Your view on Catholics

But it was widely practiced by the Church at the very earliest of times. Tertullian (not an advocate of infant baptism) confirms this in his writing.


Here are some sources:

Polycarp (69-155), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant. This enabled him to say at his martyrdom. "Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 9: 3).

Irenaeus (130 - 200), some 35 years later in 185, writes in Against Heresies II 22: 4 that Jesus "came to save all through means of Himself - all. I say, who through him are born again to God - infants and children, boys and youth, and old men."

Justin Martyr states that Baptism is the circumcision of the New Testament.

Elsewhere Origen wrote in his Homily on Luke 14: "Infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins. Cyprian’s reply to a country bishop, Fidus, who wrote him regarding the Baptism of infants, is even more explicit. Should we wait until the eighth day as did the Jews in circumcision? No, the child should be baptized as soon as it is born (To Fidus 1: 2).'

I believe they practiced it from the beginning of the Church because they had been instructed to do so by the apostles teachings.

(Taken from Issues, Etc.) Regarding burials and cemeteries of as early as 200 AD

In the second last line is the phrase Dei Serv(u)s which means slave of God followed by the Chi Rho symbol for Christ. The last line is the Greek ichtheos familiar as the "fish symbol" - an anagram for Jesus Christ God’s Son Savior. These words and symbols mark the one-year, two months, and four-day-old child as a baptized Christian.

And again, in the NT whole household were baptized. If you do a little study on what constituted a household during these times it become rather silly to think that no infants would have been part of a household.

 

Well first of all - we seem to be in agreement that there is no actual scripture showing infant baptism to be practiced even once by NT saints - much less "the norm".

As to whether Polycarp viewed his work as a 6 month old infant to be "serving the lord" through infant baptism - I think the point is a fantastic stretch of the claim.

As for the fact that even Roman Catholic historians see this infant baptism practice as something that "evolved over time" ...

Parenthetical notes “mine”.

 

It seems a little silly to assume that there were.

 

Clearly -- the issue is "getting into heaven" and that is what is supposedly "Addressed" by infant Baptism. Once Limbo is dropped - what then? No more infant Baptism Augustine?!!

 

In the "whole households" cases not a single one mentions infants.

In the whole households cases - the people in the house LISTEN to the Gospel and accept by believing and repenting -- before being baptized.

A good example of this is in Acts 18

Acts 18:8 Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized.

If your argument is that Catholic infants have the ability to listen to the Gospel - believe what they are hearing and repent -- then I confess to learning something new this day about Catholic infants that I did not know before.

in Christ,

Bob

 

And if the ECF happened to believe that worship of cows should be part of their regular liturgy, would that make it right? You would think so, wouldn't you. You would accept that, because you don't believe in sola scriptura. You don't have the Bible as the foundation of your faith. The ECF and their traditions which have become your traditions, The Tradition, is the foundation upon which you stand.

Our foundation is the Word of God, our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. Yours isn't. You may have the permission of the ECF to baptize infants and cows and even worship them, and do all that they did. But we don't. We follow God's revelation as revealed to us in His Holy Word. That is where the truth is.

Pope John XXIII baptized a bell. Was the bell saved??

 

No, DHK, my foundation IS the word of God and Holy Tradition. They don't conflict with each other. The ECF's did have some differing viewpoints but for the most part they handed down from their teachers, the apostles, the true faith. Infant baptism, liturgical worship, the eucharist, etc. But to my knowledge not one of them advocated the baptism or worship of bovines.

 

They contradicted each other.
Origen was an outright heretic, declared so by the Catholic Church as well. He is described by some as "The Father of Arianism."
It is said that Ireneus believed that Jesus lived to the age of 80.
Tertullian changed his stance on baptism more than once.
The doctrine of purgatory comes from the ECF.

This is not what the Scriptures teach. These doctrines are the doctrines of men, and they are heretical doctrines. Their tradition is not "holy" but very unholy. Its doctrine is not only unscriptural, it is anti-Biblical.

My words were this: You so depend on the teachings of the ECF, that had they taught the worship of cows, you would believe the same, for you put their teachings above the doctrine of the Bible. Sola Scriptura is a hated doctrine of the RCC.

 

No, I look to the ECF's for continuity. They certainly were not of one accord on all doctrine. But they were of one accord on doctrines that were derived from scripture. BTW, we Catholics don't hate Sola Scriptura, we just don't believe it is supported by scripture and is a man made doctrine.

 

Are you in fact questioning the statement of Our Saviour? Goodness me you are extraordinarily brave or foolhardy? If the thief's confession of belief was good enough for the Redeemer of Mankind..... it was a baptism of desire to be remembered by the Lord in Paradise, the thief knew he was unworthy but still had the humility to ask to be remembered...

 

Believe me, I have seen the hatred on this board against sola scriptura.
If you didn't hate it, you would give up Oral Tradition and any other authority that you have alongside the Bible and use the Bible alone for your authority. But you don't. Tradition is just as important, and sometimes more so, than the doctrines of the Bible, for the RCC. The RCC put a lot of emphasis on the ECF and refer to them more than they refer to the Bible.

 

I think you missed his point. He was stating the obvious that the thief wasn't baptised but would indeed be in paradise with Christ.

 

Well, let's look at another example of God not feeling obligated to follow protocol. You know the scripture 'it is appointed unto man once to die, and after that the judgement.

Did Enoch die? There are cases where Baptism is not possible. What about the horrible situation in Haiti where people may be buried under tons of rubble with no water available. Some with them shares the gospel, they repent and then die. Is God going to deny that precious soul entry into heaven because of a situation beyond his/her control? That I believe qualifies as baptism by desire.

We are told to REPENT and BE BAPTIZED for the remission of sins. If a person says he repents but then decides to ignore the Lords' command to be baptised, what does that say about his committment follow Jesus as Lord and Savior. The same goes for Holy Communion. I know of a 'Christian' who says he accepted Jesus as Saivor and Lord but has never been baptized and has never bothered to participate in the Lords Supper.

These sacraments were not 'suggestions', they were commands.

 

Both hypocritical and deceitful.
How does one enter the Catholic Church?
The Catechism contradicts itself on this point.

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330

Salvation is no longer through Christ; it is through Allah. The only thing in common here is Abraham. But so what.
Genesis 25:1 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.
--Abraham married afterward, had at least six other sons and many more descendants, who are neither from Ishmael nor from Isaac.

The RCC continues to change the rules. Salvation is no longer through Christ.



842 The Church's bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:
All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .331
--The RCC has become quite universalistic. It reaches out to all religions. The only stipulation now is that those in other religions (Hindus, Buddhists, etc.) is that they be "good" and not "evil". For the RCC has a bond with these religions as well.



845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.334
--But wait, now the church is showing its true colors. There is no salvation outside the RCC. The real purpose is to reach out to all religions and bring "the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church" (the RCC of course). Very crafty isn't it. Very hypocritical. Speaks out of both sides of its mouth.


"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

Now it is explained well. In plain black and white the Catechism declares there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, and baptism is that door.

 

I think it's a little more complicated. The catechism clearly states that only Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation. Catholics generally affirm that the "Church" referrs to not only the Roman Catholic institution, but also the whole of all Christian believers who accept and affirm Christ as the mediator and the way of salvation.

This is what Catholics tell us over and over again with consistency and frequency, yet we continue to tell them what we think they're supposed to believe. We accusing them of following blindly what they'er told, yet when they tell us otherwise, we tell them what we think the RCC doctrine is supposed to be, and then get mad at them for not following blindly what they are told.

I've got as much issue with RCC practices as the next person, but we seem to be rather hypocritical in the above area.

 

Sorry, DHK, that just has not been my experience. I don't know where you come up with statement that 'tradition is just as important, and sometimes more so.' If you are referring to Catholics on this board putting a lot of emphasis on ECF's it is because when a person has studies the writings of the ECF's it is very hard to come away with any other viewpoint than the church was Catholic from the very start of the Christian Church.

 

Thank you for posting this. You are right, we have stated this over and over and still we continue to be told what, as Catholics, we believe. It gets frustrating to continually correct misrepresentations of the Catholic faith. If no Catholics or posters who genuinely know what the Catholic Church teaches were allowed to post. One can only wonder what assertions would be made about us.

 

I can post paragraph after paragraph from Vatican II, and be assured that every time "church" is mentioned context clearly means the RCC. So it is in the Catechism. Why would they refer to anything else. Consult RCC apologists and you will find out the same thing.

 

I would challenge you to take any subject like purgatory, the assumption of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, indulgences, praying to Mary (and other saints), and on the basis of Scripture alone, without ever referring to the ECF, debate any one of the many Baptists on this board.

I guarantee you that the Catholics will resort to the ECF or some other authority other than the Bible. They hate this doctrine of sola scriptura. In the past they have come out and said as much.

 

I think that DHK and several others have been quite accurate on the RCC. What is going on often is that the Catholic defenders try to redefine or change terms so that what they are saying sounds acceptable.

Here is something on the church at 2030 from the Catechism:

(underlining added)

Here's just one statement (there are others) at 967 on Mary and the Church:

(Underlining added)


Here's another choice statement from the Catechism:

Not just prayer for the dead, but the belief that our prayer will help them be "loosed from their sins." This is a direct attack on the atonement of Christ being insufficient. But I'm sure the Catholic defenders here will try to rationalize this so it is not saying what it really is saying.