise misinterpreting scriptures, you provide a verse from Paul as if scriptures are contradicting themselves or that some scriptures can be ignored for those that seemingly support your own theology.

Donkeys, Baalam? Is that your discussion, yet again in the form of a question? It’s clear you have to scriptural support by the grasping of single verses that can be taken from the context of the entire message and made to seem it might be of support.

It was easy to notice that you discarded the writings of the early Church fathers provided referencing people being disciples of Christ since their infancy, or grace given to all including infants. Do you not think those men of the 2nd century knew Christianity better than a modern day theologian? Do you take the Mormon route of considering Christianity to be so corrupt so soon after the formation of Christianity, as to discount any Christian writings from those times?

It’s apparent I can’t satify you with my resposes. It then becomes obvious we should discontinue this discussion and part as friends in Christ or move on to another discussion as brothers in Christ.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It’s apparent I can’t satify you with my resposes. It then becomes obvious we should discontinue this discussion and part as friends in Christ or move on to another discussion as brothers in Christ.

Agree…to disagree.

Happy birthday wishes and prayers for your mother!..and her children.

 

[wmscott]

It’s apparent I can’t satify you with my resposes. It then becomes obvious we should discontinue this discussion and part as friends in Christ or move on to another discussion as brothers in Christ.

Hi Dokimas, does this mean that we are done also?

 

[Dancelittleewok]

It’s apparent I can’t satify you with my resposes. It then becomes obvious we should discontinue this discussion and part as friends in Christ or move on to another discussion as brothers in Christ.

Do you mind addressing my question in post 141?

 

[wmscott]

I cooked dinner for my wife and Mother. My Mom’s 79th birthday today.

Tell your Mom Happy Birthday