Tradition Versus Scripture

[Marymog]

Because if they did trust in the kings and rulers of the secular world to propagate the doctrines and dogma of faith, instead of trusting in the work of the holy Spirit, then that is... Was... Spiritual adultery. Revelation of very clear that such was the sin of the whore, and such is the sin of the papacy.

Lol...........you keep me in stitches Brokelite...............

 

[Marymog]

LOL....I'm sorry but the "scriptural acrobatics" employed by the RCC are centuries older than you or I.
I wasn't born into my faith, but went searching for God in my early twenties after balking at what was passed off as "Christianity" in Christendom for quite some time....the fact that it was OK to do what Christ taught....except when justification was needed to ignore him.

Nowhere was this more obvious than when nations went to war. All the churches supported their nation in their side of the war effort and the Catholic church particularly was right at the forefront, blessing weapons that would inevitably take the lives of innocent people, even fellow Catholics at times, and absolving troubled consciences at the front line. The question was then, if Christians were on both sides of the conflict, whose side was God taking? Jesus told them, but they ignored him to curry favor with the world. (Matt 5:43-44; James 4:4)

The fact that I did go into so much detail is because I am a student of the Bible and have been for over 50 years. If you don't know the details of why you hold something to be true, then you are what Paul describes as a 'clashing cymbal'....like a brass object that echoes loudly when struck and makes a harsh, jarring, and discordant noise that repels rather than attracts.

Its a shame your red flags don't alert you to the things that are red flags to God....like idolatry and bloodguilt.

Please...I would welcome such an examination. The NWT was sorely needed because most English translations of the Bible available today are skewed towards the teachings of the church...not the Christ. I would be very happy to go down that rabbit hole with you...

According to Strongs Concordance "'ēl" (god) is defined as....

• god, god-like one, mighty one
  
  
  1. mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes
  2. angels
  3. god, false god, (demons, imaginations)
  4. God, the one true God, Jehovah

So your own argument sinks, especially when I have already demonstrated that the use of the word "god" is made by Jehovah himself, concerning the appointed judges in Israel......Jehovah called those human judges "gods".....

John 10:34-36.....
Jesus G2424 answered G611 them, “Has it not been G1510 written G1125 in your Law G3551: ‘I SAID G3004, YOU ARE GODS G2316’?
“If G1487 he called G3004 them gods G2316, to whom G3739 the word G3056 of God G2316 came G1096 (and the Scripture G1124 cannot G1410 G3756 be nullified G3089), are you saying G3004 of Him whom G3739 the Father G3962 sanctified G37 and sent G649 into the world G2889, ‘You are blaspheming G987,’ because G3754 I said G3004, ‘I am G1510 the Son G5207 of God G2316’?


If you have not been indoctrinated with this nonsense then you would read that and laugh at its absurdity.
You have three gods there......"God the Father"...."God the Son"....and "God the Holy Spirit".....three separate entities whom you collectively call "God"...they can talk to one another...be in different places at the same time....have different wills.....and only one prays to the Father. The Father is clearly superior, so how can they be equally "God"?

Jesus never once claimed to be Almighty God and the apostles did not think that Jesus was God incarnate, but always deferred to the son as God's representative on earth.....they worshipped the Father, not the son who was a "god like" one who had full authorization from his Father. (Matt 28:18) If he was God why did he need authority to be "given" him?

You crack me up aunty jane. What your men have taught you such nonsense! Or are you self taught?? None the less.....What denomination do you belong to? That would help me better understand where you are coming from.

Sooooo "the "scriptural acrobatics" employed by YOU are amazing. You deviate from 2,000 years of Christian teaching to employ your own version (or, what your men have taught you) of Scripture. Do you really trust those men that have taught you that?

Why is it that that Protestants, such as yourself, teach that ANYONE can read Scripture and properly interpret it but when a Catholic interprets it, they are wrong?????????? Weird.......


Very confusing.............Why are YOU (or the men that have taught you) right and the men of the catholic church wrong?


Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

No infant baptism till AD 450:

Complete lie. DO you not know your own Christian history? Or does your history start at the Reformation? YOUR MEN HAVE LIED TO YOU or you don't know your own Christian history.

Irenaeus​

“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

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).

Gregory of Nazianz​

“Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!” (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).

“‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly [I respond], if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated” (ibid., 40:28).

John Chrysostom​

“You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members” (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

Augustine​

“What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

“Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born” (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).

“By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration” (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).

Council of Carthage V​

“Item: It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they [abandoned children] were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the [North African] legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such [abandoned children] from the barbarians” (Canon 7 [A.D. 401]).

Council of Mileum II​

“[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration” (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]).

 

[Johann]

Complete lie. DO you not know your own Christian history? Or does your history start at the Reformation? YOUR MEN HAVE LIED TO YOU or you don't know your own Christian history.

You are about to lose this debate before you even started.
Shalom
J.

 

[Johann]

Complete lie. DO you not know your own Christian history? Or does your history start at the Reformation? YOUR MEN HAVE LIED TO YOU or you don't know your own Christian history.

Irenaeus​

“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

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).

Gregory of Nazianz​

“Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!” (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).

“‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly [I respond], if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated” (ibid., 40:28).

John Chrysostom​

“You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members” (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

Augustine​

“What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

“Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born” (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).

“By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration” (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).

Council of Carthage V​

“Item: It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they [abandoned children] were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the [North African] legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such [abandoned children] from the barbarians” (Canon 7 [A.D. 401]).

Council of Mileum II​

“[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration” (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]).

Don't run around in circles-show me from Scripture infants-not knowing good or evil-were regenerated and justified-an "ongoing" justification" in the waters of baptism.
Heck-you won't find that from Jewish sources.
The one cracking me up is you.

 

[Marymog]

You are about to lose this debate before you even started.
Shalom
J.

Ok Johann..............instead of interjecting with non sensical statements and your OPINION..........How about if you back up your words with facts? Good luck with that kiddo.........

The FACT is...as I pointed out...is that infant baptism started LONG before 450AD............refute that or shut up.

 

[Johann]

Ok Johann..............instead of interjecting with non sensical statements and your OPINION..........How about if you back up your words with facts? Good luck with that kiddo.........

The FACT is...as I pointed out...is that infant baptism started LONG before 450AD............refute that or shut up.

Show me from Scriptures-that an infant-not knowing anything-can be regenerated and justified in the waters of baptism.
Jewish sources will shut you up kiddo.

The one with non sensical dogmas and traditions is you-no offense.

 

[Marymog]

Don't run around in circles-show me from Scripture infants-not knowing good or evil-were regenerated and justified-an "ongoing" justification" in the waters of baptism.
Heck-you won't find that from Jewish sources.
The one cracking me up is you.

Hello Johann,

Show me from Scripture that entire families were NOT baptized in the water of baptism. You can't!!! Can you? Infants are not part of families....are they Johann??????????????? you crack me up..........

Show me in Scripture where Jesus said that the promise of salvation is for you, but not your children. Scripture says OPPOSITE of your false prophecy (Acts 2:39)..............youi crack me up because you preach opposite of Scripture.................

Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

But Johann says "Suffer little children and fordibd them from coming unto to me for the kingdom of heaven is NOT for them.


Wow....See how that is OPPOSITE of what Jesus said??????????????


YOU have accepted the 500-year-old teaching of Protestant men instead of looking at Scripture and the 2,000-year teaching of The Church.

How sad for you kiddo....how sad. I would say again that you crack me up but I am actually concerned for your spiritual wellbeing.

You called me and Scripture liars...OFFENSE TAKEN.....

 

[Johann]

Hello Johann,

Show me from Scripture that entire families were NOT baptized in the water of baptism. You can't!!! Can you? Infants are not part of families....are they Johann??????????????? you crack me up..........

Show me in Scripture where Jesus said that the promise of salvation is for you, but not your children. Scripture says OPPOSITE of your false prophecy (Acts 2:39)..............youi crack me up because you preach opposite of Scripture.................

Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

But Johann says "Suffer little children and fordibd them from coming unto to me for the kingdom of heaven is NOT for them.


Wow....See how that is OPPOSITE of what Jesus said??????????????


YOU have accepted the 500-year-old teaching of Protestant men instead of looking at Scripture and the 2,000-year teaching of The Church.

How sad for you kiddo....how sad. I would say again that you crack me up but I am actually concerned for your spiritual wellbeing.

You called me and Scripture liars...OFFENSE TAKEN.....

Typical circular reasoning-using a verse out of context-show me from Scripture that an INFANT can be regenerated and justified by the waters of baptism kiddo.
Yes, you twist and pervert the Scriptures.

2) "And forbid them not, to come unto me:" (kai me koluete auta ethein pros me) "And do not prevent, hinder, obstruct them to come or in their coming to me," approaching me, of their own will and accord, Jesus took delight in the spirit of faith and trust that led small children to come to Him of their own will, once they knew who He was, Mar_10:14.

3) "For of such is the kingdom of heaven." (ton gar toiouton estin he basileia ton ouranon) "Because it is of such the kingdom of heaven is constituted or exists," of those who voluntarily, of their own will, choice, or volition come to me, to receive salvation and obediently follow me in service and worship, Mat_18:3; 1Pe_2:1-2.

Instead of talking down your nose to Protestants-THIS one is ten steps ahead of you.

Neuter diminutive of G3816; a childling (of either sex), that is, (properly) an infant, or (by extension) a half grown boy or girl; figuratively an immature Christian: - (little, young) child, damsel.

LXX related word(s)
H1060 bekhor
H1121 ben
H2945 taph
H3126 yoneq
H3126 yoneq
H3206 yeled
H5288 naar
H5650 eved
H5764 ul
H7356 racham

Thayer Definition:
1) a young child, a little boy, a little girl
1a) infants
1b) children, little ones
1c) an infant
1c1) of a (male) child just recently born
1d) of a more advanced child; of a mature child
1e) metaphorically children (like children) in intellect
Part of Speech: noun neuter

According to your "catechisms" you have no assurance re your salvation-right?

We are not Guaranteed Salvation; We Hope For Salvation

 

[Johann]

Right-gone is @Marymog -appealing to Church fathers and not what stands written.
One question-and the "debate" is over.
J.

 

[Johann]

Hello Johann,

Show me from Scripture that entire families were NOT baptized in the water of baptism. You can't!!! Can you? Infants are not part of families....are they Johann??????????????? you crack me up..........

Show me in Scripture where Jesus said that the promise of salvation is for you, but not your children. Scripture says OPPOSITE of your false prophecy (Acts 2:39)..............youi crack me up because you preach opposite of Scripture.................

Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

But Johann says "Suffer little children and fordibd them from coming unto to me for the kingdom of heaven is NOT for them.


Wow....See how that is OPPOSITE of what Jesus said??????????????


YOU have accepted the 500-year-old teaching of Protestant men instead of looking at Scripture and the 2,000-year teaching of The Church.

How sad for you kiddo....how sad. I would say again that you crack me up but I am actually concerned for your spiritual wellbeing.

You called me and Scripture liars...OFFENSE TAKEN.....

What happened? You blocked me-now what?

 

[Brakelite]

Yes, the Pope(s) during that time did "did lead the church into a political union". Does that change the doctrines/dogma of The Church?

Eventually it totally changed the church, it's what introduced syncretism and compromise. It also resulted in divorce. Apostasy.

Complete lie. DO you not know your own Christian history? Or does your history start at the Reformation? YOUR MEN HAVE LIED TO YOU or you don't know your own Christian history.

Irenaeus​

“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

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).

Gregory of Nazianz​

“Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!” (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).

“‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly [I respond], if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated” (ibid., 40:28).

John Chrysostom​

“You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members” (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

Augustine​

“What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

“Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born” (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).

“By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration” (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).

Council of Carthage V​

“Item: It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they [abandoned children] were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the [North African] legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such [abandoned children] from the barbarians” (Canon 7 [A.D. 401]).

Council of Mileum II​

“[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration” (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]).

Your men are lying to you. An
apostolic teaching? Show me from Romans 6 how baptism was an infant appropriate event.
Show me an example of John the Baptist baptising infants.

 

[Brakelite]

I'm still waiting for Brokelight to prove any secular entity had any say in anything the Church formally taught in the 4th -6th centuries that he keeps harping about.

1. St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
2. St. Hilarius (461-68)
3. St. Simplicius (468-83)
4. St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
5. St. Gelasius I (492-96)
6. Anastasius II (496-98)
7. St. Symmachus (498-514) Opposed by Laurentius, antipope (498-501)
8. St. Hormisdas (514-23)
9. St. John I (523-26)
10. St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
11. Boniface II (530-32) Opposed by Dioscorus, antipope (530)
12. John II (533-35)
13. St. Agapetus I (535-36) Also called Agapitus I
14. St. Silverius (536-37)
15. Vigilius (537-55)
16. Pelagius I (556-61)
17. John III (561-74)
18. Benedict I (575-79)
19. Pelagius II (579-90)
20. St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
21. Sabinian (604-606)
22. Boniface III (607)
23. St. Boniface IV (608-15)
24. St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)

The point being made was not a theological or doctrinal issue. It is an historical issue.

Mary agreed, the popes did lead the church into a political union. The result wasn't what you are speaking of doctrinally , but a matter of trust and relationship. The church abandoned God in favour of the kings of the earth in order to grow the church. Armies replaced the gospel. Inquisitions replaced the holy Spirit. Coercion, torture and death replaced compassion, mercy and the promise of life.
Brokelight? Can't be broken. Every time you see me you react. So the brakelite's working fine. And that's all I can hope for. What you do with any thing I post is up to you. I can't change you or convert you, I don't expect to. All I expect is what every normal person would do on the highway when they see a brake light in front of them. Slow down and think. And you're thinking. So I've done my work. Shining the light. Great you see it. By the way, even your Jesuit masters admit openly that the philosophy of the Catholic church is Greek. And it's Greek philosophy that had infected doctrine. I could give you some examples, 3 of them originating with Satan's speech to Eve. Not Roman, but Greek. Just like the leopard beast of revelation 13. Appeared like a leopard. Happy Sabbath!

 

[Marymog]

Your men are lying to you. An
apostolic teaching? Show me from Romans 6 how baptism was an infant appropriate event.
Show me an example of John the Baptist baptising infants.

Oh goodness Brakelite......There is more in Scripture about baptism than Romans 6. Stop cherry picking Scripture to support what your men have taught you.

Show me from Acts 2 that we are instructed NOT to baptize children....it literally says the OPPOSITE of what your men have taught you.

In Collosions 2 baptism and circumcision are equated.......But when Scripture equates something your men who have taught you to ignore it.

Entire households were baptized (Acts 16, 1 Corinthians).....But your men have convinced you that there were no infants in those households.

You reject 1,800+ year old Historical Christian writings and accept the writings of your men from 500 years ago........Fascinating!

Show me where John the Baptist said not to baptize infants and I will join your cult.

 

[Marymog]

What happened? You blocked me-now what?

Huh???? I don't understand what you are saying?

 

[Brakelite]

Oh goodness Brakelite......There is more in Scripture about baptism than Romans 6. Stop cherry picking Scripture to support what your men have taught you.

Show me from Acts 2 that we are instructed NOT to baptize children....it literally says the OPPOSITE of what your men have taught you.

In Collosions 2 baptism and circumcision are equated.......But when Scripture equates something your men who have taught you to ignore it.

Entire households were baptized (Acts 16, 1 Corinthians).....But your men have convinced you that there were no infants in those households.

You reject 1,800+ year old Historical Christian writings and accept the writings of your men from 500 years ago........Fascinating!

Show me where John the Baptist said not to baptize infants and I will join your cult.

Establishing a doctrine on the basis that scripture is silent in arguing against it opens the floodgates to all manner of nonsense... Is this the kind of human reasoning that the Catholic church stands on?

 

[Marymog]

Right-gone is @Marymog -appealing to Church fathers and not what stands written.
One question-and the "debate" is over.
J.

Lol....Dear Johann,

"What stands written" requires interpretation. You have accepted the interpretation of men that lived 500 years ago (or less). I have accepted the interpretation of men that were students of the Apostles.

There is no debate........students of the Apostles beat out 16th century men!!!

 

[Marymog]

Typical circular reasoning-using a verse out of context-show me from Scripture that an INFANT can be regenerated and justified by the waters of baptism kiddo.
Yes, you twist and pervert the Scriptures.
2) "And forbid them not, to come unto me:" (kai me koluete auta ethein pros me) "And do not prevent, hinder, obstruct them to come or in their coming to me," approaching me, of their own will and accord, Jesus took delight in the spirit of faith and trust that led small children to come to Him of their own will, once they knew who He was, Mar_10:14.

3) "For of such is the kingdom of heaven." (ton gar toiouton estin he basileia ton ouranon) "Because it is of such the kingdom of heaven is constituted or exists," of those who voluntarily, of their own will, choice, or volition come to me, to receive salvation and obediently follow me in service and worship, Mat_18:3; 1Pe_2:1-2.

Instead of talking down your nose to Protestants-THIS one is ten steps ahead of you.

Neuter diminutive of G3816; a childling (of either sex), that is, (properly) an infant, or (by extension) a half grown boy or girl; figuratively an immature Christian: - (little, young) child, damsel.

LXX related word(s)
H1060 bekhor
H1121 ben
H2945 taph
H3126 yoneq
H3126 yoneq
H3206 yeled
H5288 naar
H5650 eved
H5764 ul
H7356 racham

Thayer Definition:
1) a young child, a little boy, a little girl
1a) infants
1b) children, little ones
1c) an infant
1c1) of a (male) child just recently born
1d) of a more advanced child; of a mature child
1e) metaphorically children (like children) in intellect
Part of Speech: noun neuter

Lol Johann.....I don't think you know the meaning of circular reasoning....but I get the gist of your rant.

Are you suggesting that the word "children" in that passage does not at EVER mean infants? I am already one step ahead of you kiddo.

Neuter diminutive of G3816; a childling (of either sex), that is, (properly) an infant, or (by extension) a half grown boy or girl; figuratively an immature Christian: - (little, young) child, damsel.

Thayer Definition:
1) a young child, a little boy, a little girl
1a) infants
1b) children, little ones
1c) an infant
1c1) of a (male) child just recently born


Also, I asked you to "Show me in Scripture where Jesus said that the promise of salvation is for you, but not your children." You failed to show me anything from Scripture to support what your men have taught. Would you like to try again?

Keeping it real......Mary

 

[Marymog]

According to your "catechisms" you have no assurance re your salvation-right?

We are not Guaranteed Salvation; We Hope For Salvation

Hi Johann,

According to Scripture, there is no assurance of salvation.

According to Jesus if I endure to the end I will be saved (Matthew 24). Will you endure to the end Johann? Or will you fall away (Luke 8:13)?

Have your men assured you that you are saved?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

Show me from Scriptures-that an infant-not knowing anything-can be regenerated and justified in the waters of baptism.
Jewish sources will shut you up kiddo.

The one with non sensical dogmas and traditions is you-no offense.

No offense taken. For it is not MY dogma/tradition that I adhere to. I adhere to the 2,000 year dogma/traditions of The Church.

Well, you didn't refute my point, you just said Jewish sources will back you up.....but you didn't provide those sources soooooooo you know what the next step is.

Mary