Some think Matthew 4:4 is teaching sola Scriptura

[guanophore]

The Word says you are forgiven once and for all and your tradition is saying you have to get forgiven over and over again.

The nature of sin has not changed, medwigel. Sin still separates us from God.

Forgiveness is always available, but not all people will seek it. Sins need to be confessed and forgiven constantly. Otherwise, why would the Scripture say for the faithful to confess them, and that they will be forgiven (future tense)? If what you were saying were true, Scripture would say “they have already been forgiven”, and there would be no point confessing them.

8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. John 1:1

The Apostle says He is faithful and “will forgive”, not that he has already forgiven. Confession is how post-baptismal sins are addressed.

So following God’s Word and baptism are a new aged thing?

The idea that the Apostles did not baptize infants is “new” (comparatively) only being invented within the last 200 years.

I thing you need put the man made traditions aside and read your Bible WITHOUT your preconceived filter and look at the Word with a fresh and unbiased lens.

That is the thing, tho, medwigel. It is not possible for any of us to read without our lenses. We approach everything we read with ideas already in our head. We can’t help that. We can study the text, and sometimes identify our preconcieved notions and put them to the side, but if one is not willing to examine ones lenses, then one will not be successful. I have read the scriptures through a number of lenses (many different Protestant doctrines) and finally returned to the Apostolic lens because I realized it is the most valid.

 

[medwigel]

finally returned to the Apostolic lens because I realized it is the most valid.

In my many travels I have yet to met a person who was Protestant and became Catholic, it’s quite the opposite. I know more people who were raised as Catholics, became disillusioned for various reasons, and have become born-again Christians.

 

[guanophore]

don’t lack information about my history, I am just bright enough and brave enough to ask questions and ask why things don’t match up instead of just blindly following what I’ve been told by “authorities”, who clearly have not read the Bible themselves.

I am talking about the early family history of Christianity, medwigel. You admitted you have not even heard of Polycarp. You have not read the Didache, and probably not read any of the authors cited in this article.

It has nothing to do with being bright and brave, it has to do with not being acquainted with history, specifically, the history of your own faith.

If you think that the writers referred to here have not read the Bible themselves, you are grossly mistaken. I can’t imagine why you would think that the Apsotolic fathers did not cherish and read the Scripture. Their writings are chock full of quotes from the Septuagint, which is what Jesus and the Apostles used.

I am a diligent student who is willing to look at the other side of an argument

In that case, perhaps you are brave enough to read what some of the ancestors of your faith had to say?

I think you lens of measuring the Word through man made tradition the clouding your aim.

I think you are unable to accept that Sacred Tradition exists, and that the NT was produced from it. The preaching of the Apostles is not “man made” but from God, as they testify themselves.

1 Thessalonians 2:13
13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

This is Sacred Tradition - the Apostolic Word of God in the Church.

 

[medwigel]

8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. John 1:1

The Apostle says He is faithful and “will forgive”, not that he has already forgiven. Confession is how post-baptismal sins are addressed.

And who are you confessing this sin too?

Romans 5:17-18
17 For if by the trespass of the one (Adam), death reigned through the one (Adam), much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in [eternal] life through the One, Jesus Christ.
18 So then as through one trespass [Adam’s sin] there resulted condemnation for all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to [d]all men.

So is Paul lying when he says through Christ we are justified

Romans 6:10-11
10 For the death that He died, He died to sin [ending its power and paying the sinner’s debt] once and for all; and the life that He lives, He lives to [glorify] God [in unbroken fellowship with Him]. 11 Even so, consider yourselves to be dead to sin [and your relationship to it broken], but alive to God [in unbroken fellowship with Him] in Christ Jesus.

Is Paul lying when he says we have unbroken fellowship with Christ?

 

[medwigel]

I am talking about the early family history of Christianity, medwigel. You admitted you have not even heard of Polycarp. You have not read the Didache, and probably not read any of the authors cited in this article.

This article you cite has examples from the 2nd and 3rd centuries. That’s over 100 years after the Apostles died, which leaves more than enough time for their teachings to be corrupted, which is actually what did happen!! In the early church there were TONS of false doctrine circulating, and this case of infant baptism would fall under this corruption for original doctrine and the Word of God and be classified as false doctrine that sprung up over the years in the early church!!

Actually Paul spoke against people claiming to be a disciple of others:

1 Corinthians 1:11-13
11 For I have been informed about you, my brothers and sisters, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are quarrels and factions among you. 12 Now I mean this, that each one of you says, “I am [a disciple] of Paul,” or “I am [a disciple] of Apollos,” or “I am [a disciple] of Cephas (Peter),” or “I am [a disciple] of Christ.” 13 Has Christ been divided [into different parts]? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized into the name of Paul? [Certainly not!]

So if Polycarp is calling himself a disciple of the Apostle John then he clearly wasn’t following the written directive of the Apostle Paul which Paul got from God since he included this warning in Scripture. So, why should I follow what Polycarp says when what he is saying is not found in the Scripture?

 

[medwigel]

The idea that the Apostles did not baptize infants is “new” (comparatively) only being invented within the last 200 years.

medwigel:

The following is from research, no my words:

An ancient manuscript called the Harris Fragments shows the following with one addition from me in {}:

Polycarp…He was… {an} old man, being one hundred and f[our] of age. He continued to walk n the canons which he had learned from his youth from John the a[p]ostle.(Weidman, Frederick W. Polycarp and John: The Harris Fragments and Their Challenge to Literary Traditions. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame (IL), 1999, pp. 43,44).

Thus, if Polycarp lived to be 104, then he was baptized at age 18, and therefore was not baptized as an infant. Hence, the Harris Fragments are one other way to help disprove mythological traditions that are simply not biblical. True history supports the positions of the Living Church of God.

The "Harris Fragments," four papyrus fragments (preserving portions of three separate leaves) containing a text written in Sahidic, preserve a narrative about the martyrdom of Polycarp of Smyrna that offers a unique perspective on both Polycarp and John the Apostle.

 

[guanophore]

In my many travels I have yet to met a person who was Protestant and became Catholic, it’s quite the opposite. I know more people who were raised as Catholics, became disillusioned for various reasons, and have become born-again Christians.

Yes, it is a sad fact that so many Catholics are poorly catechized. It is something we could learn from our separated brethren, who have many skills for making disciples. Children are not raised in the faith as they were in the old days, and most Catholics leave in a state of ignorance. I was one - I never learned why the CC taught the things she does, and just objected in ignorance. I sojourned among my separated brethren for a long time before I studied and prayed my way back.

Inititially I left because I was starving for Scripture. I met some bible thumping Baptists in high school and was envious that they brought their bibles to school, seemed so full of joy, knew how to pray, and were so passionate about their faith. I went to a fellowship for youth,and it started me longing to know more scripture. The Catholics never taught me to read or study Scripture, and I think that is a major mistake. Even now, there are not enough bible studies available in parishes.

 

[vz71]

Fine, we’ll just ignore historians and theologians who all agree that baptism at that time involved being immersed or submerged during those days

Sola scriptura would dictate that you must.

 

[medwigel]

The Catholics never taught me to read or study Scripture, and I think that is a major mistake. Even now, there are not enough bible studies available in parishes.

I too had a similar experience. This is one reason I did not return to the Catholic church, especially when I found a church were emphasis was placed on studying the Bible and not what someone said. Too many times through history people have tried to use the Bible to justify their wrongs but when you go to the Bible itself their claims can’t be supported by God’s Word!

 

[medwigel]

Fine, we’ll just ignore historians and theologians who all agree that baptism at that time involved being immersed or submerged during those days

No it doesn’t.
Historical fact is historical fact, no one who’d is saying the Bible is the final authority is saying to ignore historical fact.
Your above claim is just rhetoric to detract from the point at hand which is, baptism in the days of the early church involved people of a consenting age, not infants, who were baptized in large bodies of water, be it a river, lake or pool.

Once again, do you have anything more to offer than just rhetoric?
Do you have at least one Bible verse that you can offer perhaps to the discussion?
Anything?

 

[Theo2]

Jesus is the word of God.

 

[guanophore]

And who are you confessing this sin too?

One can confess their sins directly to God, to other Christians, or to those whom Christ appointed with the authority to remit their sins. Sometimes we do all!

The sacrament of reconciliation functions to restore one’s relationship with God and with the Church.

So is Paul lying when he says through Christ we are justified

Not everyone is justified. Only those who believe and are baptized are justified. Well, God can justify whoever He wants, however He likes, but the normative means to be put in right relationship with God is through Baptism. This applies the saving blood of Christ to the individual.

"We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. Rom. 6

We were buried with Christ in Baptism that we might walk in newness of life. Baptism frees us from slavery to sin, but not everyone who is regenerated chooses to walk in the new life.

15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to any one as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? Rom. 6

Paul makes it clear that, though we are redeemed and regenerated, we still can choose to sin.

The nature of sin has not changed, medwigel. Sin still separates us from God.

"For just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification. "Rom. 6

The Apostle teaches that we have a choice. We can yield our members to iniquity, or to righteousness. If we sin, we can confess our sin. He is faithful and just, and will forgive our sin.

23" For the wages of sin is death,"

The wages of sin is still death. A regenerated person is still free to choose iniquity, and separate themselves from Christ.

This article you cite has examples from the 2nd and 3rd centuries. That’s over 100 years after the Apostles died, which leaves more than enough time for their teachings to be corrupted, which is actually what did happen!!

When did this happen, medwigel, and how can you establish that it actually did happen? I agree, the post Apostolic examples are not from the first century. They reflect the first century teaching of the Apostles. Exactly where and when did Jesus fail in His promise to lead the Church into “all Truth”?

 

[vz71]

The bible remains ambiguous on the point.

You are letting an extra-biblical source dictate the meaning of scripture.

This logically places the extra biblical source at a higher authority than scripture.

 

[medwigel]

The bible remains ambiguous on the point.

You are letting an extra-biblical source dictate the meaning of scripture.

This logically places the extra biblical source at a higher authority than scripture.

Ah got it, you don’t know anything about Bible because you think it’s “ambiguous”, and you just go along with what others say.
This completely explains your anemic responses and inability and answer questions.
Duly noted.

 

[vz71]

Well, you were telling people to just read the scripture and reject other sources.

Now you are saying the opposite.

I guess you only want extra biblical sources rejected when they contradict you.

 

[guanophore]

In the early church there were TONS of false doctrine circulating, and this case of infant baptism would fall under this corruption for original doctrine and the Word of God and be classified as false doctrine that sprung up over the years in the early church!!

There were many heresies and false teachers. The Scripture and the Sacred Tradition were used to combat these heresies.

Actually Paul spoke against people claiming to be a disciple of others:

No, he did not. He spoke against people being factious. The reason the lineage is important is that the Faith was passed from one person to another, all in line with the Apostles. The authenticity of one’s position and teaching was connected to their Apostolic training.

We see this apostolic succession in Scripture:

2 Timothy 2:2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

Paul received his teaching from Christ, and committed it to Timothy. He instructs Timothy to commit it to faithful men, who will teach others also. So we see five generations of aposotlic succession here. God to Paul, Paul to Timothy, Timothy to the faithful men, and the “others” who will be able to teach.

One way that the authenticity of the teaching was established was by tracing it back to the Apostolic source.

 

[guanophore]

So if Polycarp is calling himself a disciple of the Apostle John then he clearly wasn’t following the written directive of the Apostle Paul which Paul got from God since he included this warning in Scripture.

Polycarp was not being factious, he was tracing the lineage of his instruction. Paul affirms the importance of this with Timothy:

2 Timothy 3:14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it

One can trace one’s lineage without being competitive and factious.

The Apostle also instructs us to mark our leaders:

Hebrews 13:7 Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God; consider the outcome of their life, and imitate their faith.

Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.

It is not factious to mark one’s leaders. Acts 5:13 None of the rest dared join them, but the people held them in high honor.

Romans 13:7 Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

It is not factious to honor those to whom honor is due. It is scriptural to hold the Apostles in high honor. A disciple trained by an Apostle was also held in high honor.

Philippians 2:29 So receive him in the Lord with all joy; and honor such men,

By the end of the first century, the Church recognized the disciples of the Apostles as representatives of the Catholic Church. These were to be received, but no others. Those who could not trace their teaching back to the Apostles were not to be trusted.

An ancient manuscript called the Harris Fragments shows the following with one addition from me in {}:

Well you certainly seem to be grasping at straws to deny your own family history.

The timeline seems to be off, but in either case, can you show how and when the Church went off the rails?

Can you explain why God could not find one single orthodox Christian to correct the direction?

How did the powerful Jesus of Revelation get so weak and disinterested that He could no longer guide His Church?

 

[guanophore]

Fine, we’ll just ignore historians and theologians who all agree that baptism at that time involved being immersed or submerged during those days and we’ll just ignore verse 16 were it says “Jesus came up immediately from the water”

No need for that. History is clear that full immersion baptism is the fullest sign of the sacrament. To “baptize” means to dip or submerge in a liquid. The oldest reference we have for the word is a pickle recipe. No one would try to sprinkle a cuke to make a pickle!

Right, so Paul was an adult when he was baptized.

Yes, and he made a profession of faith. But later Paul baptized whole households (which are presumed to contain infants and children).

Nope, this in clearly delineated in the Bible

It is also clear that whole households were baptized. This also might include slaves, who were expected to follow the practices of their master.

Yeah, you’re going by what someone else has told you

Who is that “someone”?

Why would I take your construction, 2000 years after the fact, rather than those of the disciples who were trained by the Apostles?

instead of just blindly following what I’ve been told by “authorities”, who clearly have not read the Bible themselves.

Could you kindly identify who these people are?

This article you cite has examples from the 2nd and 3rd centuries. That’s over 100 years after the Apostles died,

No, medwigel. The second century began in 100 AD. That is just a few years after John wrote his letters and Revelation. What you are trying to defend is that the disciples of the original Apostles misunderstood what they taught. Polycarp, who was baptized by John as an infant and sat at his feet, did not grasp that infants should not be baptized?

emphasis was placed on studying the Bible

You are studying it through Reformed spectacles.

 

[guanophore]

Historical fact is historical fact, no one who’d is saying the Bible is the final authority is saying to ignore historical fact.

Well, what you have done amounts to exactly that. You are claiming that those who wrote just a few years after the death of John were already lost. You may acknowledge that what they wrote is historical fact, but you discount it by saying they went off the rails.

baptism in the days of the early church involved people of a consenting age, not infants, who were baptized in large bodies of water, be it a river, lake or pool.

The early church began in Palestine, medwigel. It is a desert. It is largely devoid of large bodies of water and pools. Very shortly after the death of Christ, the Church began to be persecuted, and baptism had to be done in secret.

Ah got it, you don’t know anything about Bible because you think it’s “ambiguous”, and you just go along with what others say.

On the contrary, being able to acknowledge that the scriptural record is ambiguous requires a great deal of knowledge about Scripture.

We use the lens of the Apostolic teaching we have received to understand what they meant.

I guess you only want extra biblical sources rejected when they contradict you.

That certainly seems to be the case.

 

[medwigel]

Well, what you have done amounts to exactly that. You are claiming that those who wrote just a few years after the death of John were already lost. You may acknowledge that what they wrote is historical fact, but you discount it by saying they went off the rails.

I am comparing what they wrote and did against what is in the Bible/divinely inspired Word and instruction, and at times those two things don’t hold up; that’s been my argument. The fact that what they were doing was not Biblical, this is why I say they “went off the rails”.