Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

reply to post by IsidoreOfSeville


Okay, forget "Two Babylons", read "A Woman Who Rides the Beast".

And Paganism HAS infected the church.

I love critiques who never criticize specifics, yet attack the researcher/scholar directly.

reply to post by IsidoreOfSeville


And I never said a child had to "be a certain age", at whatever age they can believe they should be baptized. Why are people misrepresenting my words? Secondly, you can't make doctrine from a single verse, that's called "single-verse theology", it's terrible hermeneutics. You must form doctrine in a systematic manner, called "systematic theology". Which means the whole must be considered, one doctrine or verse cannot contradict others on the same subject. If they do that's an indication the exegesis is off.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I didn't think I was attacking you sir! Mea culpa. I was essentially trying to show that a lot of arguments against Christianity (Catholicism in particular) are regurgitations of same arguments. I must admit, I couldn't help but chuckle when I saw you mention that book!

As for the second title, I've not read it. But a quick search on Amazon and the reviews pretty much tells me all I need to know regarding it's content; again, regurgiations.

I will leave you, and whoever else that wishes to read it, this article which pretty much refutes that book.

But if anyone sincerely wishes to know what the Catholic Church teaches, go to the source! Your local priest is only a quick Google search and/or a phone call away. Or, if you'd like to go a bit further, attend an RCIA course. The first phase of it is called "inquiry" for a reason. That's where you get to show up with both barrels loaded and ask away! Remember, you don't get converted by simply walking up, nor are you committed to complete the RCIA course if you decided to attend once or twice.

God bless you all!

I don't want to interrupt the positive direction this thread is maintaining, so I'll remain mute from here on out.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

And I never said a child had to "be a certain age", at whatever age they can believe they should be baptized. Why are people misrepresenting my words?

Because you have said, over and over again, that children who haven't reached the 'age of reason' (and everyone agrees that it is not as an infant that they can make a decision) have no business being baptized. You have insisted at every turn that baptism is only for adults and 'thinking' children.

Do you actually think that a kid of 7 or 8 can actually understand the nuances of religious thought? What a joke.

(Truth is, at 7 or 8 they are STILL under the influence of their parents' 'indoctrination'. And then, if they're sent to Jesus Camp, they will be warped)
(probably permanently).
There is no doubt or question about that. It is what it is.

So, don't play 'coy', here NuT. You have decried 'infant baptism', and said it only belongs to people mature enough to make the decision for themselves. A child of 6,7,8 years old has NO IDEA what is going on with the 'spiritual lessons' they are being spoon-fed. They don't even know for sure if Santa is real or not!!

You just really don't get it, do you? You don't.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by IsidoreOfSeville

 

And I never said a child had to "be a certain age", at whatever age they can believe they should be baptized. Why are people misrepresenting my words? Secondly, you can't make doctrine from a single verse, that's called "single-verse theology", it's terrible hermeneutics. You must form doctrine in a systematic manner, called "systematic theology". Which means the whole must be considered, one doctrine or verse cannot contradict others on the same subject. If they do that's an indication the exegesis is off.

My example (that I pulled from an external source, btw) gave at least three verses that an "age of accountability" was never needed to be baptized, and showed that entire households were baptized. I provided the source if you'd like to take a looksee yourself.

reply to post by IsidoreOfSeville

so I'll remain mute from here on out.

My example (that I pulled from an external source, btw) gave at least three verses that an "age of accountability" was never needed to be baptized, and showed that entire households were baptized.

EXACTLY!!

Regarding the earlier offer to 'remain mute'.....please don't!
I hope you change your mind.
~wild

reply to post by IsidoreOfSeville


I don't care much for reviews. In my opinion it's more fruitful fore to read the details and check the references. Oftentimes poor reviews come because they shatter the critic's presuppositions. So instead of refuting the facts they appeal to emotion and attack the person meaning the claim and not the claim itself.

Originally posted by IsidoreOfSeville

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by IsidoreOfSeville

 

And I never said a child had to "be a certain age", at whatever age they can believe they should be baptized. Why are people misrepresenting my words? Secondly, you can't make doctrine from a single verse, that's called "single-verse theology", it's terrible hermeneutics. You must form doctrine in a systematic manner, called "systematic theology". Which means the whole must be considered, one doctrine or verse cannot contradict others on the same subject. If they do that's an indication the exegesis is off.

My example (that I pulled from an external source, btw) gave at least three verses that an "age of accountability" was never needed to be baptized, and showed that entire households were baptized. I provided the source if you'd like to take a looksee yourself.

But that's a straw man, I've never argued that a certain age needed to be met. All examples in the NT are for the baptism of believers. No a single instance shows the baptism of an unbeliever.

reply to post by wildtimes


Why not just quote me, it takes a lot less words.

Baptism if for believers, whatever age that may be. And I also challenged anyone to show a single instance of a non-believer being baptized.

Do you actually think that a kid of 7 or 8 can actually understand the nuances of religious thought? What a joke.

No. Where did I ever claim they needed to be a learned theologian? The gospel is so simple that yes, a child could easily understand it. I taught 4 year old children for two years that knew Jesus died for them and rose from the dead.

Can the straw men stop, it annoys me. Just argue what I say. My position is that only those who believe should be baptized, period. Whatever age that may be.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Wait. What?
Dude, you need to choose: logic and child development -- or, indoctrination?
You have, of late, ceased to make sense. I know you don't mean to...I know that your heart is in the right place, but...Really? Can you not have a discussion about these things without starting to sweat and freak out??

Your 'debate terms' don't cut it, friend.

Which is it?
Baptism of kids is okay?
Or
It's only for adults (or those who can make an adult decision)?

Can't have it both ways, and it's been clearly established here how 'infant baptism' is traditional, and rational (according to Protestant/Catholic thinking.) Are you aware that part of the Episcopal 'Nicene Creed' states that they - the faith - are part of the 'Catholic' faith? Look it up.

381 Constantinopolitan Creed. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

This I recited every freaking Sunday of my life until I turned 16 - and even a few times after that.


You have a long way to go in your understanding of theological history and development.
Not your fault, at all, but I hope you will one day open your mind, stop freaking out, and learn a bit more about this thing you have 'adopted' as your salvation.

I feel bad for you.
Really.
You're missing the whole point.

Originally posted by wildtimes
Are you aware that part of the Episcopal 'Nicene Creed' states that they - the faith - are part of the 'Catholic' faith? Look it up.

381 Constantinopolitan Creed. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

This I recited every freaking Sunday of my life until I turned 16 - and even a few times after that.

"catholic", in the sentence is the lower case catholic, just meaning "universal". That sentence does not imply that the reciter supports the Roman Catholic Church (upper case Catholic.)

I had a similar question when I was a Methodist, and asked a pastor, who clarified it for me.

reply to post by adjensen

"catholic", in the sentence is the lower case catholic, just meaning "universal".

Exactly.
Yes, I understand that, adj.
I think there are many, many people who don't understand it. At all.
But, what can we do????

Just keep trying to educate, I guess.
Seems like a losing battle sometimes.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

reply to post by IsidoreOfSeville

 

But that's a straw man, I've never argued that a certain age needed to be met. All examples in the NT are for the baptism of believers. No a single instance shows the baptism of an unbeliever.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. Please help me to make sure I understand you. I saw earlier you believe that baptism is done because it's what believers do. Then what's your take on infant baptism?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by IsidoreOfSeville

 

I don't care much for reviews. In my opinion it's more fruitful fore to read the details and check the references. Oftentimes poor reviews come because they shatter the critic's presuppositions. So instead of refuting the facts they appeal to emotion and attack the person meaning the claim and not the claim itself.

The link that I left pretty much provides a point by point refutation against the claims in his book. Didja read it?

Originally posted by IsidoreOfSeville

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

reply to post by IsidoreOfSeville

 

But that's a straw man, I've never argued that a certain age needed to be met. All examples in the NT are for the baptism of believers. No a single instance shows the baptism of an unbeliever.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. Please help me to make sure I understand you. I saw earlier you believe that baptism is done because it's what believers do. Then what's your take on infant baptism?

In typical rabbinical fashion I'll answer your question with a question.

Can an infant believe the gospel spoken in a language they don't yet comprehend?

reply to post by wildtimes


I don't need to choose anything, I've clearly laid out my argument. All NT verses concerning baptism in the Bible deal with a believer being baptized. There are no instances where a non-believer was baptized in any book of the bible.

Can you prove that wrong?

reply to post by IsidoreOfSeville


Well, if you don't like Hyslop or think he's incorrect you could refer to Bryant or Armitage's history of the Babylonian empire. They both confirm the same thing.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Heh. "In typical rabbinical fashion." I like that!

I see where you're going with that train of thought.

I ask you to consider this:

Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new "circumcision" for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.

Job 14:1-4 - man that is born of woman is full of trouble and unclean. Baptism is required for all human beings because of our sinful human nature.

Psalm 51:5 - we are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the necessity of baptism from conception.

Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?

Matt 19:14 - Jesus clearly says the kingdom of heaven also belongs to children. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism.

Mark 10:14 - Jesus says to let the children come to Him for the kingdom of God also belongs to them. Jesus says nothing about being too young to come into the kingdom of God.

Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with "He who does not believe will be condemned." This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a "believer's baptism."

Source

To get back on track for a moment, I think we've established that Catholics are indeed Christians, as someone else has posted.

But I think we're beating a dead horse here. Feel free to move along.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Can an infant believe the gospel spoken in a language they don't yet comprehend?

Largely rhetorical, since I think that you and I are mostly on the same page, but do you believe in the concept of the "God-Shaped Hole in the Human Soul"? I do, and could argue that language is not required to acknowledge that hole.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

There are no instances where a non-believer was baptized in any book of the bible.

Now you are 'begging the question.' Is that a 'debate term' that you understand?

Here's what I said. I'll quote myself, since it's easier:
"You have a long way to go in your understanding of theological history and development."

Long way to go. It's been established right here in this thread that babies/households were baptized in the first wave of Jesus' ministry according to Paul and other NT 'scripture'!

But you refuse to see that.
So.
Whatever.