What I wrote was...
This statement is objectively true. Humanly speaking, the writers of the New Testament were men. These men were Christians. As Christians, they were members of the Church. The Church recognized those particular writings as inspired.
Humanly speaking, the Church created the New Testament; the New Testament did not create the Church.
I don't require a scriptural mandate for the ancient practice of baptizing infants. Again, I don't believe in the man-made doctrine called "sola scriptura" so I don't require all beliefs to be adduced from Sacred Scripture. It is an objective fact that the Early Church Fathers believed in, taught and practiced the baptizing of infants.
With respect, I trust the Church (whether ancient and modern) far more than I trust your interpretation of the New Testament.
I do not agree with your opinion. Your thesis is Biblically incorrect. It may be in your thinking and background as a Catholic that what you say is true, HOWEVER that is NOT what the Scriptures tell us.
You said...…….
"the Church created the New Testament; the New Testament did not create the Church."
The Church was established and set up in the New Test. by 7 principles...…..
- the death of Christ
- the resurrection of Christ
- the ascension of Christ
- the sending of the Holy Spirit by Christ
- baptism by His authority
- baptism "into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost for the remission of sins"
- salvation in the name of Christ.
NOW that is what the Scriptures teach us and apart from these foundation stones, there could be no New Testament church which includes your opinion that the Church created the New Test.
As for NOT, trusting my interpretation of Bible and accepting your Catholic church instead……….I would not think that you would. Why would YOU as a life long Catholic accepted anything I say.
In fact I do not want you or anyone else to do that. YOU have a Bible......open IT and read it and allow the Lord to speak to you through the written Word of God.
As for your mandate to baptize infants, I guess you did not read my comment on that as again I say to you that I do not care if you do or do not.
YOU can do it all day long as far as I am concerned, BUT YOU CAN NOT DO IT AND CLAIM THAT IT IS A BIBLE COMMAND OR TEACHING. YOU are doing it because it is what the RCC has told you that YOU would believe.
As for the early church and what it practiced I suggest you actually read Schaff’s fuller treatment of infant baptism: § 73. Infant Baptism...…...…...
I include a paragraph from Schaff’s history of the church regarding baptism in the ancient church:
“In reviewing the patristic doctrine of baptism which was sanctioned by the Greek and Roman, and, with some important modifications, also by the Lutheran and Anglican churches, we should remember that during the first three centuries, and even in the age of Constantine,
adult baptism was the rule, and that the actual conversion of the candidate was required as a condition before administering the sacrament (as is still the case on missionary ground). Hence in preceding catechetical instruction, the renunciation of the devil, and the profession of faith.
But when the same high view is applied without qualification to infant baptism, we are confronted at once with the difficulty that infants cannot comply with this condition. They may be regenerated (this being an act of God), but they cannot be converted, i.e., they cannot repent and believe, nor do they need repentance, having not yet committed any actual transgression. Infant baptism is an act of consecration, and looks to subsequent instruction and personal conversion, as a condition to full membership of the church. Hence confirmation came in as a supplement to infant baptism.”