Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

reply to post by adjensen

Secondly, adult baptism (or "Believer's Baptism") isn't a Fundamentalist belief, it stems from the theology of 16th Century Anabaptists, not Fundamentalism. Ironically, they held (still do, I think¿) that baptism technically doesn't do anything, because we're saved by faith, and faith alone -- it is merely a sign that one has joined the Christian community. It also got them killed, by fellow Protestants, in large numbers, because in Europe at the time, one had to be a baptized Christian to hold political office, and in areas where the Anabaptists were in sufficient majority, that meant that any non-Anabaptist wasn't a Christian, and was therefore kicked out of the town council.

I never argued or suggested that baptism saves a person, it doesn't. Baptism doesn't save a person, it's what saved people do. It's an outward expression of identifying with Christ's burial and resurrection. This was never offered to unbelievers in the early church and I can't see where you would claim it has been. And adding on that, infants cannot have faith in a Person they have no capacity to understand. Therefore, baptizing a baby is by default baptizing an unbeliever.

wild and charles, stop it! You're gonna make me blush.

I'm glad I was able to contribute in a meaningful manner to this particular thread. I'm new to the faith, and I can sometimes be a tad overzealous and forget about being all things to all people, as I believe Paul puts it. Temperance is something I'm still working on.

Thank you both for your kind words. And one day, I hope to be as wise as Charles, and as insightful as Wild!

God bless you two, and everyone else on this forum!

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I never argued or suggested that baptism saves a person, it doesn't.

I didn't mean to imply that, sorry -- my statement of irony there was directed at infant baptism's original opponents, who were vehement about the insistence that only an adult baptism was valid, and just as vehement in their belief that it had nothing to do with salvation.

This was never offered to unbelievers in the early church and I can't see where you would claim it has been.

The problem is that the Bible is ambiguous on this matter. It doesn't say "baptize babies", and it doesn't say "don't baptize babies." The difference is what one thinks baptism does, and for the early church and both the Catholic church and most non-Anabaptist Protestant churches today, baptism does something -- it washes away original sin. Since Christ made a lot of hay about little children and their role in the Kingdom, it stands to reason that, if baptism cleanses one of original sin, they don't need to be believers in order to have that happen, since they didn't "commit original sin" in the first place.

If, on the other hand, one is of the belief that baptism is nothing more than a statement that one is a Christian, then yes, baptizing an unbeliever is not called for.

Here's an article on the Lutheran perspective (interestingly, they are of the mind that infants can believe): Why We Baptize Babies (The Case for Infant Baptism)

reply to post by adjensen

Dear adjensen,

Let me try to get caught up.

Tradition, as I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is not a static thing -- the Assumption of Mary, for example, has no Biblical basis, and had no official church position until 1950, so it is a matter of Tradition, right? The Bible, on the other hand, is a static thing -- the canon is closed, and nothing new is to be added.

I agree completely with your static - not static analysis. But, funny you should bring up the Assumption. It was defined as infallible dogma in 1950, quite true. The Feast of the Assumption was celebrated universally in the Church back in the 6th Century. There was a printed statement of that belief dating to the 4th Century. When Pope Pius XII made the declaration, the Eastern Orthodox said it was unnecessary since everybody knew the belief in the Assumption traced to Apostolic times.
catholicism.about.com...

And if a conflict arises, it is the non-static thing that must yield, since the static thing cannot. If there was a passage in the Bible that said that Mary died, was buried and here's her tomb, for example, the church couldn't just erase that passage so that the Tradition could go forward.

You're right, but I believe you're describing an impossibility. "If a conflict arises . . . ." I would maintain that's not possible, as both Tradition and the Scriptures are the Word of God.

I agree with the quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia you've provided. I think, though it's dealing with one specific application.

In the hands of masters Scripture may become a sharp defensive and offensive weapon against error and heresy. When a controversy arises recourse is had first to the Bible.

I agree, of course. When you're fighting against heresy, the written Word is very powerful and hard to deny. Heresies often turn on interpretations and Tradition, so using Tradition to prove what is being questioned in that Tradition is useless.

Notice, that the article explains what to do when there is no clear Scripture to refute the error. That, in itself, is powerful evidence that Tradition and the Magisterium are essential to protecting the Scriptures against heretical misunderstanding.

Said another way, Scripture isn't always sufficient to provide protection against an error that can damn a soul. Tradition is needed to save that soul in those cases.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
Said another way, Scripture isn't always sufficient to provide protection against an error that can damn a soul. Tradition is needed to save that soul in those cases.

I don't disagree with that. Even the Protestant remnant that's in me doesn't disagree with that

I'm very happy with the way this thread is developing. It's good to learn from wise and gentle people on both sides of an issue.

If it pleases you to indulge me, may we go on to another point? I'd like to get people's ideas. If there is more on Tradition or infant baptism, I would like to hear it, but I feel responsible for keeping things flowing.

Thanks and blessings.

reply to post by adjensen


I think the Bible is clear and unambiguous in stating that believers should be baptized.

Agree?

reply to post by charles1952

Said another way, Scripture isn't always sufficient to provide protection against an error that can damn a soul. Tradition is needed to save that soul in those cases.

So would 2 Timothy 3:16 be a bunch of bollocks?

And as far as I'm concerned the only error that would damn a soul is a refusal of the redemptive work of Christ, and the Bible is clear as a bell on that issue isn't it?

Originally posted by Snsoc
I'm very happy with the way this thread is developing. It's good to learn from wise and gentle people on both sides of an issue.

If it pleases you to indulge me, may we go on to another point? I'd like to get people's ideas. If there is more on Tradition or infant baptism, I would like to hear it, but I feel responsible for keeping things flowing.

Thanks and blessings.

Would you like to know the history and origination of infant baptism? Baby baptism was the first right under Nimrod's Ba'al worship. A person's life began with baptism and ended with anointing the head with oil and a ceremony of last rites.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen

 

I think the Bible is clear and unambiguous in stating that believers should be baptized.

Agree?

Yes, I think that's a fair statement.

On infant baptism... Baptism is only valid if the person has faith. Infants are too young to have faith. Infant baptism is a faithless work that does not save.

It is by God's grace through faith that we are saved, not by works.

reply to post by Snsoc

Dear Snsoc,

I'm glad you're so satisfied with this thread, I am too. It's like a sparkling vacation on a tropical beach. In fact, if I ever get a vacation on a tropical beach, I'll let you all know and we can have a royal party.

There is one thing I miss a little and that is your frequent contributions. Pipe up a little more often, if that's comfortable for you. On the other hand, we may need a referee. (Although I doubt it, the people in this thread are amazing.)

Of course, I'm willing to move on to another point. The next on your list was confession to priests, if i remember correctly. But because I won't use one word when I can figure out a way to use fifty, I do have a couple of comments.

In general Everyone here has an identical desire for the Truth. I believe the entire discussion can be summed up in one sentence. Catholics are afraid that leaving out Tradition will deprive us of some Truth, while others believe that including Tradition will expose us to falsehood. You will see this over and over as the thread progresses.

NOTurTypical Yes, believers should be baptized. Water baptism is not a requirement for Salvation.

2 Tim. 3:16 is a great verse, it has helped me often.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

Of course it's useful, is it completely sufficient all by itself? Some say yes, some say no.

Refusal of the redemptive work of Christ is the only way to Hell? I don't understand this fully so I can't comment on it. Is it like the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? I think this has a particular meaning to you, that I don't know.

truejew

On infant baptism... Baptism is only valid if the person has faith. Infants are too young to have faith. Infant baptism is a faithless work that does not save.

Thanks. That's a great illustration of the bull's-eye of our discussion. How do we know that proposition to be true? Tradition says infant baptism is a great idea, others say it isn't.

Confession to Priests Leaving aside Tradition for a moment, this idea does have Biblical support. May I start with John, Chapter 20?

21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Snsoc

 

Catholics are afraid that leaving out Tradition will deprive us of some Truth, while others believe that including Tradition will expose us to falsehood. You will see this over and over as the thread progresses.

On tradition... It depends on where the tradition comes from. If it comes from the apostles, it is fine. If it comes from pagan sources, then it is not really the tradition of the true Church. Much of what Catholics call tradition does not come from the apostles.

Originally posted by charles1952

NOTurTypical Yes, believers should be baptized. Water baptism is not a requirement for Salvation.

According to Scripture, baptism done in faith is necessary for salvation.

1 Peter 3:20-21 (KJV)
20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen

 

I think the Bible is clear and unambiguous in stating that believers should be baptized.

Agree?

Yes, I think that's a fair statement.

So I believe, that only believers should be baptized, whether they be 5 years old or 95. Whenever they can realize their need for redemption and profess their faith in Christ as their personal Redeemer. They should not be denoted water from that point forward.

reply to post by truejew

Dear truejew,

Wonderful! I think we're together on this:

On tradition... It depends on where the tradition comes from. If it comes from the apostles, it is fine. If it comes from pagan sources, then it is not really the tradition of the true Church. Much of what Catholics call tradition does not come from the apostles.

Absolutely agree. Stuff like not eating meat on Friday, or naming a kid after a Saint, absolutely. Those are traditions (small t) that the Church doesn't impose on any one (I could be wrong here, I don't know them all.)

Church Tradition (capital T) have to come from the Apostles. The only area where we might differ, but I don't think so, is that the successors to the Apostles had the same authority as it was passed to them.

I love these talks.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Snsoc
I'm very happy with the way this thread is developing. It's good to learn from wise and gentle people on both sides of an issue.

If it pleases you to indulge me, may we go on to another point? I'd like to get people's ideas. If there is more on Tradition or infant baptism, I would like to hear it, but I feel responsible for keeping things flowing.

Thanks and blessings.

Would you like to know the history and origination of infant baptism? Baby baptism was the first right under Nimrod's Ba'al worship. A person's life began with baptism and ended with anointing the head with oil and a ceremony of last rites.

edit on 11-4-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

Of course, I don't want to simply pave over a serious issue like that, so may I ask about your source for this claim?

reply to post by charles1952


I'd be happy to contribute when I can-I've got a lot on my plate at the moment, not to mention the fact that I'm fairly new to Catholic thinking. But I did feel as though I should use what little talent I have been given to spread a little truth-others may take the torch for a while, as I hardly feel worthy.

reply to post by Snsoc


Have you heard of the book "The Two Babylons", by Alexander Hyslop? There's over 300 references in that book. I do take exception to some of his conclusions, but the history of the ancient Babylonian mystery religions is very detailed and sourced. You'll have to get the book on Amazon.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


NuT, it's funny you mentioned that very book! Did you not read the articles that I linked, and that Wild re-iterated?

From Is Catholicism Pagan:

The nineteenth century witnessed a flowering of this "pagan influence fallacy." Publications such as The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop (the classic English text charging the Catholic Church with paganism) paved the way for generations of antagonism towards the Church. During this time, entire new sects were created (Seventh-day Adventists, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses)—all considering traditional Catholicism and Protestantism as polluted by paganism. This era also saw atheistic "freethinkers" such as Robert Ingersoll writing books attacking Christianity and Judaism as pagan.

The pagan influence fallacy has not gone away in the twentieth century, but newer archaeology and more mature scholarship have diminished its influence. Yet there are still many committing it. In Protestant circles, numerous works have continued to popularize the claims of Alexander Hislop, most notably the comic books of Jack Chick and the book Babylon Mystery Religion by the young Ralph Woodrow (later Woodrow realized its flaws and wrote The Babylon Connection? repudiating it and refuting Hislop). Other Christian and quasi-Christian sects have continued to charge mainstream Christianity with paganism, and many atheists have continued to repeat—unquestioned—the charges of paganism leveled by their forebears.

And from the same link:

Very frequently, the pagan influence fallacy is committed in connection with other fallacies, most notably the post hoc ergo proper hoc ("After this, therefore because of this") fallacy—e.g., "Some ancient pagans did or believed something millennia ago, therefore any parallel Christian practices and beliefs must be derived from that source." Frequently, a variant on this fallacy is committed in which, as soon as a parallel with something pagan is noted, it is assumed that the pagan counterpart is the more ancient. This variant might be called the similis hoc ergo propter hoc ("Similar to this, therefore because of this") fallacy.

And as far as baptism goes:

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39). We also read: "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Note, it does not say that children must be a certain age to be able to be baptized.

Specific biblical reference?:

But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).

In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that "he and his wife were baptized," but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.

Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children; they may have been past the age of reason, rather than infants. Then again, they could have been babes in arms. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason in some of the households that were baptized, especially if one considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth control. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be explicit.

Source

But I think this quote by Bishop Fulton Sheen is relevant to this thread:

There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church—which is, of course, quite a different thing.

Clicky for more detail.