Was the Protestant Reformation, in a sense, good?

[PopePiusXIISupp]

is that a picture or a statue? I like it.

Statue but since it is in a form of a picture (On the web) I called it a picture.

 

[Duane1966]

I don’t think Anabaptists believe Baptism is necessary. It is an outward sign of the interior conversion. And only after the interior conversion.

I think Catholic beliefs are not entirely opposed to the outward “sign” of Baptism, but also professes the action of the Trinity, who is called on, in water Baptism. The actions are forgiveness of sin, and incorporation into the body of Christ. While Baptism accomplishes it’s promise on God’s part, we profess belief and interior reception of the Holy Spirit is a necessary completion of Baptism, and Confirmation. Rejection of belief in the Gospel is a rejection of the grace given at Baptism, it does not mean that the Grace was never bestowed on the infant.

An Anabaptist’s Baptism would be valid in the Catholic Faith, but an Infant’s Baptism has no meaning in the Anabaptist’s faith. They, then would re-baptize (or baptize newly, in their belief) a person Baptized as an infant. The adult professes his belief that he has already been forgiven and is Baptized for what has already occurred.

Hopefully I’m representing the view correctly!

I was directly replying to this statement in the above writing that I posted. The Anabaptist position is

until the beginning of the fourth century, the Christian church practiced believer’s baptism,

Ergo, they believe anyone that was baptized as an infant, and not rebaptized as an adult, was not a Christian. There is no reason to include the believer’s part in the statement about baptism, unless you are rejecting infant baptism. So they must believe that anyone who was baptized as an infant, never rebaptized, and killed for their faith, must not be a Christian martyr.

 

[Wannano]

I think what the church recognizes, and has confessed wrong doing/apologized in instances because of, is that the Church, through unfaithful stewards, has unlawfully persecuted some. St Joan of Arc would be an example.

But sometimes, a punishment against a heretic is lawful. When the Church gives an official approval or condemnation of an issue regardin the faith, and a Christian defies that position, they can no longer suffer justly. If they preach and teach after being addressed before the Church, how can they be just in their cause?

Ultimately, the Bishop of Rome’s official position constitutes the position of the Church of God. This, only, carries the weight of Church authority.

The Reformation did not have Church authority, yet claimed God’s authority. The reformers were divided, while they sometimes abused the sacraments, their positions, and even persecuted to death those who they judged.

The Church needed reform, and made it through Trent. But that was not the beginning or the end of reform. It has always been the task of the Church to reform abuses, to confirm or condemn matters of faith and morals, and to strive to convert our hearts and deeds to what She has delivered to us from the Lord.

For my information rc does the term heretic apply presently to only those who are members of the Catholic Church? No longer is the term heretic used for those that never joined and left the Church?

 

[rcwitness]

For my information rc does the term heretic apply presently to only those who are members of the Catholic Church? No longer is the term heretic used for those that never joined and left the Church?

Correct.

 

[Wannano]

I was directly replying to this statement in the above writing that I posted. The Anabaptist position is Ergo, they believe anyone that was baptized as an infant, and not rebaptized as an adult, was not a Christian. There is no reason to include the believer’s part in the statement about baptism, unless you are rejecting infant baptism. So they must believe that anyone who was baptized as an infant, never rebaptized, and killed for their faith, must not be a Christian martyr.

No you are wrong there Duane, they do not beleive that baptism makes you a Christian either in infancy or as an adult.

 

[Duane1966]

No you are wrong there Duane, they do not beleive that baptism makes you a Christian either in infancy or as an adult.

Then why practice baptism? And what do they believe happens to infants, or young children that die?

 

[susanlo]

Then why practice baptism? And what do they believe happens to infants, or young children that die?

Baptism is an outward sign that one has decided to commit their life to following Jesus. They have already received the Holy Spirit and have been “converted.”

Children are innocent and do not need to be baptized for sins. (They don’t believe in the Doctrine of Original Sin).

 

[guanophore]

I don’t know… I have a feeling from the outset that the Book of Martyrs is quite biased. It launches into an attack on the office of the Pope with this (in Chapter4):

Popery having brought various innovations into the Church, and overspread the Christian world with darkness and superstition, some few, who plainly perceived the pernicious tendency of such errors, determined to show the light of the Gospel in its real purity, and to disperse those clouds which artful priests had raised about it, in order to blind the people, and obscure its real brightness.

Yes, it is vociferously anti-Catholic and very biased. The CCEL website does publish ancient documents in an accessible form, but the content is limited to things that are not to blatantly Catholic. It is managed by a group from Calvin College and is unashamedly Reformed in focus.

 

[Wannano]

Then why practice baptism? And what do they believe happens to infants, or young children that die?

Baptism is an outward sign of an inward change. It is an identification with the body of Christ, the Church, confirming the repentance the Apostles preached. Also a confession of the name of Jesus.

Young children or infants that happen to die are in the complete presence of Christ because they are innocent until they come to the individual realization that they are no longer innocent. Of such is the kingdom of heaven.

 

[guanophore]

Baptism is an outward sign of an inward change. It is an identification with the body of Christ, the Church, confirming the repentance the Apostles preached. Also a confession of the name of Jesus.

This would be modern and innovative understanding of Baptism, as opposed to what was taught by the Apostles.

 Young children or infants that happen to die are in the complete presence of Christ because they are innocent until they come to the individual realization that they are no longer innocent. Of such is the kingdom of heaven.

If this were true, then it would discount the presence and consequences of original sin. :bigyikes:

 

[7_Sorrows]

Statue but since it is in a form of a picture (On the web) I called it a picture.

thanks. I have never seen it before. I am glad you posted it.

 

[PopePiusXIISupp]

thanks. I have never seen it before. I am glad you posted it.

Thank you! I will add it on to my shrine soon (When I can get a working printer.)

 

[susanlo]

This would be modern and innovative understanding of Baptism, as opposed to what was taught by the Apostles.

If this were true, then it would discount the presence and consequences of original sin. :bigyikes:

Many believe that for the first few hundred years infant baptism wasn’t common. The Doctrine of Original Sin wasn’t created until the 5th century and early writings that I have seen display different understandings of original sin. (Ambrose taught that foot washing after baptism removed original sin, etc.)

Tertullian (197-220)
“On Baptism”
“And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children.
For why is it necessary–if (baptism itself) is not so necessary–that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfill their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, “Forbid them not to come unto me.” Let them “come,” then, while they are growing up; let them “come” while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the “remission of sins?” More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine!
Let them know how to “ask” for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given “to him that asketh.” For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred–in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom–until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.”
earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian21.html

 

[rcwitness]

Origen

“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” (Homilies on Leviticus8:3 [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” (Commentaries on Romans*5:9 [A.D. 248]).

This is before we had a list of the correct Bible!!!

 

[guanophore]

Many believe that for the first few hundred years infant baptism wasn't common.

Yes, “believers baptism” is a modern evangelical invention that is not consistent with the historical record.

From the New Testament times, infants were brought for baptism, and it was understood that it replaced circumcision as the entrance rite into the Body of Christ. Infant baptism was as common as infants. In Acts we see whole households getting baptized. These included children and even slaves. Peter preached that baptism was for “you and your children” on Pentecost.

The early controversies were about whether the practice of waiting for the 8th day should be observed.

The Doctrine of Original Sin wasn’t created until the 5th century

I am interested to see a source on this, as I have never seen one.

For Catholics, all doctrine was deposited “once for all” and closed by the death of the last Apostle, so no new doctrines can be created.

Irenaeus makes reference to original sin in his second century writing against the Gnostics, but I do agree with you that there have been many different ideas about it.

and early writings that I have seen display different understandings of original sin. (Ambrose taught that foot washing after baptism removed original sin, etc.)

I am interested to see a reference on this also. It seems unlikely, since Ambrose taught that baptism itself removed original sin.

Tertullian (197-220)
“On Baptism”
"And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children.

By citing this quote, it would seem obvious to you that Tertullian was having a discussion around infants/children being baptized. Delay has never been the practice or teaching of the Church, though there has been dissent. Did it not occur to you that this polemic was written BECAUSE infants were being baptized?

You might also wish to explore this link.

If you wish to rely on Tertullian, you may also wish to consider that he considered baptism regenerational. Unless you just want to pick and choose what you want of his writing to support a modern innovation.

 

[Abu]

Susanlo #215
The Doctrine of Original Sin wasn’t created until the 5th century

An erroneous supposition.

710. What proof have you that original sin is inherited?
The very best—the word of the God who created us. In Ps. L., 7, we read David’s testimony, “In sins did my mother conceive me.” The original Hebrew has “in sin,” not “in sins.” He is speaking, not of his own personal sins, nor of any actual sin of his father or mother. He is speaking of original sin derived from Adam and the first fall, tracing back to the very first beginning of human life a sin handed on with human nature from parent to child. In Jn. IIL, 6, Christ demands that a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost in Baptism. A birth means a life. Re-birth means the acquiring of some new principle of life not secured by our natural birth. And Baptism gives the principle of supernatural life without which we were born into this world, and the lack of which constitutes the very essence of original sin. **St. Paul tells us clearly, “By one man sin entered into this world … in whom all have sinned.” Rom. V., 12. **Experience confirms this revealed doctrine. Our very proneness to evil argues to a privation of original rectitude. As Chesterton has well remarked, men may deny original sin, but almost the only thing they know about original innocence is that they haven’t got it. [My bold].
Catholic Apologetics Online
radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-1.php?t=66

 

[susanlo]

Origen

“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” (Homilies on Leviticus8:3 [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” (Commentaries on Romans*5:9 [A.D. 248]).

This is before we had a list of the correct Bible!!!

The Homily of Leviticus is about Leviticus 12 where purification after childbirth is described. He uses this as a reason why it is sinful to bring life into this world.

On his Homily on Luke #14 he describes how Mary needed purification after childbirth (Luke 2) and he mistakes Zechariah 3:3 to mean Jesus, not Joshua, is clothed in stained garments. He says therefore all, even Jesus, are born with stains.
Yes, he does seem to indicate that infants were being baptized in the church where he was. However, he does not display that he understands the knowledge of what is currently taught about original sin.
books.google.com/books?id=sUCQS0X1BLMC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[susanlo]

Yes, “believers baptism” is a modern evangelical invention that is not consistent with the historical record.

From the New Testament times, infants were brought for baptism, and it was understood that it replaced circumcision as the entrance rite into the Body of Christ. Infant baptism was as common as infants. In Acts we see whole households getting baptized. These included children and even slaves. Peter preached that baptism was for “you and your children” on Pentecost.

Yes, Peter did preach that the promise of forgiveness and the Holy Spirit was for “your children and all who are far off.” And then “41 Those** who accepted** his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.”

Most of the household baptisms also state that all in the house were believers:

Acts 16:30-34 – “He then brought them out and asked, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ They replied, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved–you and your household.’ Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God–he and his whole household.”

Acts 18:8 – “Crispus, the synagogue leader, and **his entire household believed **in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized."

This one doesn’t specify if the whole household believed or if the whole household was baptized, but she probably wasn’t a mother of an infant herself if she was a dealer in cloth:
Acts 16:14-15 – “One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira, named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. ‘If you consider me a believer in the Lord,’ she said, ‘come and stay at my house.’ And she persuaded us.”

This provides little detail:
1 Corinthians 1:16 – “(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.)”

The early controversies were about whether the practice of waiting for the 8th day should be observed.

I do think that there was some talk of that in the 3rd century. That was a letter by Cyprian, right?

I am interested to see a source on this, as I have never seen one.

For Catholics, all doctrine was deposited “once for all” and closed by the death of the last Apostle, so no new doctrines can be created.

Irenaeus makes reference to original sin in his second century writing against the Gnostics, but I do agree with you that there have been many different ideas about it.

I am interested to see a reference on this also. It seems unlikely, since Ambrose taught that baptism itself removed original sin.

“32. Peter was clean, but he must wash his feet, for he had sin by succession from the first man, when the serpent overthrew him and persuaded him to sin. His feet were therefore washed, that hereditary sins might be done away, for our own sins are remitted through baptism.”
newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm

By citing this quote, it would seem obvious to you that Tertullian was having a discussion around infants/children being baptized. Delay has never been the practice or teaching of the Church, though there has been dissent. Did it not occur to you that this polemic was written BECAUSE infants were being baptized?

You might also wish to explore this link.

If you wish to rely on Tertullian, you may also wish to consider that he considered baptism regenerational. Unless you just want to pick and choose what you want of his writing to support a modern innovation.

I did read the “On Baptism” that that website took information from. That is the writing that my quote was from. He does believe that baptism is for forgiveness, but he says that children are in the innocent period of life and should not have baptism too soon. Maybe he was one of the early Christians who didn’t believe forgiveness could be received for sins committed after baptism. Anyway, little children (I don’t know the language to know if this is infants or 7 year olds) were being baptized and he was discouraging it because he had a different understanding of what should be done.

 

[guanophore]

The Homily of Leviticus is about Leviticus 12 where purification after childbirth is described. He uses this as a reason why it is sinful to bring life into this world.

I think I am missing your point here?

Origen is not using purification as a reason to support why it is sinful to bring life into this world. He is using purification as testimony that children come into the world in a fallen state.

On his Homily on Luke #14 he describes how Mary needed purification after childbirth (Luke 2)

Jesus was born under the Law, and did all things in accordance with the Law, but this does not mean he had the stain of original sin.

What Origen is referencing is the belief in original sin prior to the time of Christ, prior to baptism, which the Apostles’ taught washes it away.

Yes, he does seem to indicate that infants were being baptized in the church where he was. However, he does not display that he understands the knowledge of what is currently taught about original sin.

What is it you think is different about Origen’s knowledge, and ours?

Yes, Peter did preach that the promise of forgiveness and the Holy Spirit was for “your children and all who are far off.” And then “41 Those** who accepted** his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.”

Most of the household baptisms also state that all in the house were believers:

Acts 16:30-34 – “He then brought them out and asked, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ They replied, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved–you and your household.’ Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God–he and his whole household.”

Yes, I agree, and I also see that the NT has “believers baptism” of adults. But whole households were baptized also when the heads of the house became baptized. It was customary for everyone to embrace the practice of the master of the house. We don’t have any reason to think there were NOT infants and children among the baptized, and this being a constant practice of the Church since the beginning, it seems unnecessary to change it.

Do you think it was wrong for the Jews to circumcize theri children, since they did not get a chance to choose? Should they not have circumcised Jesus?

Most of the household baptisms also state that all in the house were believers.

Acts 18:8 – “Crispus, the synagogue leader, and **his entire household believed **in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized."

Yes. But children were never excluded, especially since the Lord taught they should be allowed to come unto Him and not be hindered.

When the first generation of Jewish Christians had babies, would there be any reason they would not expect to baptize them into the faith?

This one doesn't specify if the whole household believed or if the whole household was baptized, but she probably wasn't a mother of an infant herself if she was a dealer in cloth:

Acts 16:14-15 – “One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira, named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. ‘If you consider me a believer in the Lord,’ she said, ‘come and stay at my house.’ And she persuaded us.”

How do you figure that? Do you think that first century women had to choose between marriage/children and a career?

Again, there is no reason to expect that any children would be excluded.

This provides little detail:

1 Corinthians 1:16 – “(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.)”

Do you think there is a reason we should think that these households did not include children?

I do think that there was some talk of that in the 3rd century. That was a letter by Cyprian, right?

Yes.

I love having conversation with well read individuals. This is so exciting!

"32. Peter was clean, but he must wash his feet, for he had sin by succession from the first man, when the serpent overthrew him and persuaded him to sin. His feet were therefore washed, that hereditary sins might be done away, for our own sins are remitted through baptism."

newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm

Yes, this is not the position of the Church. The apostles taught that baptism washed both original and personal sins. I don’t know what he was thinkin…

 

[guanophore]

I did read the "On Baptism" that that website took information from. That is the writing that my quote was from. He does believe that baptism is for forgiveness, but he says that children are in the innocent period of life and should not have baptism too soon.

Yes, not all of the Father’s writings reflect the fullness of the faith. There was also some movement to delay baptism as long as possible, so that more sins might be washed by it.

Maybe he was one of the early Christians who didn’t believe forgiveness could be received for sins committed after baptism. Anyway, little children (I don’t know the language to know if this is infants or 7 year olds) were being baptized and he was discouraging it because he had a different understanding of what should be done.

He seemed to be promoting more of a “believers baptism” (letting them choose for themselves). But Jesus taught that “salvation is of the Jews”, and all that is in the OT is a model for what was to come in the NT. This is why we understand baptism to replace circumcision.

Ultimately the matter was settled in the Council of Carthage.