Why do some non-cathloics not have Baptism for infants

[dyluck]

Now if the Blessed Mother was born with the stain of Original Sin guess what. Jesus would have had to have it also. Then he could not have been the perfect lamb Of God now would he. We all inherit original sin from our parents.

To my understanding, the acceptance of Mary as immaculate and perpetual virgin has not always been a doctrine of the old church.

Also you are assuming, without biblical backing, that Jesus, the God of our salvation, must be also born from one without sin for him to be sinless… Why is it then that Mary declars Him her savior? Luke 1:47-50. There is no need for a savior if you are without sin. If she is without sin then she is not under the law.

Also the bible declairs that no-one is righteous not one: Romans 3:10, “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.”…

She also had sex: Matthew 1:25 This is obvious in context. Although she was married, and sex is not a sin under marriage, she is neither a perpetual virgin.
Even she was awstruck at the fact that God chose her. God chose to bless her. This is a SOVERIGN act of God not some merit of a woman. Blessedness comes from God.

my two cents!

 

[PRmerger]

Many Protestant denominations are distinctive by minor doctrinal differences, such as church polity or dispensation–rather than the gospel.

That’s not quite true.

First of all, there’s no Scripture verses which tell us what’s a “minor doctrine” and what’s a “major doctrine”.

Secondly, here’s just a cursory(non-exhaustive) list of different doctrines which Protestants have multiple teachings on:

Abortion
Attend weekly services, don’t have to go to Church
Baptism—in Jesus’ name only, or Trinitarian? In a river? Sprinkling? Immersion? Sacrament or ordinance? Adult or infant?
Can men and women sit together during services?
Charity or no charity (help one another or let them help
Church leadership, or no leadership
Death/Soul Sleep
Divorce
Drinking allowed, drinking not allowed)
Head coverings or no head coverings
Health and wealth gospel
Hell, or no hell
Homosexuality
Is God‘s Holy Name Jehovah
Is it permissible for women to teach Scripture?
Judge others, don’t judge others
Music or no music (Singing or no singing)
Once saved, always saved
Ordination
Predestination
Rapture
Sola scriptura/private interpretation
The Eucharist (Communion)
Tongues (some believe others are not saved if they don’t speak in tongues)
Trinity vs. Unitarianism
What is original sin and its effects on humanity
What’s a sin, what is not a sin
When to celebrate the Lord’s Day
Women pastors, no women pastors

 

[PRmerger]

To my understanding, the acceptance of Mary as immaculate and perpetual virgin has not always been a doctrine of the old church.

Can you provide a source for this, dyluck? Perhaps a church document that shows initially that we taught Mary was not immaculately conceived or that she had relations with Joseph?

Also you are assuming, without biblical backing, that Jesus, the God of our salvation, must be also born from one without sin for him to be sinless… Why is it then that Mary declars Him her savior? Luke 1:47-50.

Because God saved her FROM sinning.

Also the bible declairs that no-one is righteous not one: Romans 3:10, “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.”…

If you take it to mean, literally, NO ONE is righteous, then that means Jesus, too?

Clearly Christians cannot take that verse literally else the atheist or agnostic can rightly point out that our Scriptures say that Jesus was not righteous either.

She also had sex: Matthew 1:25 This is obvious in context. Although she was married, and sex is not a sin under marriage, she is neither a perpetual virgin. .!

2 Sam 6:23 says that Michal had no children *until *the day she died.

Clearly, in Biblical language UNTIL does not necessarily mean a change in action after a certain point.

 

[LBKat]

That’s not quite true.

First of all, there’s no Scripture verses which tell us what’s a “minor doctrine” and what’s a “major doctrine”.

Secondly, here’s just a cursory(non-exhaustive) list of different doctrines which Protestants have multiple teachings on:

Abortion
Attend weekly services, don’t have to go to Church
Baptism—in Jesus’ name only, or Trinitarian? In a river? Sprinkling? Immersion? Sacrament or ordinance? Adult or infant?
Can men and women sit together during services?
Charity or no charity (help one another or let them help
Church leadership, or no leadership
Death/Soul Sleep
Divorce
Drinking allowed, drinking not allowed)
Head coverings or no head coverings
Health and wealth gospel
Hell, or no hell
Homosexuality
Is God‘s Holy Name Jehovah
Is it permissible for women to teach Scripture?
Judge others, don’t judge others
Music or no music (Singing or no singing)
Once saved, always saved
Ordination
Predestination
Rapture
Sola scriptura/private interpretation
The Eucharist (Communion)
Tongues (some believe others are not saved if they don’t speak in tongues)
Trinity vs. Unitarianism
What is original sin and its effects on humanity
What’s a sin, what is not a sin
When to celebrate the Lord’s Day
Women pastors, no women pastors

I realize I need to clarify. I see now you are grouping Liberal Protestantism and Conservative Protestantism into one category. Liberal Protestantism is speculative of the Bible–and no, Conservatism has no union with them and would consider them apostate. Rather than calling ourselves “Conservative Protestants” we usually go by “Conservative Evangelicals”–in many senses we are in some senses one LARGE denomination–but we encompass several at the same time (Protestant, Baptist, Methodist, Nondenominational, the Bible denomination . . . etc.).

In other words, Conservative Evangelicals all agree on key Biblical Doctrine that has direct application to the Gospel. We consider the Church to be all of those who have been saved as Ephesians 2:8-9 documents. The various denominations within the conservative church deal more with direct application and interpretation that is not explicit in the Bible. The list you have above would include some of those differences–while many more could be differences found between Liberalism and Conservatism. It would be good to keep in mind that the differences between Liberalism and Conservatism are just as radical as the differences between Conservative Evangelicalism and Roman Catholicism.

 

[PRmerger]

IIn other words, Conservative Evangelicals all agree on key Biblical Doctrine that has direct application to the Gospel. We consider the Church to be all of those who have been saved as Ephesians 2:8-9 documents.

What are the Scripture verses which tell us that these are “key Biblical doctrines”?

(NB: I do not need to see a list of verses that you think are the key doctrines; I’d like to see what verses in Scripture tell us: “This is a major doctrine” and “This is a minor doctrine.” )

 

[LBKat]

What are the Scripture verses which tell us that these are “key Biblical doctrines”?

(NB: I do not need to see a list of verses that you think are the key doctrines; I’d like to see what verses in Scripture tell us: “This is a major doctrine” and “This is a minor doctrine.” )

2 TImothy 3:16 (though, this isn’t what you are looking for–because I am not defending that there are major doctrines and there are minor doctrines. I do believe it’s logically reasonable and possible–but I never said as much above. What I did say is that issues and differences surrounding doctrine can be either major or minor.)

Obviously the entire Bible is profitable for doctrine. And obviously all doctrine is highly important. What I was explaining to be major or minor was not specifically the doctrines–but rather the issues and differences that arise from them. For example, issues and questions that arise over the doctrine of God’s holiness are much greater than the issues that arise about whether or not women should wear head-coverings. I would hope you agree that it would be more important to defend the holiness of God than it would be to defend whether or not is is biblically applicable today for women to wear head-coverings to church.

As a rule: Major Doctrinal issues regard that which Bible explicitly teaches, and Minor Doctrinal issues are those which may not be taught as explicitly and can be interpreted various ways with biblical support.

I don’t know how I can state it more clearly. But if it still doesn’t make sense, I shall try my best.

 

[PRmerger]

2 TImothy 3:16 (though, this isn’t what you are looking for–because I am not defending that there are major doctrines and there are minor doctrines. I do believe it’s logically reasonable and possible–but I never said as much above. What I did say is that issues and differences surrounding doctrine can be either major or minor.)

I agree that there major and minor doctrines. In fact, the Catholic church calls it a “hierarchy of truths.”

However, my point is, in your paradigm of “The Bible Alone”, you have no way of determining what’s a major or minor doctrine…for the Scriptures do not tell us. [sign1]You are using a man-made tradition to determine what’s a major doctrine.[/sign1]

For example, issues and questions that arise over the doctrine of God’s holiness are much greater than the issues that arise about whether or not women should wear head-coverings. I would hope you agree that it would be more important to defend the holiness of God than it would be to defend whether or not is is biblically applicable today for women to wear head-coverings to church.

What Scripture verses tell you doctrines of God’s holiness are much greater than issues about whether women wear head coverings or not?

(Clearly, I agree with you. But as I don’t subscribe to the SS paradigm I don’t need Bible verses to support my belief. You do.)

As a rule: Major Doctrinal issues regard that which Bible explicitly teaches, and Minor Doctrinal issues are those which may not be taught as explicitly and can be interpreted various ways with biblical support.

Again, unless you can point to a Scripture verse that tells you this then what you’re proposing is not found in the Bible.

 

[LBKat]

I agree that there major and minor doctrines. In fact, the Catholic church calls it a “hierarchy of truths.”

However, my point is, in your paradigm of “The Bible Alone”, you have no way of determining what’s a major or minor doctrine…for the Scriptures do not tell us. [sign1]You are using a man-made tradition to determine what’s a major doctrine.[/sign1]

What Scripture verses tell you doctrines of God’s holiness are much greater than issues about whether women wear head coverings or not?

(Clearly, I agree with you. But as I don’t subscribe to the SS paradigm I don’t need Bible verses to support my belief. You do.)

Again, unless you can point to a Scripture verse that tells you this then what you’re proposing is not found in the Bible.

Ok, now I see you’re issue. Glad I know what I am defending.

First of all, I firmly believe in the sufficiency of scripture. You ask for scriptural support–so I shall give it to you: 2 Timothy 3:15-17, James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:23, All of Psalm 119, Deut 4:2, Deut 12:32, Prov 30: 5-6, Revelation 22:18-19

I am sure Catholics have rebuttals to every single verse above–I’d be surprised if they did not. However, I am fully persuaded of what the Bible teaches me because of the Holy Spirit’s witness within me as a Christian–and the very real and dear personal relationship I have with Jesus Christ whom I love very dearly—couldn’t go a day without it. The Bible has always proved sufficient for His Church (referring to all believers who have put their personal faith in Jesus Christ ALONE for Salvation). God is sufficient, Christ is sufficient and His Word is sufficient.

I
However, my point is, in your paradigm of “The Bible Alone”, you have no way of determining what’s a major or minor doctrine…for the Scriptures do not tell us. [sign1]You are using a man-made tradition to determine what’s a major doctrine.[/sign1]
.

I cannot agree with you. Tradition–no. Biblical interpretation–yes. It is our right to study the Bible and interpret it. So-called “Major Doctrines” are determined not by tradition but by connection to the gospel and clarity in the scriptures. It’s much more personally based than mere “tradition”. What God says is so. Period. However, there will always be passages in the Bible that are difficult to understand–they are worth studying carefully–but interpretation can go many ways at times. There are mysteries that will never be revealed on this side of heaven–but it doesn’t hurt to make our best interpretation of these “Minor Doctrines”–because it keeps us in the Word–mostly and it increases our faith and awe for the glory of an infinite God who possesses knowledge we cannot understand. Is it not wonderful–that the Bible is sufficient, yet at the same time insatiable–we can learn more of God’s glory and gospel every time we approach it.

This is ultimately why I cannot understand why Roman Catholics suggest we need more than the scriptures—I can’t get enough of the wonder of the Scriptures as it is. (That was just merely free and personal)

What Scripture verses tell you doctrines of God’s holiness are much greater than issues about whether women wear head coverings or not?

Lol. Does it really need to? Did God not supply us with the mental capabilities of logic and reason? Must we refer to some outlined tradition of an hierarchy of Doctrine? But then again–the Scripture does outline principles for Doctrine. If you do an in-depth study of the Epistles you find controversy after controversy over petty interpretations of Old Covenant law–and even over New Covenant ethics where Paul brings believers back to the doctrines of the gospel over and over again as the primary importance.

Again, unless you can point to a Scripture verse that tells you this then what you’re proposing is not found in the Bible.

Perhaps you forget the importance of application–the importance of applying Biblical principles to personal life–the formation of biblical and personal ethics. The Bible is the sufficient basis for all things–for all godly living. No–you will not find every single issue that comes up in life outlined in the Bible. But what you will find, I guarantee you, is applicable biblical principles for everything in life. That, my friend, is why the Word of God is sufficient–and it has never been truly proved otherwise–Praise the Lord. May God be glorified.

 

[PRmerger]

First of all, I firmly believe in the sufficiency of scripture. You ask for scriptural support–so I shall give it to you: 2 Timothy 3:15-17, James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:23, All of Psalm 119, Deut 4:2, Deut 12:32, Prov 30: 5-6, Revelation 22:18-19

Thanks for all those beautiful verses, LBK. Scripture is indeed inspired and useful! Amen!

However, those verse do not tell you or me what’s a major doctrine or what’s a minor doctrine.

Also, I noticed that 2 Tim 3:16 does NOT say Scripture is sufficient. It is useful, yes. It is inspired, yes. But it definitely does NOT say that Scripture is all you need.

That’s a man-made tradition.

No Protestant on this forum–ever–has been able to provide me with a verse that lets us know what’s an “essential” and what’s a “non-essential” doctrine.

In fact, after being on this forum for many years I’ve seen that Protestants can’t even agree on what’s essential and what’s not, let alone how Scripture lets us know this.

 

[PRmerger]

God is sufficient, Christ is sufficient and His Word is sufficient

That’s very Catholic of you to say that! Catholics just take ALL of His Word to mean what was written and what was passed on orally through the Apostles.

This is ultimately why I cannot understand why Roman Catholics suggest we need more than the scriptures—

Mainly, Catholics believe this because the Bible says we need more than the Scriptures. It does NOT say “the Bible is all you need.”

1 Corinthians 11:2
Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

John 21:25
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

 

[PRmerger]

Lol. Does it really need to?

Well, not by my paradigm, but by yours it does.

Unless you’re ok with the Catholic doctrines that you have not found explicitly stated in Scripture.

 

[LBKat]

.
No Protestant on this forum–ever–has been able to provide me with a verse that lets us know what’s an “essential” and what’s a “non-essential” doctrine.
.

Maybe because all Biblical doctrine is essential? Otherwise, it would not be included in the Bible. That seems pretty clear to me. I’d be hard pressed to find a Bible-believing Protestant to affirm the above as well.

 

[PRmerger]

Maybe because all Biblical doctrine is essential? Otherwise, it would not be included in the Bible. That seems pretty clear to me. I’d be hard pressed to find a Bible-believing Protestant to affirm the above as well.

I am using “essential” and “major doctrine” interchangeably.

If you’d like I can amend my post above to say, "No Protestant on this forum has* ever *been able to provide us with verses which tell us what’s a “major doctrine” and what’s a “minor doctrine’ that’s ok to disagree about.”

 

[LBKat]

Thanks for all those beautiful verses, LBK. Scripture is indeed inspired and useful! Amen!

However, those verse do not tell you or me what’s a major doctrine or what’s a minor doctrine.

Also, I noticed that 2 Tim 3:16 does NOT say Scripture is sufficient. It is useful, yes. It is inspired, yes. But it definitely does NOT say that Scripture is all you need.

No, the verse does not come out say the scriptures are sufficient–but yet the verse is all-inclusive. Read it again–with verse 17:

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work

The clarity is this: that the Bible is profitable and useful for everything–if so, why the need for something supplemental. This attests to Scripture’s own sufficiency.

All that to say, there were more verses I listed beside this one. And I will list another: Ps. 19:7-9

God bless

 

[LBKat]

I am using “essential” and “major doctrine” interchangeably.

If you’d like I can amend my post above to say, "No Protestant on this forum has* ever *been able to provide us with verses which tell us what’s a “major doctrine” and what’s a “minor doctrine’ that’s ok to disagree about.”

And again I would have to say as I thought I made clear before–no doctrine clearly taught in the scripture is “okay” to disagree about. However, biblical interpretative differences on what is not clearly revealed (some consider this “minor doctrine”–but that is probably a misnomer/unfortunate semantic) is much less an issue, and is not worth separating over.

 

[PRmerger]

No, the verse does not come out say the scriptures are sufficient–but yet the verse is all-inclusive.

Yes, it does not “come out and say” that the Scriptures are sufficient.

I hope that you will give Catholic doctrines the same leeway–it does not “come out and say” that Mary was a Perpetual Virgin, yet one can glean that doctrine from the Scriptures, yes?

Read it again–with verse 17:

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work

The clarity is this: that the Bible is profitable and useful for everything–if so, why the need for something supplemental. This attests to Scripture’s own sufficiency.

First of all, it doesn’t say Scripture “alone” makes the man of God complete or perfect. For example, a soldier needs a rifle to be complete, to be made perfect for battle. But, is a rifle the only thing he needs to be complete? No. He needs his helmet, his boots, his fatigues, his backpack, his ammunition, and so on. In other words, he needs his rifle to be complete, to be perfect for battle, but not his rifle alone. Just so the man of God in relation to Scripture. He needs the Scriptures to be complete, to be made perfect, but it does not say Scripture alone. Source: John Martignoni

 

[PRmerger]

And again I would have to say as I thought I made clear before–no doctrine clearly taught in the scripture is “okay” to disagree about.

Then we are agreed!

However, biblical interpretative differences on what is not clearly revealed (some consider this “minor doctrine”–but that is probably a misnomer/unfortunate semantic) is much less an issue, and is not worth separating over.

Fair enough.

So what are the “major doctrines” that all Christians must agree upon? And how do you know?

 

[PRmerger]

All that to say, there were more verses I listed beside this one. And I will list another: Ps. 19:7-9

God bless

Psalm 19:7-9 is, again, beautiful and I respond with a hearty “Amen!”.

I’m still not sure how that tells me what’s a major doctrine and what’s a minor doctrine;

Or were you providing the verse to show the sole sufficiency of Scripture? If so, it doesn’t say that, not even close.

 

[guanophore]

And I just thought of another thing!

Now, this is not a doctrinal issue, but I this is an AMAZING example of the unity in the Catholic Church: each and every Catholic Church, from Australia to Pakistan to Zaire, read the very same readings this past Sunday and celebrated the very same feast–the feast of Corpus Christi.

How MAGNIFICENT is that, that if you went to Mass in Albuquerque or San Juan or Manila–you’d hear the very same Scripture verses read from the pulpit!

Now, can any other Baptist Church brag about this?

You know, I did go to Mass in Albuquerque! And guess what? Later in the day I listened to the Popes’ Mass in Cypress. It is exactly what you said! Same liturgy.

 

[guanophore]

I see, I guess. I don’t see the Mass in the book of Revelation, though. Could you point me to it?

Didn’t I just read in the post above this one that it is none of your business, since you don’t go to Mass?

If you really want the ans. to this question, a visit to Mass is just the ticket! Everything in it will point to scripture. Or more accurately, everything in Scripture points to it, since the Mass came first, and the Scripture later.