Which of your doctrines require church tradition?

[Thursday]

So they are common beliefs of Traditionists and Protestants, why then the huge tado about Traditionists excluding Protestant thought from the early church when in fact it is there just as much but diverged and reformed later in history?

Please demonstrate non Catholic beliefs in the early Church if you can.

 

[Erose]

Did you mean to say Apostolic Christians the second time?

Yes, thanks for catching that.

Because you were implying to ~Cassia~ that there were infant baptisms performed in Acts because Acts says whole households being saved and you said households have infants, implying that infant baptism was practised in these households mentioned in Acts.
I pointed out that not all households have infants, so you need to prove the households mentioned in Acts had infants to show that infant baptism had indeed practised in Acts.

Actually Acts only mentions four households being saved (there may have been more not mentioned in Acts, but that would be pure speculation), two of which give a big hint that no infants were in those households.

That still wouldn't prove there were infants in the households. You do not know the ages of the people in the households, neither do you know the family dynamics. You do not know if they had children or if the children were old enough to have had left the house. There would have small households too, and even if there were infants in the households you would still need to show that they were baptized to prove that infant baptism had been practiced in Acts.

You're basically making an argument from silence (A conclusion based on silence and/or lack of contrary evidence) which is a logical fallacy.

Actually, the same goes for your argument as well. My arguments states: "Whole households were baptized, so one would expect there were young children/infants in those households"; while your argument states: "Whole households were baptized, so one should not expect there were young children/infants in those households". Both of us are making the same type of argument, just one positive and the other negative.

So from the perspective of baptism to get to an explicit answer from Scripture, one has to ask the questions: "What does baptism do?" and "Would whatever baptism does be beneficial to infants and young children?" and "If there is a benefit to infants and young children, what would be the reason from restraining them from those benefits?"

Obviously those questions are outside the scope of this thread, but from the side of all Apostolic Christians the answers are: "It confers the Spirit of adoption, justifies or reconciles the person in the eyes of God, removes all sin (both personal and original)"; "Yes"; and "No reason".

Now one of the things to remember as well, the book of Acts speaks about the Church as it is growing. There are no second generation of Christians mentioned in Scripture, so the Bible is silent on the matter of how to handle the next generation of Christians. Rather what we have is Sacred Tradition to answer that question.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Yes, thanks for catching that.


Actually, the same goes for your argument as well. My arguments states: "Whole households were baptized, so one would expect there were young children/infants in those households"; while your argument states: "Whole households were baptized, so one should not expect there were young children/infants in those households". Both of us are making the same type of argument, just one positive and the other negative.

So from the perspective of baptism to get to an explicit answer from Scripture, one has to ask the questions: "What does baptism do?" and "Would whatever baptism does be beneficial to infants and young children?" and "If there is a benefit to infants and young children, what would be the reason from restraining them from those benefits?"

Obviously those questions are outside the scope of this thread, but from the side of all Apostolic Christians the answers are: "It confers the Spirit of adoption, justifies or reconciles the person in the eyes of God, removes all sin (both personal and original)"; "Yes"; and "No reason".

Now one of the things to remember as well, the book of Acts speaks about the Church as it is growing. There are no second generation of Christians mentioned in Scripture, so the Bible is silent on the matter of how to handle the next generation of Christians. Rather what we have is Sacred Tradition to answer that question.

Protestants use the ritual of dedication that puts the emphasis on the parent to raise the child in the way that they should go that directs them to the time that they decide to identify with Christ's death themselves.

 

[Thursday]

Protestants use the ritual of dedication that puts the emphasis on the parent to raise the child in the way that they should go that directs them to the time that they decide to identify with Christ's death themselves.

Protestants believe baptism is an act of man. Catholics believe Baptism is an act of God.

 

[fullcircle]

Protestants believe baptism is an act of man. Catholics believe Baptism is an act of God.

Actually, I'm a Protestant Lutheran and we believe it is God who acts in baptism and we also baptize infants. There are other Protestant groups that also baptize infants. So it is unfair to group all Protestants together in what they believe and practice.

 

[Erose]

Protestants use the ritual of dedication that puts the emphasis on the parent to raise the child in the way that they should go that directs them to the time that they decide to identify with Christ's death themselves.

Actually the answer should be some Protestants. Not all. Lutherans, Anglican, Presbyterian, and some Reformed churches practice infant baptism. The rejection to infant baptism, I believe, comes from the Radicals.

But I do have knowledge of the dedication ceremonies.

 

[Thursday]

Actually, I'm a Protestant Lutheran and we believe it is God who acts in baptism and we also baptize infants. There are other Protestant groups that also baptize infants. So it is unfair to group all Protestants together in what they believe and practice.

Good point. I should have been more specific.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Actually the answer should be some Protestants. Not all. Lutherans, Anglican, Presbyterian, and some Reformed churches practice infant baptism. The rejection to infant baptism, I believe, comes from the Radicals.

But I do have knowledge of the dedication ceremonies.

As the pendulem swings from broad terms to fractions the use of terms like Radical doesn't diffuse the problem in the least but only adds to them.

Characteristics of Radicals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Reformation

Unlike the Catholics and the more Magisterial Lutheran and Reformed (Zwinglian and Calvinist) Protestant movements, some of the Radical Reformation abandoned the idea that the "Church visible" was distinct from the "Church invisible."[3] Thus, the Church only consisted of the tiny community of believers, who accepted Jesus Christ and demonstrated this by adult baptism, called "believer's baptism".

While the magisterial reformers wanted to substitute their own learned elite for the learned elite of the Catholic Church, the radical Protestant groups rejected the authority of the institutional "church" organization, almost entirely, as being unbiblical. As the search for original Christianity was carried further, it was claimed that the tension between the church and the Roman Empire in the first centuries of Christianity was normative, that the church is not to be allied with government sacralism, that a true church is always subject to be persecuted, and that the conversion of Constantine I was therefore the Great Apostasy that marked a deviation from pure Christianity.[4]

Non-Anabaptist Radical reformers[edit]
Though most of the Radical Reformers were Anabaptist, some did not identify themselves with the mainstream Anabaptist tradition. Thomas Müntzer was involved in the German Peasants' War. Andreas Karlstadt disagreed theologically with Huldrych Zwingli and Martin Luther, teaching nonviolence and refusing to baptize infants while not rebaptizing adult believers.[5] Kaspar Schwenkfeld and Sebastian Franck were influenced by German mysticism and spiritualism.​

 

[Erose]

As the pendulem swings from broad terms to fractions the use of terms like Radical doesn't diffuse the problem in the least but only adds to them.

Characteristics of Radicals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Reformation

Unlike the Catholics and the more Magisterial Lutheran and Reformed (Zwinglian and Calvinist) Protestant movements, some of the Radical Reformation abandoned the idea that the "Church visible" was distinct from the "Church invisible."[3] Thus, the Church only consisted of the tiny community of believers, who accepted Jesus Christ and demonstrated this by adult baptism, called "believer's baptism".

While the magisterial reformers wanted to substitute their own learned elite for the learned elite of the Catholic Church, the radical Protestant groups rejected the authority of the institutional "church" organization, almost entirely, as being unbiblical. As the search for original Christianity was carried further, it was claimed that the tension between the church and the Roman Empire in the first centuries of Christianity was normative, that the church is not to be allied with government sacralism, that a true church is always subject to be persecuted, and that the conversion of Constantine I was therefore the Great Apostasy that marked a deviation from pure Christianity.[4]

Non-Anabaptist Radical reformers[edit]
Though most of the Radical Reformers were Anabaptist, some did not identify themselves with the mainstream Anabaptist tradition. Thomas Müntzer was involved in the German Peasants' War. Andreas Karlstadt disagreed theologically with Huldrych Zwingli and Martin Luther, teaching nonviolence and refusing to baptize infants while not rebaptizing adult believers.[5] Kaspar Schwenkfeld and Sebastian Franck were influenced by German mysticism and spiritualism.​

Not sure if you are proving my point, or that you are implying something else entirely. Just curious.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Not sure if you are proving my point, or that you are implying something else entirely. Just curious.

The radicals are not just about infant baptism they differered from mainline christianity in denying the visable and invisableness of the church. That brings radical into a new ball court these days

 

[Erose]

The radicals are not just about infant baptism they differered from mainline christianity in denying the visable and invisableness of the church. That brings radical into a new ball court these days

Considering that most Evangelicals, I believe anyway, fit the mold of the Radicals, and that the Radical tradition is just as old as the main line Protestant traditions, I wouldn't say a new ball court, just a larger one.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Considering that most Evangelicals, I believe anyway, fit the mold of the Radicals, and that the Radical tradition is just as old as the main line Protestant traditions, I wouldn't say a new ball court, just a larger one.

The large radical ball court that includes you as well.


EroseNewbie
Start a Conversation
Messages:
6,970
Likes Received:
598
Marital Status:
Married
Politics:
US-Others
Faith:
Catholic
↑
I don't like this concept of "invisible Church" for quite frankly it isn't true. The only members of the Church that are invisible to us are those who art in heaven. ... There is no invisible Church here on earth. Just one that is in scandal.

 

[Erose]

The large radical ball court that includes you as well.


EroseNewbie
Start a Conversation
Messages:
6,970
Likes Received:
598
Marital Status:
Married
Politics:
US-Others
Faith:
Catholic
↑
I don't like this concept of "invisible Church" for quite frankly it isn't true. The only members of the Church that are invisible to us are those who art in heaven. ... There is no invisible Church here on earth. Just one that is in scandal.

Not sure what you are getting at.

 

[MrMoe]

Actually, the same goes for your argument as well. My arguments states: "Whole households were baptized, so one would expect there were young children/infants in those households"; while your argument states: "Whole households were baptized, so one should not expect there were young children/infants in those households". Both of us are making the same type of argument, just one positive and the other negative.

That wasn't my argument. I can't prove there weren't any infants in those households, but neither can you prove that there were. It would be arguing from silence either way.

My argument was: "You can't use an argument from silence to support infant baptism taking place in Acts."
I was calling you out for using a logical fallacy to imply that infant baptism had occurred in Acts.

 

[Erose]

That wasn't my argument. I can't prove there weren't any infants in those households, but neither can you prove that there were. It would be arguing from silence either way.

My argument was: "You can't use an argument from silence to support infant baptism taking place in Acts."
I was calling you out for using a logical fallacy to imply that infant baptism had occurred in Acts.

Ok. My second point still stands. Does Baptism as taught in Scripture have a benefit to infants and young children, and obviously the answer is yes; so why prevent children from benefiting being a reborn Child of God? If the answer is no reason, then why assume that the Apostles were too dumb to make the connection?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Luke doesn't tell us who he got the infancy narrative from but he does say they were delivered/handed down by "eyewitnesses and servants of the word."

Tradition tells us it was Mary, and eyewitness and servant of the word (regarding the infancy narrative).

I never said "all households would to have to have infants for that to be true". I said "not all households have infants."

Why does it matter that not all households have infants, relevant to the topic. If some households had infants, and entire households were baptized, infants were baptized.

Yes, and to show that the infant was baptised. So far neither has been shown in the book of Acts.

Except for the above.

This is not true. We can't be sure at all.

Acts 18:8 Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized.

Unless you believe that babies can choose to believe in the Lord then there were no infants Crispus's household.

We know that parents make ALL SORTS of decisions for their offspring...

Same problem with the jailer in Acts 16. He is told to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and he will be saved. By Acts 16:34 his whole household believed. So unless you believe babies can choose to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ then there were no infants in the jailers household.

Same answer. Parents choose what children eat, what they wear, what they read, what they listen to, and what their faith will be.

Acts 11:14 talks about Cornelius and his household being saved. We do not know if he was married, if he had children, if they had moved out. Do you know?

Doesn't really matter. In the case of Peter baptizing 5000 men and their families, children were baptized.

Acts 16:15 talks about a women and members of her household being baptised. We do not know how old she was, if she had children or her children were old enough to have moved out. Do you know?

We know that she was in charge of a household, though. That makes her old enough to have a household. If she had children, regardless of age, and based on the time, they were still part of her household.

So the certainty that you claim, just isn't there. You're using the same arguing from silence fallacy as Erose.

We're arguing from certainty that households included men, women, children in most cases, and sometimes employees and slaves.

 

[Root of Jesse]

So they are common beliefs of Traditionists and Protestants, why then the huge tado about Traditionists excluding Protestant thought from the early church when in fact it is there just as much but diverged and reformed later in history?

Because your understanding is different. You (Protestant Reformation) changed the meaning of terms and then threw them in the Catholic Church's face saying we believe in 'salvation by works'.

 

[Albion]

Well, to be fair to all, the point--regardless of the different ways people word it--is that Catholicism believes Works do contribute to one's prospects for salvation, whereas Protestants do not. Catholics do not believe, however, that Works alone will do it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well, to be fair to all, the point--regardless of the different ways people word it--is that Catholicism believes Works do contribute to one's prospects for salvation, whereas Protestants do not. Catholics do not believe, however, that Works alone will do it.

I disagree. I don't do good works in order to be saved. I do them because of my salvation. They proceed from God, through me.

 

[Albion]

I disagree. I don't do good works in order to be saved. I do them because of my salvation. They proceed from God, through me.

All right. I was speaking to Catholic theology. I have no way of guaranteeing that every member is on board with it, just as that can't be said of any other denomination.