Well said. Apostolic teaching and Church tradition upheld by the bishops came first. The Bible came from the bishops and Apostolic tradition and both Bible and Tradition feed into and support each other. But the final authority rests with the Church which compiled the Bible, not with the Bible itself in isolation from the Church and Tradition.
Interestingly, not all Protestants are anti-infant baptism, or only baptize by immersion. Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. all practice infant baptism. Many if not most of those also practice both immersion and pouring baptism, as the Catholic Church (and the ancient Christians) does. All of the ancient schismatic churches, such as the Orthodox Church, Assyrian Church of the East, Oriental Orthodox churches, etc. all practice infant baptism.
True, your household would not include infants and young children, nor do pro-infant baptism Christians believe that when the Bible states that whole households were baptized that every household included infants and young children. The point is that if whole households were baptized, this must have included infants and children as well, in those that had them.
Agreed.
NS,
ParkerD’s logic is that because we don’t believe that immersion is the only way to baptize (though it certainly is a way to be baptized, which is done in the Catholic Church), then we believe that Jesus did not know what He was talking about in the instance that he cited. This is flawed logic. Catholics believe that we are born again through baptism just like all others that believe in baptismal regeneration. Immersion baptism fully captures the symbolism of being born again, however that does not mean that one is not born again because they are baptized by pouring, nor does it mean that there is a disagreement with Christ saying that we are born again.
Well said. Being born again depends on the disposition of the one who is baptized and the gift of grace that God bestows upon one who is properly disposed. God can choose to bestow that grace through an immersion baptism or through pouring as He sees fit, just as the Church has taught from the beginning.
I’m sorry, the more I read, the more it seems as if you don’t understand the Catholic position on anything, though that’s okay, since you’re not Catholic.
Sorry, receiving direct revelation from God is not breaking with “[our] tradition”. Do you think that Catholics believe that God does not give personal revelations to people, or that He has not appeared to anyone? The history of Catholicism is replete with Heavenly visitations from God, angels and saints to believers.
I understand that, in the end, it comes down to your personal testimony. This is what it always and invariably comes down to at the end of the day when discussing evidences for Mormon teaching in the primitive church. But to me, this is a classic “bait and switch” tactic. Scholarly minded Mormons will begin with the discussion of the evidence from the Bible and from the writings of the early church fathers but when pressed on the lack of evidence for such teachings as an immersion only policy, temples, and endowment in the primitive church inevitably Mormons pull their testimony out of their sleeve as the final trump card. Why engage in all of the scholarly discussion if this is where it will end up anyway? Just state up front in every single post here on CAF that what motivates you is your testimony and that no amount of evidence or scholarly debate can possibly change your mind. That will save everyone, including you, a lot of time and energy.
NS,
And this is not a problem for Catholics, since we agree. The problem here is when someone brings up their testimony as proof in a discussion forum, which can be seen as a conversation stopper, since it goes “I know this is true because God revealed it to me, and look at all the blessings I have in my life because of it, so it’s true”. God has revealed truths to me as well, but I’m not going to go on and on in an apologetics discussion about it or the blessings that I have received by living the fullness of the Gospel in the Catholic Church as proof, since others will claim the same thing in reference to their own religions. I believe that God does bless those who live the Gospel, however others will claim the same about their own religions. So you have your testimony as proof, I have my testimony as proof, the baptist has his testimony as proof, the muslim has his testimony, etc etc. When I read testimonies in an apologetics discussion I think “okay…so…what? I have the same thing in my own faith, this isn’t proving anything to me”. This is what we’re talking about.
Seems like “prosperity gospel” to me with an added dollop of pillorying the poor.
And the Catholic church has spoken quite eloquently on the importance and beauty of the family. IMO in a much more moving and inspiring way than the Proclamation you refer to, not to mention the proclamation issued was months behind and came after the world celebrated the year of the family.
While you explain why it’s okay to use water( or 7up or chocolate milk) and soda crackers or cookies or whatever when it was clear in the Bible that it was bread and wine.The idea that I would not include infants and toddlers as part of my “household” is bizarre and really sort of repulsive. What are they livestock, pets? potential household members?
Where do you get that there should have been an “uproar” from what I said? One man is also quite different logistically from thousands.
Again, a modern rich Western perspective. Travel and special accommodation was exceedingly difficult in many areas and for many people. Water in many places was precious and scarce. And, logistically, with many thousands, it was impossible to do as you suggest on that scale, particularly in short time periods as are described in the NT.
If you admit exceptions for such reasons, why not exceptions for the other practical reasons? The early Church certainly did, and made note of it in various early writings.
And then you have hypothermia for both parties, the logistical difficulty of dealing with any numbers in such a manner, and the likely added logistical complication of avoiding immodesty (normally one would strip off such wet clothes to prevent hypothermia). Remember, the Church often baptized hundreds and thousands at a time, not the modern-day few.
Parker,
I said “lay” religious. They ARE “everyday people.”
What about the many places in Scripture where poverty is spoken of as a blessing?
Is this meant to be a refutation or distancing of your church from Smith’s prophecies about Independence, MO?
You think the Catholic Church doesn’t do this? Just check into its charities, I urge you.
This gets more into theory of government than theology. I tend to agree with you, but I do not absolutely separate a modern government of a wealthy nation from any welfare role (safety nets, legal assistance to the poor who can’t afford it, disaster relief, etc).
Have you ever read Frank Peretti’s This Present Darkness? I think it’s a good illustration of how other spiritual influences can work and mimic and mislead. It can seem a lot like what you’re describing, particularly when you hold to it in isolation. What baffles me more is how you maintain that you are dependent on your personal “revelation” alone, that this is what your church advocates even, and deny that you follow a “Prophet,” have an authoritative priesthood, or have any other leaders or scriptures that you follow. The fact is that Mormons follow leadership authority and tradition in very much the same way that Catholics do–a pot calling the kettle black situation.
Arandur,
TheosisM,