Yet another Infant Baptism proof - from St. Paul

  • Thread starter Thread starter NotWorthy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
NotWorthy said:
I feel like I’m a lot like the Ethiopian Eunuch (well, not in THAT way). Sometimes I feel like, “How can I understand it if someone doesn’t explain it to me”. Notice, the Holy Spirit doesn’t guide the Eunuch to understanding. The Holy Spirit tells Philip, a member of the Church, to teach him.

I’d say the Catholic Church is rather Biblical in it’s form of Scripture Interpretation.
Click to expand...
👍 I agree!
 
NotWorthy said:
Whew! At first I thought you agreed that I’m a lot like the Ethiopian Eunuch!!!
Click to expand...
hmmmmmmmmmmm I think the verdict is still out on that one, but you could kill the jury by providing us a picture showing that you don’t look like an Ethiopian Eunuch?😃
 
Hi Randy.
Randy_Carson said:
Error does spread from one persn to another…personal misinterpretation of the Bible is one of the root causes of heresies and schism. Peter warned about people who would twist the scriptures (unknowingly!) to their own destruction.

This is precisely why Jesus did not leave us a book…he left a group of men to whom He had given real authority.

That authority has been passed from one man to the next for 2,000 years through the laying on of hands and is known as Apostolic Succession.

Today, in the Catholic Church, you will find Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium working together to proclaim the gospel infallibly.

A “Bible Christian” with his scriptures on his lap (along with the notes from his pastor’s latest sermon) is not guaranteed to understand what he is reading infallibly.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that I am not saying that God has not provided us with teachers as well as His Holy Spirit to guide us in understanding.

But those men that Jesus left in charge who wrote the scriptures told us that what they wrote is profitable for reproof and correction (2 Timothy 3:16). 👍
 
MariaG said:
Hi John:)

I see that in fact, most of our dialogue is completely off thread. Instead of answering and continuing to draw this farther and farther away from specific verses about infant baptism and scripture, I will cease. If you wish to start a new one, I would certainly be interested.

Something along the lines of How can a Christian know whose interpretation of scripture is correct when they disagree?

Since even over at CARM, a site that does not recognize the basic Christianity of Catholics, does in fact recognize that Lutherans are Christians, and Lutherans believe in infant baptism, a regerative baptism, I would be interested in this kind of dialogue.

Does anyone have the ability to infallible interpret scripture? Can we truly be led to all truth in practice, not just theory, as scripture promises? If scripture is the final authority, who has the final authority to say ones interpretation of scripture is correct?

Or things along those lines.

If not, that is okay too:) But if you do wish to pursue more dialogue on these lines, please post a link in this thread or pm as to the thread. I do not always go to the open boards but sometimes only check on my subscribed threads.

God Bless,
Maria
Click to expand...
Okay Maria,

Thanks for the chat 🙂

God bless,
John
 
JBaker45 said:
Hi Randy.

Keep in mind that I am not saying that God has not provided us with teachers as well as His Holy Spirit to guide us in understanding.

But those men that Jesus left in charge who wrote the scriptures told us that what they wrote is profitable for reproof and correction (2 Timothy 3:16). 👍
Click to expand...
Yes, it is.

However, nowhere does scripture teach that it is the ONLY infallible rule of faith for the believer. In fact, backing up just two verses, we read the following from the pen of Paul:

14But as for you, continue in what you have learned [by means of oral teaching or TRADITION] and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it [these reliable teachers formed the Magisterium of the early Church[/COLOR]], 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures [which, technically, would have been the OT at the time of Timothy’s infancy], which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Tradition + Scripture + Magisterium

This is the Catholic view of things.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:
 
Randy_Carson said:
Tradition + Scripture + Magisterium

This is the Catholic view of things.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:
Click to expand...
In fact, one could say that it is the scriptural view of things:)

The Catholic Church is the most scriptural Church there is:thumbsup:
 
Randy_Carson said:
nowhere does scripture teach that it is the ONLY infallible rule of faith for the believer.
Click to expand...
But it does say this :
1 Corinthians 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.
Therefore, any man, organization (hierarchical structure, etc) that exceeds what is written is in violation and subject to correction.

This is the Biblical view of things.

God bless
 
JBaker45 said:
But it does say this : 1 Corinthians 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.Therefore, any man, organization (hierarchical structure, etc) that exceeds what is written is in violation and subject to correction.

This is the Biblical view of things.

God bless
Click to expand...
Bingo, JBaker!!!

That is why only the Catholic Church has the authority to interpret Scripture, for Scripture tells us that the Holy Spirit will guide Her.

That is why only the Catholic Church has the authority to Bind and Loose!!!
 
NotWorthy said:
That is why only the Catholic Church has the authority to interpret Scripture, for Scripture tells us that the Holy Spirit will guide Her.

That is why only the Catholic Church has the authority to Bind and Loose!!!
Click to expand...
No.

Not when we understand the lessons taught to us by the Bereans (Acts 17:10-11) who where called noble by Paul because they tested his words against the scriptures.
 
JBaker45 said:
No.

Not when we understand the lessons taught to us by the Bereans (Acts 17:10-11) who where called noble by Paul because they tested his words against the scriptures.
Click to expand...
:confused:
No, the Catholic Church doesn’t have the authority to interpret Scripture (as Jesus promised in John)?
or
No, the Catholic Church doesn’t have the authority to bind and loose (as Jesus promised in Matthew)?

Could you please elaborate?
 
Could tradition, as in the “Infant Baptism” that started this whole conversation, be explained any clearer than in this quote from www.bible.ca? *The Church’s living tradition is necessary to understand it. None of the biblical authors had any idea of writing a book which would of itself give us all of God’s revelation" (Christ Among Us, p. 166 169). “Like two sacred rivers flowing from Paradise, the Bible and divine Tradition contain the Word of God …of the two, Tradition is to us more clear and safe” (Catholic Belief, p. 33.)

But the Catholic Bible says: In regard to the true wisdom of God that, “God has revealed this wisdom to us through the Spirit. The Spirit scrutinizes al/ matters even the deep things of God. Who for example, knows a man’s innermost self but the man’s own spirit within him? Similarly, no one knows what lies at the depths of God but the Spirit of God… We speak of these, not in words of human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, thus interpreting spiritual things in spiritual terms” The Bible: (I Cor 2:10 13). “May you learn from us not to go beyond what is set down, so that none of you will grow self important by reason of his association with one person rather than another” (I Cor. 4:6). “For even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel not in accord with the one we delivered to you, let a curse be upon him” (Gal. I :8). “I am not ashamed of the gospel. It is the power of God leading everyone who believes in it to salvation, the Jew first, then the Creek” (Rom. 1: 16). "All Scripture is inspired of God and is useful for teaching for reproof, correction, and training in holiness so that the man of God may be fully competent and equipped for every good work " (II Tim. 3: 16 17). “In reply he said to them: ‘Why do you for your part act contrary to the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition!’…This means that for the sake of your tradition you have nullified God’s Word” (Mt. 15:3, 6). * Isn’t it true that much of the traditions of past practices have become law in the Roman Catholic Church? 🤷
 
Salamander said:
Could tradition, as in the “Infant Baptism” that started this whole conversation, be explained any clearer than in this quote from www.bible.ca? *The Church’s living tradition is necessary to understand it. None of the biblical authors had any idea of writing a book which would of itself give us all of God’s revelation" (Christ Among Us, p. 166 169). “Like two sacred rivers flowing from Paradise, the Bible and divine Tradition contain the Word of God …of the two, Tradition is to us more clear and safe” (Catholic Belief, p. 33.)

But the Catholic Bible says: In regard to the true wisdom of God that, “God has revealed this wisdom to us through the Spirit. The Spirit scrutinizes al/ matters even the deep things of God. Who for example, knows a man’s innermost self but the man’s own spirit within him? Similarly, no one knows what lies at the depths of God but the Spirit of God… We speak of these, not in words of human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, thus interpreting spiritual things in spiritual terms” The Bible*: (I Cor 2:10 13). “May you learn from us not to go beyond what is set down, so that none of you will grow self important by reason of his association with one person rather than another” (I Cor. 4:6). “For even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel not in accord with the one we delivered to you, let a curse be upon him” (Gal. I :8). “I am not ashamed of the gospel. It is the power of God leading everyone who believes in it to salvation, the Jew first, then the Creek” (Rom. 1: 16). "All Scripture is inspired of God and is useful for teaching for reproof, correction, and training in holiness so that the man of God may be fully competent and equipped for every good work " (II Tim. 3: 16 17). “In reply he said to them: ‘Why do you for your part act contrary to the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition!’…This means that for the sake of your tradition you have nullified God’s Word” (Mt. 15:3, 6). Isn’t it true that much of the traditions of past practices have become law in the Roman Catholic Church? 🤷
Click to expand...
You forget one thing. This Tradition was established in the Apostolic Times!!!
 
What Paul was trying to say in this scripture is this If the jailer confessed the Lord Jesus christ he would be saved but he was then required to carry that plan of salvation to his family so that they too could be saved. To baptise someone who is not yet confessed their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is only making a dry sinner wet.
 
preacherman said:
What Paul was trying to say in this scripture is this If the jailer confessed the Lord Jesus christ he would be saved but he was then required to carry that plan of salvation to his family so that they too could be saved. To baptise someone who is not yet confessed their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is only making a dry sinner wet.
Click to expand...
What Paul was “trying to say”?!?
What the Lord inspired Paul to say is, ““Believe in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved.”

I’m not sure if Paul needs you to tell me what he was “trying to say”.
 
Maybe this will help. A few “catholic” doctrines: # “It is difficult to give strict proof from the scriptures in favor of it. [infant baptism]” (Catholic Dictionary, p. 61).

“Ecclesiastical custom with regard to the administration of Baptism has undergone a change in the course of history. Whereas the early Church baptized adults only, the baptism of children soon became the usual practice.” (Sanford, Alexander E., MD, Pastoral Medicine: Handbook for the Catholic Clergy, 1904, p 32-33)​

“Where in the fourth and fifth centuries the doctrine of original sin became better known, the practice of infant baptism progressed rapidly.” (Legislation on the Sacraments in the New Code of Canon Law, p. 72).​

“When all fear of persecution had passed away, and the empire had become almost entirely Christian, the necessity for a prolonged period of trial and instruction no longer existed, about the same time the fuller teaching on the subject of original sin, occasioned by the Pelagian heresy, gradually led to the administration of baptism of infants.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, p. 78).​

Infant baptism by immersion commanded of all infants in the Council Of Mela in 416 AD. … so what happened before 416 AD? It wasn’t practiced universally. If it was, then why bring it up?​

 
JBaker45 said:
No.

Not when we understand the lessons taught to us by the Bereans (Acts 17:10-11) who where called noble by Paul because they tested his words against the scriptures.
Click to expand...
You have this completely backwards. The Bereans were praised precisely because they were not following sola scriptura.

Here…let me explain more fully the

Berean Rejection of Sola Scriptura

If one group could be tagged as believers in sola scriptura, who would it be, the Thessalonians or the Bereans? The Thessalonians, obviously. They, like the Bereans, examined the Scriptures with Paul in the synagogue, yet they rejected his teaching. They rejected the new teaching, deciding after three weeks of deliberation that Paul’s word contradicted the Torah. Their decision was not completely unjustified from their scriptural perspective. How could the Messiah of God be cursed by hanging on a tree like a common criminal, publicly displayed as one who bore the judgment of God? What kind of king and Messiah would that be? This seemed irreconcilable to them (see Simon J. Kistemaker, Acts [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1990], 614).

When some of the Greeks and prominent citizens did accept Jesus as Messiah, the Jews became jealous—and rightfully so, from their perspective, since the new believers separated themselves from the synagogue and began meeting elsewhere, at Jason’s house. The Jews naturally considered themselves the authoritative interpreters of the Torah. Who were the Gentiles to interpret Scripture and decide important theological issues or accept additional revelation? They were the “dogs,” not the chosen custodians of the oracles of God (see William Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1976], 128).

We can see, then, that if anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was “unbiblical.”

The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they “received the word with all eagerness.” Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were “noble-minded” not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, “The Acts of the Apostles” in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).

The Bereans searched the Torah no less than the Thessalonians, yet they were eager to accept words of God from the mouth of Paul, in addition to what they already held to be Scripture, that is, the Law and the Prophets. Even if one claims that Paul preached the gospel and not a “tradition,” it is clear that the Bereans were accepting new revelation that was not contained in their Scriptures. These Berean Jews accepted oral teaching, the tradition of the apostles, as equal to Scripture, in addition to, and as an “extension” of, the Torah. This is further illustrated by the Christian community’s reception of Paul’s epistles as divinely inspired Scripture (see 2 Peter 3:16; here Peter seems to acknowledges Paul’s writings as equal to the “other Scriptures,” which can be presumed to refer to the Old Testament).

From Steve Ray’s article: catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703fea3.asp

Those who followed the doctrine of sola scriptura, the Thessalonians, rejected the messiah. Those who accepted oral teaching AND scripture, the Bereans, accepted the Gospel.

Additionally, although both groups searched the scriptures, they came to contradictory conclusions about the Messiah. Clearly, scripture alone is insufficient to ensure proper interpretation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top