would anyone here be willing to do a debate thread - on ONE point at a time?

if so, let's use THIS thread to work out the details of how we might order the debate.

I'd love to see us come together, not as rivals, but as fellow Christians willing to explore those doctrines that separate us.

Any thoughts from anyone who has ever done any formal debating would be appreciated.

the hard part isn't determining if Catholics are Christians, the hard part will be getting agreement from all parties in the debate on what makes someone a Christian.

Quoted: the hard part isn't determining if Catholics are Christians, the hard part will be getting agreement from all parties in the debate on what makes someone a Christian.

Thanks for the comments.


Let me clarify:


This thread is directed at

1) Catholics, and
2) Mainline Protestants.

This thread is NOT intended to debate the basics of salvation - but, rather, to debate the percieved doctrinal errors held by either side on what are often called 'secondary' issues.

Quoted: Quoted: the hard part isn't determining if Catholics are Christians, the hard part will be getting agreement from all parties in the debate on what makes someone a Christian. Thanks for the comments. Let me clarify: This thread is directed at 1) Catholics, and 2) Mainline Protestants. This thread is NOT intended to debate the basics of salvation - but, rather, to debate the percieved doctrinal errors held by either side on what are often called 'secondary' issues.

Well, that forces me out of the discussion.  If it's ok I'd like to sit and watch from the sidelines.

Game on.

Quoted: Game on.

Would you, as a Catholic, be willing to choose the first point to debate?






<--not sure what he's getting himself into here, but forging ahead nevertheless........




side note:


we do, however, need to FIRST determine what the ground rules are going to be.

Let's do that FIRST.

(needless to say, the CoC is a baseline set of rules - beyond that, we need to establish how to maintain order in the thread)

Catholics have real wine and believe in transubstantiation.  Protestants use grape juice and don't believe in transubstantiation.  To some protestants, Catholicism is evil and corrupt in most every aspect, yet they hold communion services and many have deacons and bishops that wear the roman collar.  

Not bashing or flaming, just reporting observations.  Carry on.

ETA:  Many (using a broad brush I know, but it is the only one I have) protestant churches decry the Catholic Churches tradition of Apostolic Succesion, while using the term "Apostle" for some pastors and "Apostolic" in names of their churches or congregations.

Quoted: Well, that forces me out of the discussion.  If it's ok I'd like to sit and watch from the sidelines.

You're welcomed to.


Maybe if this goes well, we could eventually have a debate on Mormonism.

I read the locked thread the other day (the one in here, on mormonism) - there were a couple of members trying to break through the ignorance and personal attacks to get to the crux of the matter - and I was encouraged by that.

But let's start small- we're not to the point of a fully civil debate on ANYTHING yet - so let's save mormonism for a later date.


(or maybe I should say save it for a 'latter day'....)

Quoted: Quoted: Well, that forces me out of the discussion.  If it's ok I'd like to sit and watch from the sidelines. You're welcomed to. Maybe if this goes well, we could eventually have a debate on Mormonism. I read the locked thread the other day (the one in here, on mormonism) - there were a couple of members trying to break through the ignorance and personal attacks to get to the crux of the matter - and I was encouraged by that. But let's start small- we're not to the point of a fully civil debate on ANYTHING yet - so let's save mormonism for a later date. (or maybe I should say save it for a 'latter day'....)

 Excellent play on words.

Fair enough.

I am not a Roman Catholic or mainline protestant. I wont be involved in this other than watching.

IMHO this will degenerate into something resembling the pit and getting locked due to some peoples abrasive attitudes.

Good luck guys. I am making popcorn right now. I hope this works out better than I expect.

The only good that can come of this is if folks strive to see what we have in common, but unfortunately we love to look for the things that divide. As long as we always focus on our differences, there will always be strife. I hope everyone prays real hard before they type their responses. Its painfully evident when one does not.

I do not agree with the RCC for the most part and I will never become Roman Catholic. I just dont see any edification in this right now. I need to focus on myself instead of others. (not saying heresy should slide, I just think we need to look inward first)

{watching quietly from the sidelines}

Quoted: This thread is NOT intended to debate the basics of salvation - but, rather, to debate the percieved doctrinal errors held by either side on what are often called 'secondary' issues.

While I would love to share what we Catholics believe on such issues, I think you are putting the cart before the horse.  Many, if not most, of the differences on the "secondary" issues stem from the differences on core doctrines such as justification, salvation, the nature of Christ, the nature of the Church and some others.  Until those are addressed, discussing the "secondary" issues will go nowhere except right to discussing the core issues, which is apparently what you want to avoid.  You see, to the Catholic Church, the Deposit of Faith is intertwined -- they aren't separated.  The Catholic Church's reverence for Mary stems from the Church's view on the communion of saints, which comes from the nature of the Church, which gets to the core issue of salvation and what is necessary for it.

While I applaud what you want to do, I'm not optimistic.

(However, you can IM or email me whenever you want)

ETA:  I might not respond for a day or three since I'm working for the next 17 days straight, on top of homeschooling, interviewing for jobs, etc., but I will reply.

Quoted: Quoted: This thread is NOT intended to debate the basics of salvation - but, rather, to debate the percieved doctrinal errors held by either side on what are often called 'secondary' issues. While I would love to share what we Catholics believe on such issues, I think you are putting the cart before the horse.  Many, if not most, of the differences on the "secondary" issues stem from the differences on core doctrines such as justification, salvation, the nature of Christ, the nature of the Church and some others.  Until those are addressed, discussing the "secondary" issues will go nowhere except right to discussing the core issues, which is apparently what you want to avoid.  You see, to the Catholic Church, the Deposit of Faith is intertwined -- they aren't separated.  The Catholic Church's reverence for Mary stems from the Church's view on the communion of saints, which comes from the nature of the Church, which gets to the core issue of salvation and what is necessary for it. While I applaud what you want to do, I'm not optimistic. (However, you can IM or email me whenever you want) ETA:  I might not respond for a day or three since I'm working for the next 17 days straight, on top of homeschooling, interviewing for jobs, etc., but I will reply.

You're working for 17 days straight?

Great!

Maybe that will keep your responses to a minimum.



You're welcomed to your opinions, of course, but I hope youll re-read your post (as will everyone else) and see that it is an example of EVERYTHING I wanted to avoid.

If we're going to try to debate everything at once, two 'teams' of us need to be locked inside a rubber room with Bibles and a 6-week supply of food.

The logistics of that being what they are, i'd like to try and keep this to ONE point at a time.

I do realize the difficulty in that, due to the intertwined nature of so many of our beliefs.





Moving on:


does anyone have any suggestions for how we might proceeed with this?



Wildboar and BenDover,

Get your butts in here.


Maybe I should have said 'hardline' instead of 'mainline' when I referred to protestants.

I don't think it will matter as to which 'subject' we pick first. I will post below The Nicene Creed (written in 325 A.D., revised and adopted 381 A.D). It is a prayer and a fair summary of Catholic belief. BUT there are a few debatable points in the text that don't actually constitute dogma per se. So just pick a line or two and let the discussion begin.
(For some reason I keep hearing the boxing announcer --- Lets get ready to rumbllll...)

The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God,
 the Father, the Almighty,
 maker of heaven and earth,
 of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
 the only Son of God,
 eternally begotten of the Father,
 God from God, Light from Light,
 true God from true God,
 begotten, not made,
 of one Being with the Father.
 Through him all things were made.
 For us and for our salvation
   he came down from heaven:
 by the power of the Holy Spirit
   he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
   and was made man.
 For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
   he suffered death and was buried.
   On the third day he rose again
     in accordance with the Scriptures;
   he ascended into heaven
     and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
 He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
   and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
 who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
 With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
 He has spoken through the Prophets.
 We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
 We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
 We look for the resurrection of the dead,
   and the life of the world to come.  Amen.

Quoted: I don't think it will matter as to which 'subject' we pick first. I will post below The Nicene Creed (written in 325 A.D., revised and adopted 381 A.D). It is a prayer and a fair summary of Catholic belief. BUT there are a few debatable points in the text that don't actually constitute dogma per se. So just pick a line or two and let the discussion begin. (For some reason I keep hearing the boxing announcer --- Lets get ready to rumbllll...) The Nicene Creed We believe in one God,  the Father, the Almighty,  maker of heaven and earth,  of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,  the only Son of God,  eternally begotten of the Father,  God from God, Light from Light,  true God from true God,  begotten, not made,  of one Being with the Father.  Through him all things were made.  For us and for our salvation    he came down from heaven:  by the power of the Holy Spirit    he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,    and was made man.  For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;    he suffered death and was buried.    On the third day he rose again      in accordance with the Scriptures;    he ascended into heaven      and is seated at the right hand of the Father.  He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,    and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,  who proceeds from the Father and the Son.  With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.  He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.  We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.  We look for the resurrection of the dead,    and the life of the world to come.  Amen.

With the exception of the one line in red (duh!) I have no disagreement with that.

As for the line in red, I do believe we were intended to be 'one church'.

I sure wish we could have stayed that way.

So there's not really anything earth-shattering to discuss in the nicene creed - but it IS good to remind each other of our similarities before starting this.

Quoted: Quoted: I don't think it will matter as to which 'subject' we pick first. I will post below The Nicene Creed (written in 325 A.D., revised and adopted 381 A.D). It is a prayer and a fair summary of Catholic belief. BUT there are a few debatable points in the text that don't actually constitute dogma per se. So just pick a line or two and let the discussion begin. (For some reason I keep hearing the boxing announcer --- Lets get ready to rumbllll...) The Nicene Creed We believe in one God,  the Father, the Almighty,  maker of heaven and earth,  of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,  the only Son of God,  eternally begotten of the Father,  God from God, Light from Light,  true God from true God,  begotten, not made,  of one Being with the Father.  Through him all things were made.  For us and for our salvation    he came down from heaven:  by the power of the Holy Spirit    he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,    and was made man.  For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;    he suffered death and was buried.    On the third day he rose again      in accordance with the Scriptures;    he ascended into heaven      and is seated at the right hand of the Father.  He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,    and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,  who proceeds from the Father and the Son.  With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.  He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.  We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.  We look for the resurrection of the dead,    and the life of the world to come.  Amen. With the exception of the one line in red (duh!) I have no disagreement with that. As for the line in red, I do believe we were intended to be 'one church'. I sure wish we could have stayed that way. So there's not really anything earth-shattering to discuss in the nicene creed - but it IS good to remind each other of our similarities before starting this.

Arowneragain...

Re-read the red highlighted portion.  Notice that catholic is not capitalized.  This was done purposely.  Catholic simply means "Universal."  It was meant to include everyone.  Apostolic refers to the Apostolic succession from Peter to the present.  

You have to remember that when the Nicean Creed was written, it was in response to the infighting of the bishops at that time (read up on Arius the Presbyter and the underlying basis for the divisions between the Easter Orthodox church -- ie filioque) .... the intent was to unite all of the bishops back under one organization under Constantine, who's motto was ""One God, one Lord, one faith, one church, one empire, one emperor".

Nowtherefore, the issue that I take with the Nicean creed itself is that it was in response to the human corruption that had taken place within the 'church' as a result of attempts to institutionalize the very concept of Christianity itself. The creed was penned out of a perceived need to heal a rift between theological divisions -- in part, divisions that were being created out of the satan-inspired drive to interpret esoteric meanings from the scriptures. And there were other philosophical influences (Gnosis being one of these) that were adding pressure as well.

Christianity.... It's not a place or an organization. It's a lifestyle choice.

dvr9,


Yes, I'm familiar with catholic vs. Catholic - but I had to somehow incorporate the whole 'we have more than one 'faction' of the church for good reason' line somehow.

Ben,

thanks for the history lesson.

Moving on......



let's discuss the debate some more.

I'm really glad we're all talking here.

Quoted: dvr9, Yes, I'm familiar with catholic vs. Catholic - but I had to somehow incorporate the whole 'we have more than one 'faction' of the church for good reason' line somehow. Ben, thanks for the history lesson. Moving on...... let's discuss the debate some more. I'm really glad we're all talking here.

I understand, but at the time it was written, the Catholic Church was the only Christian church.  It wasn't until well over 1000 years later the Protestant Reformation occured.

Pick a debate topic and run with it.

I thought the Nicene Creed was a starter.

Quoted: I understand, but at the time it was written, the Catholic Church was the only Christian church.  It wasn't until well over 1000 years later the Protestant Reformation occured.

Not necessarily a true statement... the Nicene Creed itself as being proof of the fact that there were many factions underneath a loose socio-political affiliation that Constantine sought to unite.

The 'church' as it was at the time, was nothing more than a bunch of localized elders throughout the remnants of the Roman and Byzantine Empires --- many churches if you will. All having a localized view towards doctrines. It certainly was NOT the unified bastion of solidarity that is depicted by Catholics in reference to the validity of the Vatican being the root of the one, true church. In fact, Rome was one of the weakest of the multiple religious centers at the time.

There was much infighting long before there were Protestant reformers.

Quoted: Pick a debate topic and run with it. I thought the Nicene Creed was a starter.

In deference to Twire, I'll wait and let him outline what exactly he would like to discuss about it.

I've got a sincere question but I don't know if I can ask it (regarding the above reference to the Nicean Creed).

To begin the discussion. Do I take it that the objection is to the word apostolic then? Should we begin with apostolic succession or would you care to dive into other subject matter? What your biggest bone of contention? Seriously, I'll do my best to honestly answer any area of conflict.

Quoted: Quoted: I understand, but at the time it was written, the Catholic Church was the only Christian church.  It wasn't until well over 1000 years later the Protestant Reformation occured. Not necessarily a true statement... the Nicene Creed itself as being proof of the fact that there were many factions underneath a loose socio-political affiliation that Constantine sought to unite. The 'church' as it was at the time, was nothing more than a bunch of localized elders throughout the remnants of the Roman and Byzantine Empires --- many churches if you will. All having a localized view towards doctrines. There was much infighting long before there were Protestant reformers.

True, that is precisely why the leaders of the church convened at Nicea to organize the Christians.  The Creed was a profession of faith that all could agree with and unite under.

Quoted: I've got a sincere question but I don't know if I can ask it (regarding the above reference to the Nicean Creed).

It's certainly fine by me.

Quoted: Quoted: I've got a sincere question but I don't know if I can ask it (regarding the above reference to the Nicean Creed). It's certainly fine by me.

No problem here.

Quoted: To begin the discussion. Do I take it that the objection is to the word apostolic then? Should we begin with apostolic succession or would you care to dive into other subject matter? What your biggest bone of contention? Seriously, I'll do my best to honestly answer any area of conflict.

It's hard to say.

I honestly have no problem with the nicene creed when taken at face value.

Honestly.



That's why I thought it would be better to choose a doctrine we disagree on, and discuss WHY we disagree on - using scripture to make our points.


I actually thought the idea of praying to saints would be a good start, buy loony's post seems to indicate that there is no good way to isolate that issue from others.


Any suggestions?


Maybe some of the church traditions would be a good place to start.



infant baptism with later confirmation vs. 'believer's baptism'


might be a good one?



edit:

by 'praying to saints' I was referring to asking for the saints to pray for you, or however that goes - you know what I mean - no intent to start a hijack!

Quoted: The Nicene Creed We believe in one God,  the Father, the Almighty,  maker of heaven and earth,  of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,  the only Son of God,  eternally begotten of the Father,  God from God, Light from Light,  true God from true God,  begotten, not made,  of one Being with the Father.   Through him all things were made.  For us and for our salvation    he came down from heaven:  by the power of the Holy Spirit    he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,    and was made man.  For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;    he suffered death and was buried.    On the third day he rose again      in accordance with the Scriptures;    he ascended into heaven      and is seated at the right hand of the Father.  He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,    and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,  who proceeds from the Father and the Son.  With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.  He has spoken through the Prophets.  We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.  We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.  We look for the resurrection of the dead,    and the life of the world to come.  Amen.

With Arowneragain's permision, here is my sincere question for Catholics.

The parts of the Nicean Creed that I highlighted talk about the Father and the Son.

What is the exact position of the Catholic Church regarding the nature/relationship of the Father and Jesus?  Are they two distinct individuals or two "manifestations" of the same individual?  I've heard varying answers to this so I thought I'd ask.

Quoted: To begin the discussion. Do I take it that the objection is to the word apostolic then? Should we begin with apostolic succession or would you care to dive into other subject matter? What your biggest bone of contention? Seriously, I'll do my best to honestly answer any area of conflict.

The Nicene Creed contains some pretty rudimentary, milquetoast generalized statements which we all take for granted in modern times. I certainly cannot argue with them. However, when you shine a light on the history of the creed and the need to even create it, you can see that after nearly 300 years of man playing the telephone game, there was certainly enough time for plenty of corruption of the philosophy to take hold. The divisions between the Eastern Orthodox church and Western Churches were already apparent. The influence of Gnosis and Arianism.

Look no further than our own nation and how long it's taken to bastardize the original intent of the founding fathers to illustrate this point.

That is where I start to diverge from the idea that there was this 'one true church' after 300 years of apostolic seeding throughout the known world at the time.

The further intent behind the efforts to actually institutionalize the philosophy by Constantine is further demonstration of man's desire to create a fleshly power base from which to wield influence and control.

Jesus taught a lifestyle, not an org chart.

Quoted: Quoted: To begin the discussion. Do I take it that the objection is to the word apostolic then? Should we begin with apostolic succession or would you care to dive into other subject matter? What your biggest bone of contention? Seriously, I'll do my best to honestly answer any area of conflict. The Nicean Creed contains some pretty rudimentary, milquetoast generalized statements which we all take for granted in modern times. I certainly cannot argue with them. However, when you shine a light on the history of the creed and the need to even create it, you can see that after nearly 300 years of man playing the telephone game, there was certainly enough time for plenty of corruption of the philosophy to take hold. Look no further than our own nation and how long it's taken to bastardize the original intent of the founding fathers to illustrate this point. That is where I start to diverge from the idea that there was this 'one true church' after 300 years of apostolic seeding throughout the known world at the time. The further intent behind the efforts to actually institutionalize the philosophy by Constantine is further demonstration of man's desire to create a fleshly power base from which to wield influence and control. Jesus taught a lifestyle, not an org chart.

I'm sorry to intrude again.

BenDover,

I don't agree about the organization thing.

Ephesians 4:11-13

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
----------------

I don't think that there is any question here that "the body of Christ" as mentioned here is referring to the organization of his church (edited to add:  or more appropriately- the members themselves).  It very specifically mentions different callings and positions that exist for the purpose of creating unity and teaching correct knowledge of Jesus.

Shane333... we're all modern products of religious systems which apply those words to heirarchial titles within the management structure of organization.

Pastor, teacher, prophet, et al have specific roles and functions, gifts, attributes, but scriptually are not necessarily management titles. We have been raised with flawed thinking that the pastor is actually 'the boss'. Scripturally, the elders were collectively the church leaders, as well as the community leaders. These were the men in the locality who had households, etc...

Nowhere in scripture did Paul provide for any holy board of elections or ordained administrative code of operations and procedures.

However, he and Christ both left a lot of lifestyle and behavioral instructions though.

It was man who sought to institutionalize it.

There certainly isn't any scriptural precedent to for the Ephesians, or any of the other churches, asking Paul how to set up any organizational heirarchy. There were some letters asking for help in dealing with applied scriptural interpretations and behavioral problems.

Quoted: Quoted: To begin the discussion. Do I take it that the objection is to the word apostolic then? Should we begin with apostolic succession or would you care to dive into other subject matter? What your biggest bone of contention? Seriously, I'll do my best to honestly answer any area of conflict. The Nicean Creed contains some pretty rudimentary, milquetoast generalized statements which we all take for granted in modern times. I certainly cannot argue with them. However, when you shine a light on the history of the creed and the need to even create it, you can see that after nearly 300 years of man playing the telephone game, there was certainly enough time for plenty of corruption of the philosophy to take hold. Look no further than our own nation and how long it's taken to bastardize the original intent of the founding fathers to illustrate this point. That is where I start to diverge from the idea that there was this 'one true church' after 300 years of apostolic seeding throughout the known world at the time. The further intent behind the efforts to actually institutionalize the philosophy by Constantine is further demonstration of man's desire to create a fleshly power base from which to wield influence and control. Jesus taught a lifestyle, not an org chart.

Because were are of the flesh, were are fallible.  It is an unfortunade side effect of humanity.  Greed, corruption and societal ills effect everyone in every walk of life.  It is our sinful nature that causes this to happen.  

While it is true that Jesus taught a lifestyle and not an organizational chart, he did for all intents and purposed "create" the church...Pope, bishops and all.  The mass is the re-enactment of the last supper.  The last supper was a preparation and a metaphor for Christ's death and resurrection.

Jesus chose Peter to be the rock (Petra in Greek).  Upon this rock I build my church, the gates of hell shall not prevail against thee.   He then commanded his apostles to go to the four corners of the world and spread his word, essentially creating the christian church.  In doing so, the apostles acted as the first Bishops, Peter acting as the first Pope.  The other apostles recognized Christ's selection of Peter as the "head of the church."  They (and we) were called to become fishers of men, shepherds of the flock.  Empowered by the word of God and armed with the Holy Spirit, the Apostles went to the ends of the known world spreading the word and building a solid, vibrant Christian community.  

As happens all too often, the message gets difused as you mention.  Our sinful nature tends to bastardize that which is pure and holy, often times for power or personal gain.  

The Nicean Council, the Council of Trent and many others were convened to deal with these human shortcomings by keeping people on the same page.

These shortcomings are not restricted to the Catholic Faith by any stretch of the imagination.  All Christian denominations are victims of our own humanity.  Half of the Anglican Church feels that it is OK for homosexual priests and bishops to exist and marry.  The other half doesn't.  

As Christians, we cannot serve two masters.  We can seek to please God and do His will.  When we seek to please others, we take our focus off of God and lose sight of Him.  Even with the best of intentions, we fail miserably and the flock suffers.

ETA:  Well stated Ben.

Quoted: With Arowneragain's permision, here is my sincere question for Catholics. The parts of the Nicean Creed that I highlighted talk about the Father and the Son. What is the exact position of the Catholic Church regarding the nature/relationship of the Father and Jesus?  Are they two distinct individuals or two "manifestations" of the same individual?  I've heard varying answers to this so I thought I'd ask.

That's difficult at best. I don't think anyone Catholic or Protestant can answer that in a complete fashion. The triune God is a mystery. The Church teaches that they are distinct individuals though. Why? Jesus pretty much said so in the gospel over and over again. He repeatedly refers to himself and to the Father in very distinct terms.

Quoted: Quoted: the hard part isn't determining if Catholics are Christians, the hard part will be getting agreement from all parties in the debate on what makes someone a Christian. Thanks for the comments. Let me clarify: This thread is directed at 1) Catholics, and 2) Mainline Protestants. This thread is NOT intended to debate the basics of salvation - but, rather, to debate the percieved doctrinal errors held by either side on what are often called 'secondary' issues.

___________________________

'Just a Virginia Jew w/ a very good knowledge of Catholicism, though I predict this discussion will bring little understanding to either side of the Christian – Catholic juggernaut this thread enters.

Good luck y’all!  B’Shalom too!

Ed

Quoted: Quoted: With Arowneragain's permision, here is my sincere question for Catholics. The parts of the Nicean Creed that I highlighted talk about the Father and the Son. What is the exact position of the Catholic Church regarding the nature/relationship of the Father and Jesus?  Are they two distinct individuals or two "manifestations" of the same individual?  I've heard varying answers to this so I thought I'd ask. That's difficult at best. I don't think anyone Catholic or Protestant can answer that in a complete fashion. The triune God is a mystery. The Church teaches that they are distinct individuals though. Why? Jesus pretty much said so in the gospel over and over again. He repeatedly refers to himself and to the Father in very distinct terms.

Thanks for the answer.  Why did I ask?  It's good to understand one another.  Also, the church I belong to takes a lot of flack for our belief that Jesus is the literal Son of God (as a distinct seperate person) and our eldest brother.

Also, to consider Jesus as a distinct individual is to believe in a "Godhead" comprised of multiple persons.  Some people consider this idea to be blasphemy.

Edited to add:  I don't want to hijack this thread.  If you'd like to discuss this with me further, I'm sure we could start another thread.

Quoted: infant baptism with later confirmation vs. 'believer's baptism' might be a good one?

Ok by me, although the thread is rambling a bit.

First off, the Church teaches that Baptism is necessary for salvation. It is regenerative causing us to be reborn as children of God. It wipes away the stain of original sin.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.

I think most of us would have little debate over that. So why children? Here's the condensed version.

In the story of the good shepherd in Matthew Jesus compares his followers to children, and in the telling of the story has a child with him as an example.

Matthew 18:2 He called a child over, placed it in their midst, 3 and said, "Amen, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever receives one child such as this in my name receives me. 6 "Whoever causes one of these little ones 5 who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

7 Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come! 8 If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life maimed or crippled than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into fiery Gehenna. 10  "See that you do not despise one of these little ones, 9 for I say to you that their angels in heaven always look upon the face of my heavenly Father. 11
What is your opinion? If a man has a hundred sheep and one of them goes astray, will he not leave the ninety-nine in the hills and go in search of the stray?13 And if he finds it, amen, I say to you, he rejoices more over it than over the ninety-nine that did not stray. 14 In just the same way, it is not the will of your heavenly Father that one of these little ones be lost.

In the gospel accounts (I thought I'd never refer to this), the original greek uses the term paidia for children, a generic term that does not refer to a particular age. In Lukes account, we find the use of the word brephe which signifies 'infants'. Brephe is used to denote that adults were bringing infants to the Lord for blessing.

I won't make anymore long quotes, but multiple times in Acts (16:15, 16:30-33, 8:8) Paul and Silas baptize entire households, which presumbly included the children. So the assumption is that the practice is a very old one.

Confirmation on the other hand is a sacrament by which we are infused with Holy Spirit. In the Catholic tradition, the young adult revisits he baptismal promises and states on their own behalf, their acceptance of Jesus Christ. The bishop then lays hands on the participant and commands him to receive the Holy Spirit. Again, an ancient and biblical practice.

Acts 8: 13 Even Simon (the Samarian magician) himself believed and, after being baptized, became devoted to Philip; and when he saw the signs and mighty deeds that were occurring, he was astounded. 14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, 15 who went down and prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 for it had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid hands on them and they received the holy Spirit.

Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul laid (his) hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.

In these instances, Baptism for salvation and receiving the Holy Spirit are separate actions performed by the apostles. The Church has continued to practice this as separate action, albeit for an unbaptized adult convert the ceremony can take place at the same time.

Enough for now.

Quoted: You're welcomed to your opinions, of course, but I hope youll re-read your post (as will everyone else) and see that it is an example of EVERYTHING I wanted to avoid.

I understand what you want to do very clearly.  All I'm saying is that by going about it the way you want to, you will invariably fall into the the very thing you want to avoid.  The core things need to be discussed first (such as apostolic succession!  and authority!  and... and... baptism!)

Hmm.. looks like we've already getting to the core issues.

Although... I have to take issue with your statement:

That's why I thought it would be better to choose a doctrine we disagree on, and discuss WHY we disagree on - using scripture to make our points.

Um... the blue is another core issue of disagreement.  You've already added yet another crucial topic to discuss!  Ahhhh!  


OK.  Since the topic seems to be on infant baptism for the moment:
Infant baptism is a logical fulfillment of the Old Covenant (circumcision).  It was the parents' wish to have the child brought into the chosen people of God (which is what the covenant did.  It made a person a part of God's family), so on the eighth day, the parents made that decision for the infant and had him circumcised, as God commanded.  God didn't require that the child grow up and make that decision all on his own.  God expected the parents to bring the child into God's family on the eighth day and then raise up the child through his entire life in the ways of the Lord.

Baptism is the fulfillment circumcision, as Baptism is what makes a person a child of God in the New Covenant, just as circumcision made one a child of God in the Old Covenant.  Repeatedly in Acts, it is seen that those who wish to follow Christ are baptised, and not as an afterthought, but as something that is naturally done, since Jesus himself commanded us to make disciples, baptizing them "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."  As already stated, entire households were baptized, and there is no mention of entire households 'except the infants' or 'but only the adults' being baptized.  Just as the parents made the decision for their child in the Old Covenant, so parents may make the decision for their child in bringing them into the New Covenant.

Even the early Church Fathers believed in infant baptism.  Writings from the Fathers as early as 215AD show that it is widespread and taken for granted.  It is explained as simply the way it is done for children of believers.  The biggest disagreement seemed to be whether to baptize right away or wait until the eighth day to baptize:

Baptise first the children; and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so.  Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them. Pope St. Hippolytus of Rome, The Apostolic Tradition ~215AD

As to what pertains to the case of infants: you said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that yu did not think that one whould 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 though should be taken.  Rather, we all judged that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born. Letter of St. Cyprian of Carthage to Fidus ~251AD

So, yes, infant baptism was the way it was done for infants of converts to Christianity, and for children of Christians.  I doubt Jesus would have been so adamant about Baptism if it was simply a public statement of what a person has decided to do with their life.  It is through Baptism that we are reborn, having died to our old selves and having put on Christ through the regenerating waters of Baptism.  This is why the whole "have you been born again?" question is foreign to the Catholic mindset.  Yes, I was born again-- when I was baptized as a baby.

First off, infant baptism in the Catholic Church is not based on Scripture, but purely upon tradition. In the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church, on page 319, #1250, it says:

"The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century”.. (Between 100-200 years AFTER Christ walked the earth)

Here, the Catechism admits that this doctrine is not based upon Scripture. It is a man-made tradition.

What the Bible says about traditions:

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Colossians 2:8

What makes this practice disturbing is that the Bible does not record a single occurrence of an infant being baptized. On the contrary, every mention of baptism involves people old enough to hear and receive the gospel.

"Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water..." Matthew 3:16

"they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him." Acts 8:38

"And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized." Acts 18:8

After people heeded John the Baptist's message to "repent," they were:

"baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins." Matthew 3:6

Obviously, newborn infants can't repent, believe or confess their sins. Therefore, they are never qualified to be scripturally baptized.

When the Philippian jailer who guarded the Apostle Paul asked, "What must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:30), Paul answered, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (v. 31)." After the jailer believed, Paul baptized him (v. 33).

When Peter preached in Acts, chapter two:

"they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." Acts 2:41

When Philip preached to the people of Samaria, men and women were baptized, but no infants were baptized:

"But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." Acts 8:12

If God's Word is so explicit that only those old enough to hear and receive God's Word should be baptized, then why does Catholicism demand that newborn infants be baptized?

And finally, Jesus said:

"Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." Mark 7:9

You decide... Tradition vs. Scripture.. You can't have it both ways.

Wait until we get to the need for baptism to get to heaven

(Hint: Think about the thief on the cross)

Peace to all...

Quoted: First off, infant baptism in the Catholic Church is not based on Scripture, but purely upon tradition. In the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church, on page 319, #1250, it says: "The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century”.. (Between 100-200 years AFTER Christ walked the earth) Here, the Catechism admits that this doctrine is not based upon Scripture. It is a man-made tradition.

Actually, that little snippet only speaks to when the practice started within the Church. It doesn't say anything about the Bible.

AZ, since we are dealing with theology we need to be precise in our language.

When you say "based on scripture" do you mean: literally called for in scripture OR logically deduced from truths we know from clear scripture? "Based on" seems to imply the latter, not the former.

So INSOFAR AS SCRIPTURE DOESN'T FORBID, OR ANYWHERE SPECIFYs age and rite of Baptism, it's obviously up to the Church's tradition to determine what the age cut off is and how it's to be done.

We know from history that in 215AD infant baptism was already an old custom. We know from Scripture that there are no direct anti-infant statements from our Lord.

Your quotes about philosophy etc don't speak to the issue on hand. AFTER ALL, one would expect adult converts to make their act of faith prior to baptism. That they must do so doesnt' logically preclude the sacrament from being available to children.

Besides, you can't merit grace can you?

I've been wondering where you've been.

Quoted: When the Philippian jailer who guarded the Apostle Paul asked, "What must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:30), Paul answered, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (v. 31)." After the jailer believed, Paul baptized him (v. 33).

Did you even read my previous post? It appears you didn't.

Finish the passsage.

Acts 16:30 Then he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
31 And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved." 32 So they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to everyone in his house. 33 He took them in at that hour of the night and bathed their wounds; then he and all his family were baptized at once.

Some other references.

Acts 16:14 One of them, a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth, from the city of Thyatira, a worshiper of God, 5 listened, and the Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what Paul was saying. 15 After she and her household had been baptized , she offered.

Acts 18:8 Crispus, the synagogue official, came to believe in the Lord along with his entire household , and many of the Corinthians who heard believed and were baptized.

If God's Word is so explicit that only those old enough to hear and receive God's Word should be baptized, then why does Catholicism demand that newborn infants be baptized?

Seems pretty expicit to me that entire households were baptized and saved. Why do you ignore those passages? And for future reference there is no demand to baptize infants.

And finally, Jesus said: "Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." Mark 7:9 You decide... Tradition vs. Scripture.. You can't have it both ways.

I'd like a to know the commandment of God that you think has been rejected?

So your denomination, your faith is without tradition. Interesting. Also a bald faced lie! Its only a tradition of man if it is an institute of the Catholic faith is what you really mean.

Do you go to Wednesday night service? Never read that one in the Bible, but its pretty traditional. No, you can't have it both ways.

Wait until we get to the need for baptism to get to heaven

Waiting...

Peace to all...

...'bible believing christians' while I condemn the practices of another christian faith.

We also have to be careful when reading scripture from reading INTO IT absolutes that aren't in the text itself.

So AZ quotes lines where adults make acts of faith and deduces that this means "only" those who can make such acts of  faith can be baptised? That "only" is NOT in any of those quotes. YOU INFER it to be there. But none of the quotes lend themselves to that inference.

We know from all Jesus' parables that God expects us to use the gifts he gives us - the talents. He doesn't expect us to bear fruit beyond the capacity of the things we have. So it makes sense that those who are adults would have to approach him AS ADULTS.

It also makes sense that children or infants would approach him AS CHILDREN OR INFANTS. You have the positive scriptural command of Jesus to 'LET THE CHILDREN COME', NOT "KEEP THEM AWAY UNTIL THEY'RE OLD ENOUGH TO DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES'.

Thats how Catholics infer from the scripture we do know to conclusions arrived at very early on to baptise infants and children - as well as adults.

Besides, we KNOW from the Gospel of LUKE that John the Baptist - in his mother's womb - was "filled with the Holy Spirit" and leapt for joy at the near proximity of Jesus in Mary's womb. So it's definately POSSIBLE for God to come into infants and welcome them and move them to react favorably to his presence.

Reading the Old Testament + Luke, + Jesus' words of welcome and parables about children and the kingdom and NO PROSCRIPTION OR FOBIDDING WORDS TO THE CONTRARY, allows Catholics to INFER that Children are licitly and validly allowed to receive the UNMERITABLE gift of baptism.

We don't have to invent "only" absolutes and shoe-horn them into any text to do this.

Catholics look at a given theological question by drawing on "the old and new" - the entire Gospel, not just the chapter at hand, because scripture does not contradict itself.

To recap: scripture nowhere condemns infant or children from being baptised. It does mention adults making acts of faith prior to being baptised (thereby meaning if a man is free, he ought to freely be baptised, not forcibly baptised against his will). But we also have lines where Jesus specifically calls to adults to NOT hinder children and infants from coming to him.

Someone with authority is going to have to fill in the gaps here, and there are gaps. Catholics look to a Church with such authority, not to arm-chair theologians.

As for rite (how baptism is administered) we again have silence in scripture as to how, but we again do have the actions from history that both immersion and sprinkling was done. Obviously again someone had to make the call as it wasn't obvious in scripture. That someone is the Church's teaching authority.

Quoted: First off, infant baptism in the Catholic Church is not based on Scripture, but purely upon tradition. In the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church, on page 319, #1250, it says: "The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century”.. (Between 100-200 years AFTER Christ walked the earth)

And I can tell you haven't read that explicit testimony because if you had you'd see that the testimony from so long ago states that the immemorial tradition (Webster's dictionary defines it as meaning: extending or existing since beyond the reach of memory, record, or tradition) came straight from the Apostles themselves.  Those writers speak of infant baptism as if they are taking it for granted that everyone accepts it.  It isn't in question, it's just mentioned as status quo.

The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants.  For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stain of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit. -Origen Commentaries on Romans ~244AD

The Apostles were the ones who taught that baptizing infants is acceptable.  Are you saying they disobeyed Christ and strayed from Him right from the start by creating man-made customs?  And considering that Baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision and does in the New Covenant what circumcision did in the Old Covenant, it is logical to baptize infants.

What the Bible says about traditions: "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Colossians 2:8

The Bible says more than that, and you know it.  Quit prooftexting! There is a clear distinction between traditions of men (also called customs) and Sacred Tradition (that which was handed down by the Apostles).  Many of the Pharisees had developed customs that they regarded as equal in weight to God's Law (kosher laws come to mind, which are nowhere in the OT).  This is what Paul is talking about in Col 2:8.  Sacred Tradition is what the Apostles themselves handed on to us from Jesus, and some of it was written down, but not all.

2Thes 3:6  And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.

2Thes 2:15  Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.
Paul is flat out stating that there are traditions worth holding on to and following -- the ones the Apostles hand down.  However, not all of them are written down, so how are we to know what they are?  It's because they have been handed down from Apostle to each successor.  They handed them down by word (orally) in addition to writing some of them down.  And since most people couldn't read, they had to be handed down orally.

The NT books and epistles were not written as a textbook of everything that Jesus and the Apostles taught and said.  The epistles, Paul's specifically, were written to address issues that had come up since his departure from them, when he taught them orally.  His letters don't even claim to address everything he taught them while he was with them.  2Th 2:5  Remember you not that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?   He does not say that these are the only things he told them, only that he is reminding them of some of what they already learned.

You decide... Tradition vs. Scripture.. You can't have it both ways.

Paul just said otherwise.  Sacred Scripture came forth from Sacred Tradition, so in fact, we need both, or else you fall into error and division (hence 10,000+ Protestant denominations all claiming to have the true interpretation while contradicting each other).

There is a clear distinction between traditions of men (also called customs) and Sacred Tradition (that which was handed down by the Apostles).

Loony,

Could you expound upon this, please?

Did you even read my previous post? It appears you didn't.

*sigh* Sure did boss...


Some other references.

Acts 16:14 One of them, a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth, from the city of Thyatira, a worshiper of God, 5 listened, and the Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what Paul was saying. 15 After she and her household had been baptized , she offered. Acts 18:8 Crispus, the synagogue official, came to believe in the Lord along with his entire household , and many of the Corinthians who heard believed and were baptized.

Read the red...THEY FIRST BELIVED! They were not breast feeding infants that CANNOT think or act for themselves. One must hear the Word of God and BELIEVE in order to become a Christian or to be Born Again... Let's stick to what God said in the Bible rather than catholic tradition. Because when the catholics here start talking about "their" tradition, I can't comprehend because it's NOT BIBLICAL! God gave us a roadmap on how to live and act as Christians. Who am I, or anyone else for that matter, to add or delete anything to His Word?

Seems pretty expicit to me that entire households were baptized and saved. Why do you ignore those passages? And for future reference there is no demand to baptize infants.

Those who BELIEVE were baptised..Yes, whole households BELIEVE and were baptised..READ THE PASSAGE and quit leaving that part out. Stop trying to make it fit your brand of theology. It says what it says. And, as far as infants not demanded to be baptised, you know better. That's a lie and you know it. What happens if that child dies before it's baptised?

And finally, Jesus said: "Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." Mark 7:9 You decide... Tradition vs. Scripture.. You can't have it both ways.

I'd like a to know the commandment of God that you think has been rejected?

Umm..You do know there are more than 10, right?

So your denomination, your faith is without tradition. Interesting. Also a bald faced lie! Its only a tradition of man if it is an institute of the Catholic faith is what you really mean. Do you go to Wednesday night service? Never read that one in the Bible, but its pretty traditional. No, you can't have it both ways.

We are instructed to worship Him daily. That's not a tradition. We are also instructed to get together with other believers and worship Him. I go to church when I want to. Nobody tells me when I MUST worship Him OTHER THAN Him, and it's not considered a "tradition" to go to Wednesday evening service. Again, you're talking apples and oranges. Religious tradition, based on what a man tells you to do vs. everyday life ....

Wait until we get to the need for baptism to get to heaven

Waiting...

We haven't even finished this topic yet.. One thing at a time. Don't be so eager to be confrontational. I sure hope you prayed before typing your accusations and assertions. I gave you facts. You gave me Bible verses that I gave you, but erased the blue hilite I used in my original post to try to give credence to your arguement. Didn't wash with me.

Peace to all... .

...'bible believing christians' while I condemn the practices of another christian faith.

I'll NEVER say catholic's are not Christian. I am nobody to be judging another man's heart. What I am saying is, yes, the catholic "religion" is not biblical and therefore, not Christian. I do believe there are "born-again" catholics.

Quoted: Quoted: First off, infant baptism in the Catholic Church is not based on Scripture, but purely upon tradition. In the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church, on page 319, #1250, it says: "The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century”.. (Between 100-200 years AFTER Christ walked the earth) Here, the Catechism admits that this doctrine is not based upon Scripture. It is a man-made tradition. Actually, that little snippet only speaks to when the practice started within the Church. It doesn't say anything about the Bible.

Which means exactly what I said. It's a tradition of the RCC and not of the Bible. Do you know when the Bible was 1st brought before the church and canonized?

And I can tell you haven't read that explicit testimony because if you had you'd see that the testimony from so long ago states that the immemorial tradition (Webster's dictionary defines it as meaning: extending or existing since beyond the reach of memory, record, or tradition) came straight from the Apostles themselves. Those writers speak of infant baptism as if they are taking it for granted that everyone accepts it. It isn't in question, it's just mentioned as status quo.

Came from the Apostles? How do you know? None of them say it in Scripture.. And, I said it was called a "tradition" in one of your own church's writings. How much more descript cam I be?

The Apostles were the ones who taught that baptizing infants is acceptable. Are you saying they disobeyed Christ and strayed from Him right from the start by creating man-made customs? And considering that Baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision and does in the New Covenant what circumcision did in the Old Covenant, it is logical to baptize infants.

Once again. show me Scripture where Apostles baptised infants. Christ came to fulfill the law, not add to it. Circumcisn has absolutly nothing to do with baptism. Show me in Scripture where Christ said that you need to stop circumcising babies and start baptising them. Hint: Jews STILL circumcise their children. Even Messianic Jews do this...

The Bible says more than that, and you know it. Quit prooftexting! There is a clear distinction between traditions of men (also called customs) and Sacred Tradition (that which was handed down by the Apostles). Many of the Pharisees had developed customs that they regarded as equal in weight to God's Law (kosher laws come to mind, which are nowhere in the OT). This is what Paul is talking about in Col 2:8. Sacred Tradition is what the Apostles themselves handed on to us from Jesus, and some of it was written down, but not all.

Kosher laws are in more than one book of Hebrew Law. There are several. The Talmud and the Tanakh come to mind. The 1st 5 books of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) are the Torah, also known as the Penteteuch. Their kosher laws come mostly from the Talmud. If the catholic traditions were written down by the Apostles, then they should be in the Bible, right? If not, who has them? Are they "God-breathed" (inspired)? If not, they don't mean squat to me or Christianity.

2Thes 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle. Paul is flat out stating that there are traditions worth holding on to and following -- the ones the Apostles hand down. However, not all of them are written down, so how are we to know what they are? It's because they have been handed down from Apostle to each successor. They handed them down by word (orally) in addition to writing some of them down. And since most people couldn't read, they had to be handed down orally.

THEY WERE JEWS! Yes, they had traditions! Many were struggling between Hebrew Law and this new fangled thing called "believing in Christ". They were afraid they would have to give up their traditions in order to follow Christ... Those "traditions" were established by God Himself!!!

The NT books and epistles were not written as a textbook of everything that Jesus and the Apostles taught and said. The epistles, Paul's specifically, were written to address issues that had come up since his departure from them, when he taught them orally. His letters don't even claim to address everything he taught them while he was with them. 2Th 2:5 Remember you not that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? He does not say that these are the only things he told them, only that he is reminding them of some of what they already learned.

Like I said, unless they were written in Scripture, "traditions" of the catholic church are moot to me. Of course not everything was written down. Much is revealed by the Holy Spirit to His believers. Not just one guy in Rome who says one day "Hey, I think I'll do this or that because God told me to and have a billion people do it too".. (Meat on Friday's comes to mind)

Paul just said otherwise. Sacred Scripture came forth from Sacred Tradition, so in fact, we need both, or else you fall into error and division (hence 10,000+ Protestant denominations all claiming to have the true interpretation while contradicting each other).

And how many different sects or "knock-off's" of the catholic church are there?

Quoted: Some other references. Acts 16:14 One of them, a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth, from the city of Thyatira, a worshiper of God, 5 listened, and the Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what Paul was saying. 15 After she and her household had been baptized , she offered. Read the red...THEY FIRST BELIVED! They were not breast feeding infants that CANNOT think or act for themselves. One must hear the Word of God and BELIEVE in order to become a Christian or to be Born Again... Let's stick to what God said in the Bible rather than catholic tradition. Because when the catholics here start talking about "their" tradition, I can't comprehend because it's NOT BIBLICAL! God gave us a roadmap on how to live and act as Christians. Who am I, or anyone else for that matter, to add or delete anything to His Word?

Read it again....opened HER heart....she and HER HOUSEHOLD had been baptized. So apparently there were no children in the household. There couldn't have been any because its not written down. Right? That appears to be your line of offense. I mean, 'entire household,' couldn't possible mean 'entire household.' Very Clintonesque. I salute your ability to ignore, and your lack of ability to infer the obvious.

Seems pretty expicit to me that entire households were baptized and saved. Why do you ignore those passages? And for future reference there is no demand to baptize infants. Those who BELIEVE were baptised..Yes, whole households BELIEVE and were baptised..READ THE PASSAGE and quit leaving that part out. Stop trying to make it fit your brand of theology. It says what it says. And, as far as infants not demanded to be baptised, you know better. That's a lie and you know it.

If anybody here is parsing the verses its you. I appreciate the very biblically christian way that you have called me a liar. Hope you prayed before writing that one. And again, no one has EVER demanded, required, forced, hinted or conspired to have my children baptized in infancy. Its simply NOT a requirement of Catholicism. Sorry to disagree with the hate-filled preaching that has thus far reached your ears.

What happens if that child dies before it's baptised?

You tell me.

And finally, Jesus said: "Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." Mark 7:9 You decide... Tradition vs. Scripture.. You can't have it both ways. I'd like a to know the commandment of God that you think has been rejected? Umm..You do know there are more than 10, right?

How insipid. If your intent was to sound insulting it worked. Hope you prayed before posting that.

Do you go to Wednesday night service? Never read that one in the Bible, but its pretty traditional. No, you can't have it both ways.

We are instructed to worship Him daily. That's not a tradition. We are also instructed to get together with other believers and worship Him. I go to church when I want to. Nobody tells me when I MUST worship Him OTHER THAN Him, and it's not considered a "tradition" to go to Wednesday evening service. Again, you're talking apples and oranges. Religious tradition, based on what a man tells you to do vs. everyday life ....

Baloney.

Wait until we get to the need for baptism to get to heaven Waiting... We haven't even finished this topic yet.. One thing at a time. Don't be so eager to be confrontational. I sure hope you prayed before typing your accusations and assertions. I gave you facts. You gave me Bible verses that I gave you, but erased the blue hilite I used in my original post to try to give credence to your arguement. Didn't wash with me.

The intent of changing the highlighting was to add emphasis, and if you'll backtrack to the original post that you purportedly read *sigh* you'll see that I had already listed those same verses, I simply had not quoted them. So in essence, I gave YOU verses, you quoted the verses with YOUR emphasis, I quoted the verses with MY emphasis.

Sorry it didn't wash with you. Sorry, that 2000 years of sacred tradition can't stand up to your personal interpretation of the bible. Sorry, that someone preached hatred of Catholicism to you.

Peace to all... . ...'bible believing christians' while I condemn the practices of another christian faith. I'll NEVER say catholic's are not Christian. I am nobody to be judging another man's heart. What I am saying is, yes, the catholic "religion" is not biblical and therefore, not Christian. I do believe there are "born-again" catholics.

Parse, parse, parse. Maybe you don't realize what you are saying. You, the professed 'bible is sufficient' christian have stated that 'I cannot judge. But Catholicism is not a Christian religion, but I'll never say Catholics aren't Christian.'

You need to pray over that one a little more.