Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
They listened to and then taught what Jesus said, without the use of books or tradition.
Tradition means being passed from generation to generation. There is nothing wrong with tradition, as long as it is accurate.
Exactly.
Meri, instead of going after the messenger, listen to the message. Leave personalities out of it. No one here has gone after you. What you post here is open to examination, as is what others post.
When one tells us the Peter was the first Pope and we know that Peter was dead for 300 years before the Catholic church was formed, it is alright that we make that point known. When one makes the claim that the Catholic church was the first church, and we can provide the names of the churches that actually were the first, that isn't a personal attack, it is presenting facts that dispute what the Catholic church professes.
What? The disciples listened to what Christ said while He was here. 10 days after He left, the disciples received the Holy Spirit. They started spreading out and starting churches as the went. Peter stayed in Jerusalem with the church he started for 15 years.Jesus wasn't around after the resurrection.
What? The disciples listened to what Christ said while He was here. 10 days after He left, the disciples received the Holy Spirit. They started spreading out and starting churches as the went. Peter stayed in Jerusalem with the church he started for 15 years.
You aren't making sense. You're grasping at things hoping for an argument. Google, when were books made...So for nearly 400 years there were no books and most people were illiterate.
And my rebuttal is why are you worrying about a religion that is not your own? Especially since you misstate it so badly.My rebuttals are scripture. Using scripture for the purposes given below:
2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
If someone's opinion is contrary to scripture, then using scripture for reproof is what we are suppose to do.
I know that is what you think. My opinion vs your's means nothing. One's opinion vs scripture is how to get to the truth. Here is my response to your question:
Isaiah 8:19-20 19When men tell you to consult the spirits of the dead and the spiritists who whisper and mutter, shouldn’t a people consult their God instead? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?
20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn.
Pointing out facts is arrogant? All along you and The Irish Ram have been pointing out where the Catholic faith is wrong about baptism. Without attacking your own beliefs on baptism I have been pointing out Catholic beliefs and how they developed. You keep insisting that is wrong, according to something that began being taught fifteen hundred years later. There is no wish on either the part of either of you to understand the Catholic position. I have said at least twice I understand your position and your choices. I've offered peace, which was pretty much thrown down and stomped on.That's one of the most arrogant posts I've read in a while. You're telling others what they think, how much they have studied, and what their motives are... as if you are God who knows all. Wrong on all counts, but your attitude makes me not even want to bother refuting those arrogant assumptions.
That's my point. There is no understanding from you how the Catholic position on baptism harmonizes with all of scripture and with Apostolic tradition. Many of the proof texts thrown out here are out of context.As for "tradition".... I'm glad you brought that up, because this shows yet another huge difference between Catholics and non-Catholics. Do I care about tradition? When it harmonizes with the bible, yes. If it goes against the bible? Then no, I have no use for it, and in fact Jesus specifically condemned putting tradition first. Numerous times! And elevating tradition sometimes even above God's word is what I've seen from the Catholic church, on a number of doctrines. That is just one of the reasons why I never went back to the Catholic Church which I went to as a child, once I became a believer many years later.
I have not gone after any messenger and I have not engaged in personalities. Nor have I complained that anyone has gone after me for the simple fact, none have. This has been a simple discussion of why Catholics baptize babies and why some of the other Christian denominations do not. And...the funniest part, is having so very little to say one must rely on "Fake News". Always has me grinning and shaking my head, but the forfeit is accepted all the same.Meri, instead of going after the messenger, listen to the message. Leave personalities out of it. No one here has gone after you. What you post here is open to examination, as is what others post.
When one tells us the Peter was the first Pope and we know that Peter was dead for 300 years before the Catholic church was formed, it is alright that we make that point known. When one makes the claim that the Catholic church was the first church, and we can provide the names of the churches that actually were the first, that isn't a personal attack, it is presenting facts that dispute what the Catholic church professes.
Shrug.Well said!
Then you are on the road of destruction, Hypocrite.Do you realize that you just took what Jesus said and ADDED your own on top of it? Down that road lies destruction.
that's what Protestants do. They are so far removed from the True Faith (500 years removed, to be precise) that they don't have the first clue about Catholicism, but that does not in any way hinder them from speaking on the topic. I call that intellectually vacuous or disingenuous. They call it "sticking to the Bible"You keep insisting that is wrong, according to something that began being taught fifteen hundred years later.
The heart of the issue is focusing on a single Biblical verse, and moving established doctrine in that direction. Catholicism is rooted in Judaism which is rooted in Genesis and the fall of man. Catholics perceive the salvation and redemption of mankind in this light. Instead of disobedience, we are trained in obedience from our birth. We--and our family--live a new way of life in the Kingdom. Our life begins with redemption and salvation--and living salvation and redemption. Understanding of this is built into the way we live our lives and train our children. Salvation and redemption is not something one must wait for until they understand and agree this way of God, not the way of the world and Satan is what they choose.They are so far removed
Life in the Jewish covenant begins with circumcision, eight days after one is born. Children aren't asked to wait to enter the Old Covenant and Catholic children are not asked to wait to enter into the New Covenant. That is why Apostolic tradition includes the baptism of infants.
Where does it show a child who doesn't even understand the concept of sin was ever baptized? Answer: it doesn't. Baptism is the outward manifestation of REPENTANCE. Babies don't repent. Most adults have never repented. As usual you make a lot of ASSumptions and read into the Bible what you'd like it to say.only adults should be baptized. THAT is NOT at all true. As you likely know, whole households were baptized (Acts) and then there's the fact that NOWHERE does it say in the Bible that only adults should be baptized
This is disingenuous, at best.Where does it show a child who doesn't even understand the concept of sin was ever baptized?
In Catholicism, baptism is a sacrament of Initiation. An analogy: One does not wait to play baseball until s/he can hit a home run. Likewise, a child does not need to wait to learn about repentance and reconciliation until s/he has done wrong. Baptism is the recognition and acceptance that sins are forgiven. Parents and godparents promise to raise their child in this environment and with this knowledge--train them up in the way they should go.Where does it show a child who doesn't even understand the concept of sin was ever baptized? Answer: it doesn't. Baptism is the outward manifestation of REPENTANCE. Babies don't repent. Most adults have never repented. As usual you make a lot of ASSumptions and read into the Bible what you'd like it to say.
That would seem to indicate that you believe I have added to what Christ said. Perhaps you would be so good as to quote where I did that?Then you are on the road of destruction, Hypocrite.
To non-Catholics, baptism is a public acknowledgement that one has accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and understands what that means for their life. An analogy: One does not put a child in a baseball game until that child is old enough to understand that, during the game, he/she is not to pick dandelions or chase butterflies.In Catholicism, baptism is a sacrament of Initiation. An analogy: One does not wait to play baseball until s/he can hit a home run. Likewise, a child does not need to wait to learn about repentance and reconciliation until s/he has done wrong. Baptism is the recognition and acceptance that sins are forgiven.
We do that in a baby dedication ceremony, where the parents and the entire congregation promise to work together to raise the child in the faith.Parents and godparents promise to raise their child in this environment and with this knowledge--train them up in the way they should go.
And it is incumbent on all of us to search the Scriptures, to be sure that what we hear is correct, IOW to be like the Bereans. My plea, if you will, is for us to stop taking doctrinal disagreements as an excuse for insults and infighting. Christians world-wide need, for one old example, to stop arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Stop claiming that there's something "less" about Christians who have a different name on the door of their church building.Again, if those of the mind their children should wait until sin enters their lives to be baptized, free will comes into play.
By the way, Catholics don't read "into" the Bible...but we do read--and study--the Bible in its entirety. Those who know the Bible in its entirety are aware of what is being left out.
And if that is how you choose to baptize, no problem. The problem is with non-Catholics having problems with how Catholics and early Christians baptize. And by the way...you've never seen babies at baseball games?To non-Catholics, baptism is a public acknowledgement that one has accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and understands what that means for their life.
I don't see them catching fly balls in the outfield or running the bases, no.And if that is how you choose to baptize, no problem. The problem is with non-Catholics having problems with how Catholics and early Christians baptize. And by the way...you've never seen babies at baseball games?
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Are they with the rest of the family at the ballgame? Another question, is how many decisions do parents make for their children? Does the child decide when to go to school or what s/he wants to learn in school? Does the child even decide on his own bedtime? Do we wait to read to a child until the child is old enough to decide what s/he wants to hear? Do parents wait until a child is old enough to decide whether he wants to meet his grandparents, his aunts and uncles, and cousins? Or, being an actual member of the family, all of the above is a given for parents to decide?I don't see them catching fly balls in the outfield or running the bases.
