Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Forgive me for butting in to your discussion with wildtimes. May I suggest an answer to your question?

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

Everybody, Catholic or not, agrees with that. (Although sometimes I wonder about the "begats.")

The difficulty with your verse is that it doesn't say "Only scripture is given by God . . . " Catholics will say, "Yes, scripture is given by God, so is Tradition."

You're not butting in to any discussion, as usual I'm being lectured. But as far as your question goes, Jesus was quite clear in Mark 7 how He felt about the religious leaders elevating their tradition on par with scripture.

reply to post by charles1952


I apologize for my absence-I'm super busy and on a different sleep schedule than most people. I'll be back to care for this thread later.

reply to post by Snsoc


I don't think anyone is upset with you about it. Everyone gets busy now and then.

reply to post by micmerci



1. Yes, but it doesn't say that it didn't include infants, either.

2. Do you think that "faults" was talking about picking our noses? Faults are sins.

3. Yes, we believe they become the actual Body and Blood of Christ. This is probably why Theistic Satanists steal Catholic communion wafers and not Protestant ones to use in Black Masses.

4. The main point is that these are not prayers TO Mary, they are asking for her help so that she will pray for us.

5. I believe you're talking about the Law, and we're not under the Law.

6. If Jesus taught us "how" to pray, and Protestants think that means to literally repeat the "Our Father" , how is that different from Catholics repeating the Hail Mary?

7. Yes, the sale of indulgences happened. Does that mean Purgatory doesn't exist? And while we're on the subject, why wouldn't paying money (making an earthly sacrifice that crucifies your flesh) help your soul?

8. I think you need to reread my explanation of this.

As for your additions:

1. Most people couldn't read during that time. And Scripture in the hands of the laity gives us 30,000 different interpretations of the Bible instead of 1.

2. Jesus gave Peter the keys of the Kingdom.


3. True and unfortunate. But again, not everything done by every Pope was right.


4. Yes, Jesuits were involved in intrigue. As were rabbis, and many other holy men from various religions. Doesn't mean the Church isn't Christian.

5. I hadn't heard about that-will check it out.

reply to post by Snsoc

Dear Snsoc,

No problems at all. I suspect that NotUrTypical, micmerci, and I will be able to keep this going. Anytime you get back is fine. Just look the thread over and correct it's direction, if needed.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Dear NOTurTypical,

Thanks for sending me back to Mark 7. I hadn't looked at it in your way before. I'm reluctant to post lengthy passages, but it may be appropriate here:

7 The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus 2 and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)

5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”

6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’

8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

It seems to me that He is criticizing the Jewish traditions which have discarded God's commands and replaced them with rules which are not observed with love or the intention to come closer to God.

I agree with you that that is a trap to be watched out for, but is it possible that we are using one word "tradition" to mean two different things? Catholics might point to the last verse of John's Gospel:

25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

People saw these things, remembered them, told them to others, maybe even wrote them down. This is a different kind of tradition, and what Catholics usually consider the word to mean.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Snsoc


Infant baptism- the bible does not record a single occurrence of infant baptism but there are many references indicating baptism as an adult.

Another caveat is that all references to baptism showed it as an event that took place after receiving salvation. How could an infant possible receive Christ into their heart?

I can understand dedicating one's child to the Lord as a symbolic gesture much as Hannah did in the book of 1 Samuel.

Again, as we discuss these doctrinal differences, I would like to stress that I in no way believe that Catholics are not Christians. I think we have great differences in basic doctrine that can be supported by interpretations of scripture on either side. I prefer to see differences debated and searched out amicably and without distracting from the primary goal of Christianity which is to spread the Good News.

reply to post by micmerci

Dear micmerci,

I appreciate your gentleness, I'm glad you came back.

You have made it clear that you are not calling Catholics non-Christians. I don't think anyone can honestly bring that charge against you, and hope they don't.

You are quite right that there is nothing in the New Testament calling for infant baptism, but perhaps the Old Testament provides some clues. The argument is a long one, so I'm just posting a bit from someone who considered the question:

Another thing that must be understood is that baptism in the New Testament serves the same function as circumcision in the Old Testament. In the same way that the Lord ’s Supper is the New Testament expression of the Passover meal, baptism is the New Testament expression of circumcision. Intuitively, this is seen to be true, for in the book of Acts, new converts are not told to be circumcised as they would have been in the Old Testament. Instead they are told to be baptized (Acts 2:38). Furthermore, Col. 2:11-12 makes this connection clear: “and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.” In this passage, circumcision and baptism are clearly linked—baptism is considered the New Testament expression of circumcision.

And since circumcision was performed on infants . . . .
www.aplacefortruth.org...

I am sure I'm going to learn a lot from you and am looking forward to it.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


The verse you provided in John speaks of His miraculous acts, not some secret teachings or rituals.

reply to post by charles1952


Charles, baptism and circumcision are not related, for one thing it was required on the 8th day of an infant's life. And there is absolutely no instance or teaching anywhere for baptizing unbelievers, babies cannot believe.

There's another verse that mentions tradition, that I forgot to add in my post:

"Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

This verse, like the other two I quoted, puts tradition on par with Scripture (a.k.a the letters of the Apostles.)

Just because the Pharisees were ignoring the word of God in favor of their traditions and Jesus rebuked them for it, doesn't mean the word "tradition" is bad news.

reply to post by Snsoc


And what traditions had they been taught up to that point? See Acts 15.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Dear NOTurTypical,

I was wondering whether we should start with sola scriptura or examine the points individually. I'm just guessing, but it seems like we're mixing them together. Sort of "How does sola scriptura affect infant baptism?"

I believe that Tradition (in the Catholic, not Jewish, sense) supports infant baptism, and reliance upon the Scriptures to support non-infant baptism has a logical problem.

How tradition supports infant baptism.

Hippolytus
"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

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 Leviticus 8:3 [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]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

"If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (ibid., 64:5).

The Church, from it's earliest days, accepted infant baptism. Do we go back in time to tell them they were wrong?

In pointing out that there is no case recorded in Scripture where an infant is baptised, therefore infants shouldn't be baptised, one grabs a treacherous sword. There is nowhere in Scripture where it is recorded that a child reaches the age of reason and is then baptised. It appears that the sola scriptura proponent has to argue that only mature adults can be baptised, because that's all the scripture refers to. That's not your position is it?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Dear Charles,
You are a wise and gentle man, and I admire you a great deal.

Love,
wild

reply to post by charles1952


I would ask what scripture supports infant baptism? And I would also point out that in systematic theology it takes at least three supporting verses as the basis for any primary doctrine. In all new testament verses the prerequisite for baptism is a professed belief. By implication infants could do no such thing.

and if the church "from it's earliest days" supported infant baptism there would be a record of it in Acts, which does record the practices and history of the church in it's "earliest" days. The history of baptizing infants predates Christianity by a thousand years, it was practiced at Babylon.

Originally posted by micmerci

Originally posted by Snsoc


1.) Infant baptism
2.) Going to Confession
3.) The Mass
4.) (Supposed) worship of Mary, images, popes, etc.
5.) The Rosary
6.) Mortal & Venial Sin
7.) Purgatory
8.) Papal Infallibility

1 The scripture reference that you gave does not infer that the household included infant children. It is much more likely and accepted that the household included servants and adult friends and relatives.

2 The scripture reference you cited states that we are compelled to confess our faults to one another, not our sins.

3 Transubstantiation is a Catholic tenet that states the bread and wine are literally transformed into the actual body and blood of Jesus each time it is blessed by the priest. There are several scripture references disputing this but at this point I am just giving a brief synopsis for debate. Details can follow later.

4 Prayer to saints and Mary- scripture states that there is one mediator between God and man and that is Jesus.

5 The rosary- Jesus taught us how to pray and it did not include Hail Mary.

6 Mortal and Venial sin- scripture tells us that if we broke one commandment we have broken them all. Sin is sin in the eyes of God- it is imperfection before a perfect being.

7Purgatory- it is actual written and recorded church history that during the struggle for power in the roman empire, the catholic church went door to door raising money by the selling of indulgences to lessen time in the new tenet of "purgatory"

8 papal infallibility- scripture states that there are none righteous, none perfect and none sinless except Jesus.

Add to this:
The Vatican keeping the scripture from the common man for centuries
The pope as the representative of Jesus on earth
The declaration of anathema against the protestant church
Jesuit involvement in numerous corrupt scandals historically
The current Vatican statements concerning aliens and the supposed origin of Jesus being from a star child

Disclosure: I am not a proponent that Catholic parishioners are not faithful Christians, I just think that the organization is corrupt. It's the same as not hating citizens just because their government is corrupt.

OP and micmerci,

Thank you for the civility in this thread. These are the types of posts that I absolutely LOVE in this forum!

One thing though, RCIA is not "Roman Catholic Initiation of Adults." That term would be exclusive, and perhaps imply Catholics aren't Christian. It's actually "Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults." Could have been cranial flatulence on your part, or perhaps cranial flatulence on your instructor's part.

Now, if I may add my own $.02 to your concerns. I'll try and address them as listed. I like to give links as the information's already out there, and I'm sure it provides a way better explanation than I can. Why reinvent the wheel?

1. Infant baptism.

2. Confession and perhaps apsostolic succession as they go hand in hand.

3. Careful with the terminology. Transubstantiation and transformation mean two different things. Here's a 5 min video that does a great job explaining what transubstantiation really is. And this link provides a quick reference as well.

4. This link regarding praying to the saints addresses your concern about Christ not being our sole mediator; that should cover praying to Mary as well.

5. The rosary should address your concerns, and is a good break down of the different prayers said when praying the rosary.

6. This link gives a short, concise answer regarding mortal sin.

7. Indulgences; yes the "selling" of them have been abused, but I believe the article I've linked should assuage some of your concerns, and maybe provide clarity.

8. Papal infallibility doesn't mean that every single thing the Pope does is infallible! Again, that link should help.

I think some other ATSers have also addressed some of these as well, so I think the links I've provided may give some clarity.

God bless you!

reply to post by NOTurTypical


NuT, I think the link I've provided in my last post regarding infant baptism should answer your question.

I'd also like to add for those that feel/believe paganism has infiltrated the Church, please give this a read.

I've seen this claim a lot on this forum as well. Again, I'm not one for deep philosophy or speechifyin', but that should sum it up.

Originally posted by coyotepoet

Constantine found that with the Roman Empire being so vast, expansive, and diverse, not everyone would agree to forsake his or her religious beliefs to embrace Christianity. So, Constantine allowed, and even promoted, the “Christianization” of pagan beliefs. Completely pagan and utterly unbiblical beliefs were given new “Christian” identities. Some clear examples of this are as follows:

(1) The Cult of Isis, an Egyptian mother-goddess religion, was absorbed into Christianity by replacing Isis with Mary. Many of the titles that were used for Isis, such as “Queen of Heaven,” “Mother of God,” and theotokos (“God-bearer”) were attached to Mary. Mary was given an exalted role in the Christian faith, far beyond what the Bible ascribes to her, in order to attract Isis worshippers to a faith they would not otherwise embrace. Many temples to Isis were, in fact, converted into temples dedicated to Mary. The first clear hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship

www.gotquestions.org...

I'm still pretty new at the whole history of "absorption," but I have to ask, if Mary was elevated to draw in the Goddess worshipers, why didn't the Church devalue her when Goddess worship virtually disappeared?

There's been a huge cultural shift to "male" gods in every culture in the world, and yet Mary has just as much status as she ever did. She ought to be quietly retired, since she's not needed anymore, and yet she remains.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Dear NOTurTypical,

I do truly appreciate that you're spending so much time with me, even though I'm having difficulty accepting your conclusions. Your last post cheered me considerably, however.

And I would also point out that in systematic theology it takes at least three supporting verses as the basis for any primary doctrine.

Let us propose, as a primary doctrine, that Tradition must be maintained and observed, and that the Bible is not the sole Word of God. Three verses are needed? Ok.

"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

"Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us" (2 Tim. 1:13-14).

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess. 2:15)

"You, then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:1-2).

" Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us." (2 Thes. 3:6)

I now feel confident that the vital role of Tradition has been established as a primary doctrine.

I would ask what scripture supports infant baptism? In all new testament verses the prerequisite for baptism is a professed belief. By implication infants could do no such thing.

Might I ask in return what scripture supports the idea that the Word of God can only be found in the Bible?

if the church "from it's earliest days" supported infant baptism there would be a record of it in Acts, which does record the practices and history of the church in it's "earliest" days.

Just a small objection, do you think that everything the Church did in it's early days was recorded in Acts? But leaving that aside for a moment, I would ask that we don't get to concerned over the precise meaning of "earliest days." I usually consider it the first couple of hundred years after Christ's death, if that's all right with you.

One argument in support of the baptism of infants comes from the fact that controversy over the practice is conspicuously absent from the history of the early church. There is no question that Origen was baptized as an infant in 180 A.D., just 80 years after the death of the last Apostle, John the Evangelist. There are other possible references to infant baptism at earlier dates, but these references are somewhat unclear in their meaning. Born in the mid fourth century (358 A.D.), Augustine wrote, "This doctrine is held by the whole church, not instituted by councils, but always retained."

www.theopedia.com...

And as mentioned above, Hippolytus wrote about infant baptism in the Church in 215 A.D.

But tell me truly, is this issue one that should divide Christians? Let those who believe in it perform such baptisms, others can wait until we agree on the truth of the matter.

With respect,
Charles1952