Infant Baptism is not given in scripture.

[Hobie]

Baptism in the Bible is by full immersion and it baptism knowing consent and moral responsibility, which a infant does not posses. One must know and understand what it entails in ones self as baptism is a public statement to commit one's life to Jesus and it demonstrates that the person has repented of sin and wishes to live a life in Christ.

Now infant baptism crept in from another origin and it wasnt from Gods Word, and it wasnt as some claim for evangelism, as how can a infant understand the gospel truths, he cannot. Now, as the Papal Church spread this across the remnants of the empire, the false doctrine came to be accepted, but God led many to resist it, and the Anabaptists were one of them. So lets dig down and see what Anabaptist beliefs and doctrines were.

What I found was the Anabaptists were distinct at that time because of their assertion of the necessity of adult baptism, rejecting the infant baptism practiced by the Roman Catholic Church. They believed that true baptism required a public confession of both sin and faith, which could only be accomplished as an adult exercise of free will. Anabaptists also held to the belief in the separation of church and state, and the concept that the church represents the community of saved. Some of their doctrines can be seen in light of the times with the other Reformers changing the long held beliefs coming from the Catholic Church, as they struggled to understand the light being given.

The original beliefs that they had at the start were the following:
..They had three unique beliefs, unique from the established churches but very biblical:
(1) Believer's Baptism The Anabaptists held that a person must first believe the gospel before he could be accepted into the Church with the sign of water baptism. This is in accordance with the teachings of their Lord Jesus who placed believing ahead of baptism (Mt 28:19 and Mk 16:16).
(2) Pacifism The Anabaptists held that one could not obtain or protect his rights by the use of force. This is in accordance with the teachings of their Lord Jesus who commanded his followers not to resist an evil man (Mt 5:39 and John 18:36).
(3) Community of Goods The Anabaptists held that one could not have private property but must share all his goods in common with Christ's brothers and sisters. This is in accordance with the teachings of their Lord Jesus who said that no one could be his followers unless they gave up all of their possessions (Luke 14:33, also Mt 6:19-34, Mt 19:21, Luke 12:33, John 13:34-35, Acts 2:44-47 and Acts 4:32-5:11).
Today most Anabaptists do not hold to item 3 above, community of goods, but it was part of the original Anabaptists belief.
Anabaptists Today

 

[Hobie]

Since Jesus is the way the truth and the life, obviously you would look at His example and His revealed will, especially on being baptized. The scriptures are our guide, and through them we can learn to follow in the footsteps of Jesus and we begin at his commission to preach the gospel to the world.
"...Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not will be condemned." Mark 16:15-16

Notice what it says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.". It is not enough to believe the gospel and stand on the sidelines. One must accept it and live it as many will find at the end.

"Not everyone who saith unto Me, 'Lord, Lord', shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name, cast out demons in Your name, and in Thy name done many wonders?' And then I will profess unto them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, ye that work iniquity!'" Matthew 7:21-23

There will be many who profess faith in Jesus, they preach His name, they even profess to have done great works in the name of Jesus, but they practice iniquity. The word iniquity that is used here is translated from the Greek "anomia", which means lawlessness or transgressing the law, and transgression of the law is the only definition of sin in the Scripture.

"Whosoever commiteth sin transgresseth also the law, for sin is the transgression of the law." 1 John 3:4

Obedience is the fruit of a relationship with God. It is not enough to to have a just a intellectual or factual knowledge of the law or to keep it because we know it is right (look under the definition of legalism). The law must be kept from the heart, it must become part of the mind or character, and with the Holy Spirit this change is possible to enable us to reflect the love of Christ to a world in need. The believer must be brought into harmony with God's law, he must be a doer of what Christ declares.

"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of Mine, and doeth them, I will liken unto a wise man which built his house upon a rock..." Matthew 7:24

So now we find that baptism is the symbol of the changed life. It is the symbol of rebirth, a demonstration of one that lives in harmony with what we are given from God. Being washed means being justified before God because of the merits of Jesus Christ. Baptism is the outward sign of the acceptance of the covenant relationship with God, the new covenant that God promised to spiritual Israel.

"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which My covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith the Lord. But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord: I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people." Jeremiah 31:31-33

Spiritual Israel will keep the law, but they will keep it from the heart. Baptism is a very serious step to undertake and requires an understanding of the issues involved. Baptism is also more than the outward symbol of rebirth. It is also the outward sign of entrance into the body of Christ, His church.

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." 1 Corinthians 12:13.

"And you are the body of Christ, and members in part." 1 Corinthians 12:27

Those who accept Jesus become part of the church.
"Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." Acts 2:47

If by being baptized we demonstrate our acceptance of the covenant relationship with God, then we become a part of the covenant people of God. As there is only one body, it is essential that careful consideration be given to this choice.
"... so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and everyone members of one another." Romans 12:5

For as the body is one and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body - whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free - and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member by many. But now are they many members, yea but one body. 1 Corinthians 12:12-14, 20

"There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism," Ephesians 4:4-5

The true body of Christ must teach obedience to the law of God and must have faith in the transforming power of the Spirit of God. One cannot be baptized and live apart from the true body of Christ. Now about the mode of Baptism, the Greek word 'baptizo' means 'I immerse' and 'baptisma' means 'immersion'. As with all things, Christ should be our example. When Jesus was baptized, He was baptized by immersion.

"And Jesus when He was baptized, went up straightway out of the water; and lo, the heavens were opened unto Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting upon Him; and lo, a voice from Heaven saying, 'This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Matthew 3:16-17

Jesus was baptized in the river. Also John baptized in the river because he needed water that was deep enough.

"And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized...". John 3:23

 

[Mikeuk]

Baptism in the Bible is by full immersion and it baptism knowing consent and moral responsibility, which a infant does not posses. One must know and understand what it entails in ones self as baptism is a public statement to commit one's life to Jesus and it demonstrates that the person has repented of sin and wishes to live a life in Christ.

Now infant baptism crept in from another origin and it wasnt from Gods Word, and it wasnt as some claim for evangelism, as how can a infant understand the gospel truths, he cannot. Now, as the Papal Church spread this across the remnants of the empire, the false doctrine came to be accepted, but God led many to resist it, and the Anabaptists were one of them. So lets dig down and see what Anabaptist beliefs and doctrines were.

What I found was the Anabaptists were distinct at that time because of their assertion of the necessity of adult baptism, rejecting the infant baptism practiced by the Roman Catholic Church. They believed that true baptism required a public confession of both sin and faith, which could only be accomplished as an adult exercise of free will. Anabaptists also held to the belief in the separation of church and state, and the concept that the church represents the community of saved. Some of their doctrines can be seen in light of the times with the other Reformers changing the long held beliefs coming from the Catholic Church, as they struggled to understand the light being given.

The original beliefs that they had at the start were the following:
..They had three unique beliefs, unique from the established churches but very biblical:
(1) Believer's Baptism The Anabaptists held that a person must first believe the gospel before he could be accepted into the Church with the sign of water baptism. This is in accordance with the teachings of their Lord Jesus who placed believing ahead of baptism (Mt 28:19 and Mk 16:16).
(2) Pacifism The Anabaptists held that one could not obtain or protect his rights by the use of force. This is in accordance with the teachings of their Lord Jesus who commanded his followers not to resist an evil man (Mt 5:39 and John 18:36).
(3) Community of Goods The Anabaptists held that one could not have private property but must share all his goods in common with Christ's brothers and sisters. This is in accordance with the teachings of their Lord Jesus who said that no one could be his followers unless they gave up all of their possessions (Luke 14:33, also Mt 6:19-34, Mt 19:21, Luke 12:33, John 13:34-35, Acts 2:44-47 and Acts 4:32-5:11).
Today most Anabaptists do not hold to item 3 above, community of goods, but it was part of the original Anabaptists belief.
Anabaptists Today

I wish people who post this stuff would study the history first.

I will be brief, because Experience says i am wasting my time.
But here are a few of a long list of arguments..


1/ Its true l there is no explicit reference to infant baptism.
But it’s equally true : there is no explicit reference against it either!! . So you cannot conclude scripture opposes it,


2/ if you want to deduce anything at all:
you know entire families were baptised in an era long before contraceptives. So families included infants. Inevitably .
Thats a near flawless non explicit argument for infant baptism !

3/ The best source of history - the early fathers , a couple of second century fathers support it, indeed one says infant baptism was apostolic. Who are YOU to disagree? There was no new testament then!

4/ Pretty much the only controversy in the first centuries was whether to delay baptism from 2nd till 8th day.
All of them are infants! See Cyprian in 253 before the new testament canon was even settled !
Thats what they did pre New Testament.

So it was clearly the faith handed down.

Your problem is the demonstrable falsehood sola scriptura.
In the early church the faith was handed by word of mouth Or letter.
There were very few bibles , and very few could read the ones that existed!
So my advice is “ lean not on your own understanding” - listen to those who were “ sent”.
So hold true to what you are taught by word of mouth and letter
Listen to those given the power to “ bind and loose” on doctrine,
So resd Catholic sources too. Then decide,

Heres what happens with sola scriptura:

The only context of baptism in the Bible is converts To christianity,
Nowhere does it mention believers children. At all!
So you must conclude ( using your argument of silence opposes)
that believers children don’t need it At all!!!

Which I think all agree is nonsense!

Read up on the early church.

In the end Jesus said “ bring infants to him” and that is part of why the early fathers spoke on it.
Sure some decide to wait, but that doesn’t bar infant baptism,

 

[atpollard]

Aww, what the heck …

FIRST: [Disclaimer: I am a Particular Baptist and, like all Baptists, a “Credobaptist” … meaning that I believe that only those that claim “I believe” should be baptized. I do not practice infant baptism.]

SECOND: I am a huge fan of scripture and accepting what it says without making claims about what it does not say. (Exegesis, not esigesis if we want fancy schmancy terms). Therefore, it is correct to state that “infant baptism is not given in scripture”. Scripture is largely silent on infants (only a few verses) and completely silent on their immersion (whelming or ‘baptizo’). However, scripture is not silent on ”household baptism” and does record the baptism of at least three “entire households”. To say definitively that there were or were not infants in any of those households is eisegesis (reading into scripture what is not there). The text is silent on infants, but not households.

THIRD: From this second point, my Presbyterian brothers and sisters (among others) follow their consciences and honor God by baptizing entire households into the New Covenant Community (as circumcision welcomed a Jewish infant into the People of God to be raised in the blessing of the Old Covenant.). At the same time, we Baptists follow our conscience and honor God by only baptizing those that profess “I believe” into the Body of Christ. Paul deals with this in Romans 14 [go ahead and read it for yourself] … it applies to more than just “food”. So I will not share in their “meal”, but I will gladly rejoice for and with them [that we might BOTH do it to the honor of God].

 

[Hobie]

I wish people who post this stuff would study the history first.

I will be brief, because Experience says i am wasting my time.
But here are a few of a long list of arguments..


1/ Its true l there is no explicit reference to infant baptism.
But it’s equally true : there is no explicit reference against it either!! . So you cannot conclude scripture opposes it,


2/ if you want to deduce anything at all:
you know entire families were baptised in an era long before contraceptives. So families included infants. Inevitably .
Thats a near flawless non explicit argument for infant baptism !

3/ The best source of history - the early fathers , a couple of second century fathers support it, indeed one says infant baptism was apostolic. Who are YOU to disagree? There was no new testament then!

4/ Pretty much the only controversy in the first centuries was whether to delay baptism from 2nd till 8th day.
All of them are infants! See Cyprian in 253 before the new testament canon was even settled !
Thats what they did pre New Testament.

So it was clearly the faith handed down.

Your problem is the demonstrable falsehood sola scriptura.
In the early church the faith was handed by word of mouth Or letter.
There were very few bibles , and very few could read the ones that existed!
So my advice is “ lean not on your own understanding” - listen to those who were “ sent”.
So hold true to what you are taught by word of mouth and letter
Listen to those given the power to “ bind and loose” on doctrine,
So resd Catholic sources too. Then decide,

Heres what happens with sola scriptura:

The only context of baptism in the Bible is converts To christianity,
Nowhere does it mention believers children. At all!
So you must conclude ( using your argument of silence opposes)
that believers children don’t need it At all!!!

Which I think all agree is nonsense!

Read up on the early church.

In the end Jesus said “ bring infants to him” and that is part of why the early fathers spoke on it.
Sure some decide to wait, but that doesn’t bar infant baptism,

It doesn't bar flailing your back with chains, but is that any reason to do it?

 

[Mikeuk]

It doesn't bar flailing your back with chains, but is that any reason to do it?

And that I guess is part of the problem:

Those most wedded to the false doctrine of scripture alone seem to know little of scripture. They certainly study no history.
And the problem with scripture is knowing what it means, not just what it says, which is why protestants have massively Different beliefs between each other , polar opposites In critical matters,

So a lesson on the faith for you:

Going back to the Old Testament self mortification , was part of penance for sins committed, and carried on by the Christian church- that is the Catholic Church ever since .
It took many forms from hair shirts, designed to be uncomfortable, to sack cloth , ashes and fasting,

But As proverbs 20:30 says -
“Blows and wounds scrub away evil, and beatings purge the inmost being.“
Entirely compatible with flagellation as a lesson inrepentance and humility.
The Bible and Jewish penance gives a reason to do it!!



Sadly since the reformation “ fast food christianity “ and “ easy believism” wiped much of the true faith away.

Should you not care about your salvation instead of ours?

If I were a calivinist ( for example) I would worry more that the Bible is not only not silent on Calvinism , it actively opposes it In many ways - for example on irrestible grace scripture actually says
acts 7-50 “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit!“
How so if it is “ irrestible?”

Luther had a simpler way . When he saw bits of scripture that opposed him like macabees he removed them,
Yet the only place faith and alone appear together in scripture is to say James 2:24 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. a problem for “ faith alone”
So luther wanted rid of the book. the epistle of straw.
And then he wanted to insert “alone “ in other places it was never there l

Catholics would never dream of changing scripture to suit us! After all, our councils chose the New Testament!

Nor do Catholics go on the attack, we just defend our faith, more worried in our salvation, not on “judging others”

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Nor do Catholics go on the attack, we just defend our faith, more worried in our salvation, not on “judging others”

The person who wrote the above also said, unironically:

• "I wish people who post this stuff would study the history first. I will be brief, because experience says I am wasting my time."
  
• "Your problem is the demonstrable falsehood sola scriptura."
  
• "Those most wedded to the false doctrine of scripture alone seem to know little of scripture. They certainly study no history."
  
• "Sadly, since the Reformation, ‘fast-food Christianity’ and ‘easy believism’ wiped much of the true faith away."
  
• "If I were a Calivinist, for example, I would worry more that the Bible is not only not silent on Calvinism [but] actively opposes it In many ways."

Yep, he was not going on the attack there, just defending the Roman Catholic faith.

 

[Mikeuk]

The person who wrote the above also said, unironically:

• "I wish people who post this stuff would study the history first. I will be brief, because experience says I am wasting my time."
• "Your problem is the demonstrable falsehood sola scriptura."
• "Those most wedded to the false doctrine of scripture alone seem to know little of scripture. They certainly study no history."
• "Sadly, since the Reformation, ‘fast-food Christianity’ and ‘easy believism’ wiped much of the true faith away."
• "If I were a Calivinist, for example, I would worry more that the Bible is not only not silent on Calvinism [but] actively opposes it In many ways."

Yep, he was not going on the attack there, just defending the Roman Catholic faith.

I didn’t oppose someone else’s doctrine - infant baptism .
I wrote in response to a challenge on ours. Defence.

Always I have to explain the basis of disagreement ( between all protestants, let alone us) is the fallacy of sola scriptura.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I didn’t oppose someone else’s doctrine - infant baptism .
I wrote in response to a challenge on ours. Defence.

Review the cited material which I quoted from you, please, and observe that you did oppose the doctrines of sola scriptura, sola fide, and irresistible grace. You said that Catholics don't "go on the attack, we just defend our faith." That struck me as an accidentally ironic statement, since you were going on the attack, not simply defending the Roman Catholic faith.

 

[Mikeuk]

Review the cited material which I quoted from you, please, and observe that you did oppose the doctrines of sola scriptura, sola fide, and irresistible grace. You said that Catholics don't "go on the attack, we just defend our faith." That struck me as an accidentally ironic statement, since you were going on the attack, not simply defending the Roman Catholic faith.

Let me first state on this thread … I actually assumed wrongly this was on the ” catholic” board.
I reacted accordingly . It turns out it is elsewhere, although we are the most associated with infant baptism Which I defend.

But to the point I didn’t launch a broadside at “ believers baptism”. ( others peoples doctrine)
I defended ours ( infant baptism as a sacrament) .

Many threads on forums are direct attack on catholic doctrine, not others defending their own.

i think It is important to note, that almost all disputes between Protestants as well as with us , originate in sola scriptura.
So it is worth pointing out on all of the threads that scripture ( alone) is not sufficient to resolve disputes on meaning.

In this case :
Long Before the New Testament it was noted by one early father that infant baptism was “ apostolic “ and we see in Ambrose long before the creed that a decision was taken over whether to extend a 2 day after birth baptism to 8 days.
That tells you the early church did infant baptism, and it was handed down to them .
Tradition.

i Think it important we air why we disagree, not just what we disagree. It isn’t because we don’t read scripture!

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Let me first state on this thread that I actually assumed (wrongly) this was on the Catholic board, and I reacted accordingly. It turns out it is elsewhere. We [Roman Catholics] are the most associated with infant baptism, though, which I defend.

Fair enough and duly noted.

But, to the point, I didn’t launch a broadside at believers baptism [which other people believe], I defended ours—infant baptism—as a sacrament.

But you did launch a broadside at sola scriptura, sola fide, and irresistible grace, though, as I said. That is not defending your view, that's attacking a view you disagree with.

—which is fine, of course. I just found it amusing that, right after doing so, you claimed that Catholics don't go on the attack but just defend your Catholic faith. It was accidental irony.

I think it is important to note that almost all disputes between Protestants [and Roman Catholics] originate in sola scriptura.

Sort of. All disputes between the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and the rest of Christianity, starting with the Eastern Orthodox (EOC) almost a thousand years ago, originate in the issue of authority. The RCC asserted the primacy of the bishop of Rome as the supreme authority over the entire church. The EOC rejected this idea, emphasizing the autonomy of each local bishop and the concept of conciliar decision-making. While theological and cultural differences were also key factors, the issue of ecclesiastical authority contributed to the lasting division between the RCC and EOC.

The same thing applies to the rift between the RCC and Protestants. The RCC asserted its own authority through both "sacred scripture and sacred tradition" in conjunction with the magisterial authority of the Pope and the RCC's hierarchy (e.g., councils). Protestants denied these assertions as invalid, claiming that all authority under heaven is subject to the final authority of God's word, including popes and councils.

In both cases, all disputes reduce to the question of authority.

So, it is worth pointing out [that], on all of the threads, scripture (alone) is not sufficient to resolve disputes on meaning.

I disagree. (Big surprise, right?) The scriptures are sufficient to resolve all serious disputes between those for whom they are the final authority. Experience shows that any conflicts which arise are the result of one side of the dispute inadvertently undermining the authority of scriptures with something that for them has even greater authority.

Long before the New Testament [was compiled] it was noted by one early father that infant baptism was “apostolic,” and we see in Ambrose, long before the creed, that a decision was taken over whether to extend a two-day post-birth baptism to eight days. That tells you the early church did infant baptism, and it was handed down to them. Tradition.

Your response carries the implication that Protestants reject tradition. We don't. We likewise rely on church tradition (e.g., early church fathers), even in our arguments for the baptism of infants. (Incidentally, I also agree with the eight days.) The difference is that, for Protestants, church tradition is under the authority of the scriptures.

Roman Catholics often mistakenly think of sola scriptura (final authority) in terms of solo scriptura (only authority). I would underline that word, "mistakenly." Anyone who reads such classic Protestant confessions as the Westminster Standards knows that we don't practice solo scriptura.

 

[Mikeuk]

In both cases, all disputes reduce to the question of authority.

I disagree. (Big surprise, right?) The scriptures are sufficient to resolve all serious disputes between those for whom they are the final authority. .

When protestants line up to tell us we are “wrong “ because of ( their personal interpretation ) of scripture, as many do with infant baptism, it is clearly relevant for us to say that the origin Of all these disagreements BETWEEN PROTESTANTS( not just us )
IS (the disprovable ) sola scriptura!

Why is it protestants never ask themselves why the fruits of scripture + sola scriptura are protestants disagreeing with themselves in profound even mutually opposite doctrines on..

The necessity, meaning, method , applicability of baptism
The necessity, meaning, method , applicability of Eucharist and Whether priests are needed
The nature , meaning, method , applicability of marriage or remarriage
The necessity ordination, applicability of priesthood To women, LG issues et.
The nature of God head, some reverted to modalism
Pro life, pro choice, pro contraception
What are sacraments and what are not.
predestination, single double with or without freewill, with or without irresistible grace.
The nature of end of life , end times.
The nature of salvation and extent to which works play any part.
OSAS, saved but can lose it, not saved to the end

they disagree with each other on pretty much every aspect of doctrine.

I left protestantism because there can even be incompatible variants of such as eucharist even in nominally the same church!
So since reformation there are far more “belief systems” than even “denominations, “ . Now there are thousands . Before that there were just two, us orthodox, and a few heresies shut down by councils.
Since many of the thousands preach opposites & only one combination above is the truth , most much preach falsehoods. The question is which not whether.

So it is a bit rich for protestants to tell RC they disagree with ( their interpretation ) of scripture since none of them , including the original reformers , can agree on the meaning either!

And that is my message whenever our doctrine Is attacked.

This case infant baptism- its easy enough to go back to tradition, see what the Early church did.
Since there was an early controversy about the merits of 2 day vs 8 Baptism, it’s clear the church did baptise infants.
The only way to resolve disputes is to go outside scripture and even scripture says so!

It seems to me : Anti catholic attacks have become a safe space for many Protestants
, partly because there seems to be a human need to feel superior to others by puttimg them down,
And partly because it is pretty much all they do agree on, and it serves as a diversion from their own differences.

When you come to new christian forums, including this, the first thing you often see is a pile on of anti Catholics attacking Catholics.
At present on “church discipline “ thread about the holiness of sacraments , there is a wicked attack against both Catholics and the sacrament as it has been practiced for 2000 Years! I will not allow such an attack on our Lord really present in the Eucharist to be left unanswered.

You tell me:
Why is that poster not telling us what HE believes , why he believes it and trying to persuade us of the merits , instead of attacking others normally us?

The bottom line For him.
Do not expect to call other creed believing Christian’s either non Christian or idolaters and expect other than a counter offensive demolishing every argument made,

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

When protestants line up to tell us we are “wrong “ because of ( their personal interpretation ) of scripture, as many do with infant baptism, it is clearly relevant for us to say that the origin Of all these disagreements BETWEEN PROTESTANTS( not just us ) IS (the disprovable ) sola scriptura!

First, you are merely reasserting your claim, failing to take into account my critique (i.e., pretending it doesn't exist). Since my critique is unaddressed, it stands unrefuted.

Second, Protestants don't use a "personal interpretation" of scripture. The vast majority of Christians are not able to read or understand ancient Hebrew and Greek texts, much less interpret them.

Third, by contrasting the "personal interpretation" of Protestants on the one hand with the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) on the other, you accidentally prove that the issue is about authority.

Why is it protestants never ask themselves why the fruits of scripture + sola scriptura are protestants disagreeing with themselves in profound even mutually opposite doctrines on.

First, it is not as if the RCC has never been rife with profound disagreements—including schism (e.g., over Vatican I and II)—despite its lauded Magisterium. No matter your authority, profound disagreements among those in the church can occur. It is not unique to sola scriptura Protestants. From whether the Holy See enjoys papal infallibility, to whether the Mass should be performed in Latin, to whether the church may offer openly gay couples access to the sacrament of Eucharist, and so on, the RCC likewise enjoys the fruit of disagreement over important doctrines clarified by the Magisterium.

Second, disagreement over what an authority says does not subvert that authority. Just as church members, elders, and ministers in Protestant churches have disagreements over what the scriptures say, so does the RCC's own parishioners, priests, and bishops have disagreements over what the Magisterium says.

I left protestantism because there can even be incompatible variants of, for example, eucharist—even in nominally the same church!

So, you left where people in the church have disagreements over what an authority says to go where people in the church have disagreements over what an authority says.

Solid choice.

Since the Reformation, there are far more “belief systems” than even “denominations." Now there are thousands. Before that, there were just two, us orthodox and a few heresies shut down by councils.

Your belief that there used to be just two belief systems is adorably naïve—and, ironically, contradicted by your choice of words ("a few heresies"). It also ignores heterodox views that were tolerated despite conflicting with official teachings of the Magisterium, and the history of schisms beyond just that of East and West. The history of the church, all the way back to the first few centuries, demonstrates that there was never "just two." (Unless, of course, one simply defines the others out of existence, which would be question-begging.)

I think there may have been some projection involved in your statement when you said, "I wish people who post this stuff would study the history first."

Since many of the thousands preach opposites & only one combination above is the truth, most much preach falsehoods.

And who defines truth? Whatever your answer, there is your authority.

For Protestants, the truth of faith and morals is defined by the scriptures.

So, it is a bit rich for protestants to tell [the RCC that] they disagree with their interpretation of scripture, since none of them—including the original reformers—can agree on the meaning either!

Pick a doctrine, any doctrine over which Protestants and the RCC disagree—perhaps baptism, for example—and I will show you that the parishioners, priests, and bishops of the RCC itself have disagreements with what the Magisterium says.

And that is my message whenever our doctrine is attacked.

Well, then you ... do you.

And I shall be content to point out where and when your final authority conflicts with mine, and leave it up the readers.

Since there was an early controversy about the merits of [second-day] versus [eighth-day] baptism, it's clear [that] the church did baptize infants.

I think the Pelagian error was the controversial issue, judging by the canons of the Council of Milevis (ca. 416). Whether to baptize infants before their eighth day was incidental to that error. For example, it was a Pelagian error that newborns "derive from Adam no original sin which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration" (ibid.). And earlier in the third century, Cyprian didn't seem too worked up in his letter to Fidus. He said, basically, that newborn babies cannot have committed any sins of their own and yet, however, they were born in the flesh of Adam with inherited original sin, so we have (a) no reason to delay their baptism and (b) good reason to perform it as soon as possible (Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. "Baptism").

P.S. Do you know where a person can find the full text of the Council of Milevis held in 416? I am interested in reading all 27 of its canons. It was a provincial council of Numidia. Sixty-one bishops of the province attended.

It seems, to me, [that] anti-Catholic attacks have become a safe space for many Protestants, partly because there seems to be a human need to feel superior to others by putting them down and partly because it is pretty much all they do agree on. (And it serves as a diversion from their own differences.)

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

When you come to new Christian forums, including this [one], the first thing you often see is a pile-on of anti-Catholics attacking Catholics.

Yes, I suppose one can choose to see bogeymen around every corner. I make different choices, as do others.

By the way, don't attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance.

You tell me: Why is that poster not telling us what he believes, why he believes it, and trying to persuade us of the merits, instead of attacking others? The bottom line for him: Do not expect to call other creed-believing Christians either non-Christian or idolaters and expect other than a counter-offensive demolishing every argument made.

You are very, very aggressive. It is quite concerning. Where is the spirit and grace of Christ in your responses?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

I wish people who post this stuff would study the history first.

No need to. What this or that "religious luminary" said or did in 375 a.d. is unimportant. ERROR was already infesting the Church in Paul's time, as he reported.

I will be brief, because Experience says i am wasting my time.

And you're right about that, of course. Nothing that a Roman Catholic paradigmatic says will be taken seriously, because we "consider the source".

Its true l there is no explicit reference to infant baptism.

And that's the whole game right there. IF it were of ANY SPIRITUAL IMPORTANCE AT ALL, there would be mention of it. Roman Catholics are BIG on building their "Traditions" on what the Bible DOESN'T SAY (but what their pagan sources do say).

 

[atpollard]

Why is it protestants never ask themselves why the fruits of scripture + sola scriptura are protestants disagreeing with themselves in profound even mutually opposite doctrines on..

[snip]

they disagree with each other on pretty much every aspect of doctrine.

What makes you think Protestants never contemplate why we disagree?
(You are really lamenting the fact that we do not reach the false conclusion that the Pope is the supreme, infallible Authority.)

"Why is it [Catholics] never ask themselves why the fruits of [Apostolic Authority and Tradition] are [Catholics] disagreeing with themselves in profound even mutually opposite doctrines ... [resulting in the Great Schism of 1050]?"
(Perhaps you should return to the Apostolic Teaching found in Scripture and repent of your man-made "traditions" added to it. Then Catholics might reconcile with each other after 1000 years of schism and offer hope to heal the 500 year old Protestant divide.)

 

[Mikeuk]

What makes you think Protestants never contemplate why we disagree?
(You are really lamenting the fact that we do not reach the false conclusion that the Pope is the supreme, infallible Authority.)

"Why is it [Catholics] never ask themselves why the fruits of [Apostolic Authority and Tradition] are [Catholics] disagreeing with themselves in profound even mutually opposite doctrines ... [resulting in the Great Schism of 1050]?"
(Perhaps you should return to the Apostolic Teaching found in Scripture and repent of your man-made "traditions" added to it. Then Catholics might reconcile with each other after 1000 years of schism and offer hope to heal the 500 year old Protestant divide.)

The differences between catholics and orthodox are slight.
They leave as mystery what we define.
- the arcane question- from where does the Holy Spirit procede?
- we use different words to describe purgation to be fit to enter heaven , since nothing unclean can enter, both accept prayers are effective after death. Do you?
- the philosophical question of how the Eucharist becomes flesh ,whilst looking like bread, not whether it does.

Do you protestants even have a Eucharist of real flesh presided by bishop in succession as the earliest writing by John’s disciples state?
Or do you profane it instead?

We (and they ) have done it same way for 2000 years . If you don’t have a valid eucharist you cannot Claim to be part of the historic church Christ founded. It did it the same way since the beginning. Even the romans thought we were cannibals becausr of it.

you completely misunderstand the context of the word tradition “ paradosis “ to which YOU are told to stay true, the faith handed down by those who were “ sent” (not you) “ leaning on your own understabding “
It is how you determine meaning Of scripture , without which you only have words.

Jesus of course meant such as ritual hand washing before eating As the man made tradition to which he objected, and the works of mosaic law assumed by the jews to justify themselves. Which they dont!

The false man made tradition of today IS sola scriptura.

It is faith you hand down to each other, so it is Tradition,
it is nowhere found in scripture or apostolic practice or council decision .
It was invented by men , we can name them! Zwingli… luther… Calvin, etc
So it is man made tradition with no scripture support.

It Has resulted in opposite divisions of EVERY material aspect of doctrine .

Even those reformers couldn't agree on any matter of substantive doctrine because of the fallacy at the heart of it all.
Even Calvin, luther and Zwingli ( I believe) accepted infant baptism so why don’t you?

If you don’t agree with each other on meaning of scripture , and you don’t , you have nowhere else to go but schism, which you do with monotonous regularity.
You make denominatims in your own image conforming your your private meaning of scripture ! but The truth can only be one.
And that one church has existed simce the beginning,

The authority of tradition is biblical , source of authority of the bishops acting together to resolve disputes is biblical, as is the same power given to Peter to “ bind and loose”. ( although very rarely used ) so your description of authority of the church and the pope is false,

 

[atpollard]

We (and they ) have done it same way for 2000 years .

No, you have not.
That is part of the point. You change things and retroactively claim that they have ALWAYS been that way in your “secret tradition”, while the historic record disagrees with you.

You (Catholics) disagree on the preeminent Catholic issue … Apostolic Succession and the Authority of the Church … a disagreement that necessitated mutual excommunication. The Bishop of Rome is either POPE or he is not. The Church is either a human-centric hierarchy or it is not. Rome has the authority to unilaterally change the church or it does not.

The “disagreement” is as fundamental as “Is ROME the Church or are we all the Church?” It is the very definition of “Catholic” that is at stake.

 

[atpollard]

The false man made tradition of today IS sola scriptura.

Just an observation, but if the Church had done a better job of preserving the actual Apostolic Tradition, we would not need to recreate it from Sola Scriptura and grope in the dark. It was your eagerness to graft every new pagan idea into the Apostolic teaching and call it TRADITION that required the Reformers to discard the mess that Tradition had become.

 

[Rella]

Where in the bible does it say infant baptism is wrong?

Where in the bible does it say if all in a household is baptised the youngest member of that household has reached the age of understanding.

Acts 16:31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.

Acts 16: 33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized.
Was obviously misleading or just a simple lie? There could have been no infants in that family... right?

Acts 16:15 And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us
1 Cor 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
Is Paul just simply confused? 3 mentions of household baptisms and nary a comment of, except the babies and toddlers....

Perhaps, though I have not yet... but I will ... researched that the households with young boys would have had their sons circumsized and
therefore the need for baptism of them was not needed?

I just wonder why no one ever gave a specific youngest age to those who were not included or why????

Okay... here is an interesting read.... as I start my studies... (please see the link for the full article)

https://faith.edu/faith-news/colossians-211-12-circumcision-infant-baptism-analogy/

Colossians 2:11-12 and the Circumcision-Infant Baptism Analogy​

Most Baptists have heard of Reformed and Presbyterian churches who baptize babies, because “the practice of circumcision in the Old Testament (OT) is replaced by infant baptism in the New.” Verses cited in support of this analogy include Gen. 17:7–8; Gal. 3:9, 14; Col. 2:11–12; Acts 2:38–39; Rom. 4:11–12; 1 Cor. 7:14; Matt. 28:19; Mark 10:13–16; and Luke 18:15.1 The challenge for those who use this analogy is that these passages either mention circumcision (Gen. 17:7–8; Rom. 4:11–12) or baptism (Acts 2:38–39; Matt. 28:19) or neither circumcision nor baptism (Gal. 3:9, 14; 1 Cor. 7:14; Mark 10:13–16; and Luke 18:15). What is required for this analogy to work is a link between circumcision and baptism.

There is only one text in the Bible that mentions both. That passage is Col. 2:11–12. Is this the missing link that connects circumcision to baptism and therefore justifies infant baptism? Before addressing this, it remains of vital importance to understand that the analogy has always been and can only be between physical circumcision (involving a literal cutting of the flesh) and water baptism. Those who use this analogy connect it to Abraham’s participation in God’s covenant with physical circumcision as the sign of this covenant (Gen. 17:1–16).

 

[Mikeuk]

Just an observation, but if the Church had done a better job of preserving the actual Apostolic Tradition, we would not need to recreate it from Sola Scriptura and grope in the dark. It was your eagerness to graft every new pagan idea into the Apostolic teaching and call it TRADITION that required the Reformers to discard the mess that Tradition had become.

Don’t you just love revisionism.

Start with such as iraneus and ignatius, see what was handed down.
See iraneus comments on tradition, succession, sacraments , etc
See what the early councils, and those attending them believed l

He describes the Catholic Church.
Someone else added Roman when bits split off.

Sure we have more sinners than most , including the pope. Only becausr we have more people than most.
People even senior church men make bad calls, but Jesus deals with them as councils outed
gnosticism , arianism, modalism( only for penetecostals to bring it back) , pelagianism and the rest.

Cardinals also charging for indulgencies were corrected at the council of Trent. If only hothead Luther had waited

It’s a Shame anti catholic haters don’t actually study Catholicism before attack it
Theres a lot of Calvinism in catholic doctrine , who would have guessed?
He reinvented a wheel on much.

just not the unsupportable parts.

On the arcane theology we allow disputes that cant be proven either way, and that dony change the living reality of faith. We allow both thomist and mollinist allowed ( message for reformed is bridge your gaps on Arminian vs calvinist, all too angry too often);

But where the rubber hits the road… valid baptism. Valid eucharist. do you?
Need to cooperate with works of charity … Do you?
We do penance after confession. We do what the Bible asks us to DO,
we don’t argue whethet we need to do what is asked , in case it is “ works”, - there is a lot of it - and we ask for grace.
The rest is for Him to decide