Hi. I'm a former Catholic and now non-denominational follower of Christ

Cathode said:

So Bible alonism was breaking from the Apostles interpretation of Scripture to human interpretation of scripture, and human founded churches.

John Smyth after leaving the Church of England decided that credo Baptism was to be his new doctrine, so pure human interpretation, pure human tradition.n

John Smyth was not an Apostle, he was a false teacher the Apostles warned about.

Click to expand...

The New Testament documents on the tenet they are genuine are first century Holy Scripture would be our sole Apostolic authority handed down to us.

Now it wasn't a Catholic Church that won me to believe in our Lord Jesus Christ. But but persons from a local Baptist church at my families door inviting us to attend their church. Offered a ride to church. And it was that Sunday between Sunday school and the morning preaching service I was shown how I could be sure of Heaven. That was the summer of 1962. I knew then and know now. Do you?

37818 said:

The New Testament documents on the tenet they are genuine are first century Holy Scripture would be our sole Apostolic authority handed down to us.

Click to expand...

The New Testament documents are genuine first century, but your interpretations of them isn’t, they are 1500s onward human interpretations.

Have the first century Scriptures and the first century interpretations of them and you will be fine.

Now it wasn't a Catholic Church that won me to believe in our Lord Jesus Christ. But but persons from a local Baptist church at my families door inviting us to attend their church. Offered a ride to church. And it was that Sunday between Sunday school and the morning preaching service I was shown how I could be sure of Heaven. That was the summer of 1962. I knew then and know now. Do you?

Click to expand...

Which would you prefer, the Apostles interpretation and understanding of Scripture or your own?

Cathode said:

The New Testament documents are genuine first century, but your interpretations of them isn’t, they are 1500s onward human interpretations.

Have the first century Scriptures and the first century interpretations of them and you will be fine.

Which would you prefer, the Apostles interpretation and understanding of Scripture or your own?

Click to expand...

Luke 4:4, And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Now you didn't answer my question.

37818 said:

. . . I was shown how I could be sure of Heaven. That was the summer of 1962. I knew then and know now. Do you?

Click to expand...

Cathode said:

Which would you prefer, the Apostles interpretation and understanding of Scripture or your own?

Click to expand...

Basically, from your point of view, we have our own understanding of Scripture, but in the same sense, you have your own understanding of the apostle’s interpretation of Scripture. If Scripture is the goal, and it should be, then it is more direct to follow the first pattern instead of a copy of a copy of a copy of a pattern. Your understanding of Scripture is influenced by your indoctrination of faulty assumptions so that when people are told that they are more noble for searching Scripture, you think it means that they took oral tradition and didn’t search Scripture. Your application of the language is way off.

Ben1445 said:

Basically, from your point of view, we have our own understanding of Scripture, but in the same sense, you have your own understanding of the apostle’s interpretation of Scripture. If Scripture is the goal, and it should be, then it is more direct to follow the first pattern instead of a copy of a copy of a copy of a pattern.

Click to expand...

Correct, we agree.
From our perspective it is testable however.

“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 stains of sins, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.” Origen, Commentary on Romans, 5:9 (A.D. 244).

So in Origens day they received the tradition from the Apostles of infant baptism and viewed water Baptism as Regenerational.
So 1781 years ago Origen attests that regenerational infant Baptism is traced to the Apostles by their tradition handed down.

So who still holds to this today?

If we went back 1800 years, which of us would have Origens understanding of Scripture which he said was from The Apostles.

Where did credo Baptism come from in your tradition? John Smyth declared infants should no longer be baptised, which stood against all Christianity at the time 1609 and all Christianity back to the Apostles.

So this doctrine has human interpretation not an Apostolic interpretation.

People who follow this doctrine aren’t following the Bible, they are following John Smyth.

Your understanding of Scripture is influenced by your indoctrination of faulty assumptions so that when people are told that they are more noble for searching Scripture, you think it means that they took oral tradition and didn’t search Scripture. Your application of the language is way off.

Click to expand...

What made them more noble is that they weren’t Scripture alone, and they listened to Paul’s Oral Tradition, the Spoken Word of God.

If the Bereans were Scripture alone they would have rejected everything Paul said as unscriptural. And all they had was Old Testament writings.
No Jew or Christian was Scripture alone, that was a heresy that came one and a half millenia later.

So Catholics maintain the singular ancient Apostles interpretation of Scripture and Bible aloners any man’s interpretation of scripture. That’s why they divided into countless denominations all on each man’s interpretation and opinion. All in conflict with the other.

Cathode said:

Correct, we agree.
From our perspective it is testable however.

“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 stains of sins, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.” Origen, Commentary on Romans, 5:9 (A.D. 244).

Click to expand...

And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.


Note that he didn’t answer with a goo goo ga ga. He didn’t answer by whining for a bottle of milk. The hindrance to baptism was lack of belief. The day a baby tells you that he believes that Jesus is Christ and understands that, (because that was the context, “Understandest thou what thou readest?”) then you may baptize.

Cathode said:

So in Origens day they received the tradition from the Apostles of infant baptism and viewed water Baptism as Regenerational.
So 1781 years ago Origen attests that regenerational infant Baptism is traced to the Apostles by their tradition handed down.

So who still holds to this today?

If we went back 1800 years, which of us would have Origens understanding of Scripture which he said was from The Apostles.

Click to expand...

Cathode said:

Where did credo Baptism come from in your tradition?

Click to expand...

Acts 8

Cathode said:

John Smyth declared infants should no longer be baptised, which stood against all Christianity at the time 1609 and all Christianity back to the Apostles.

So this doctrine has human interpretation not an Apostolic interpretation.

People who follow this doctrine aren’t following the Bible, they are following John Smyth.

Click to expand...

Last time I checked, Acts 8 was written before John Smyth.

Cathode said:

What made them more noble is that they weren’t Scripture alone, and they listened to Paul’s Oral Tradition, the Spoken Word of God.

Click to expand...

That is exactly opposite what the Bible says.

Cathode said:

If the Bereans were Scripture alone they would have rejected everything Paul said as unscriptural. And all they had was Old Testament writings.
No Jew or Christian was Scripture alone, that was a heresy that came one and a half millenia later.

Click to expand...

They checked what Paul said to see if what he said was Scriptural.
But you may keep your indulgences, penances, and vain Hail Mary repetitions because they are prescribed to you by “apostolic successors,” so called.
I will stick to Truth. God’s Word is Truth. Apostolic oral tradition carries no such weight.

Cathode said:

So Catholics maintain the singular ancient Apostles interpretation of Scripture and Bible aloners any man’s interpretation of scripture. That’s why they divided into countless denominations all on each man’s interpretation and opinion. All in conflict with the other.

Click to expand...

So tell me why you divided away from the Orthodox?

If the doctrine of infant baptism was so important, why isn’t it in Scripture?

Since baptism is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh(1 Peter 3:21) there is no need for an infant to be baptized. It doesn’t matter what kind of fairy tale arc welding babies you have seen in your dreams. May I suggest you limit your pizza consumption before bed? Or you might pull the curtain and stop the sun from blinding the poor child.

I could claim Baptists are the original church members and Catholics are the denominational break offs. John was out preaching first and preparing the way, you know. You need to understand the difference between the words catholic and Catholic. It makes a huge difference.

Ben1445 said:

And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Note that he didn’t answer with a goo goo ga ga. He didn’t answer by whining for a bottle of milk. The hindrance to baptism was lack of belief. The day a baby tells you that he believes that Jesus is Christ and understands that, (because that was the context, “Understandest thou what thou readest?”) then you may baptize.

Click to expand...

Sure, if you are an adult, you answer for yourself at Baptism.

If you are an infant, your parents answer for you. As with circumcision.

There is no doctrine in scripture telling you to deny infants baptism, that is human construct not Scripture.
Where does it teach ‘ Deny infants Baptism ‘?

Acts 8

Last time I checked, Acts 8 was written before John Smyth.

Click to expand...

No, this doesn’t teach ‘ Deny infants baptism ‘ either.

That is exactly opposite what the Bible says.

Click to expand...

No. Paul says to “hold to the traditions the we taught you, either by word of our mouth or by writing.”

You reject Apostolic Word of mouth Tradition so you are not following Scripture or tradition.

They checked what Paul said to see if what he said was Scriptural.

Click to expand...

They only had the Old Testament. What Paul was teaching was the Gospel preached, the Oral New Testament.

So tell me why you divided away from the Orthodox?

Click to expand...

They broke from us.

The Church was called Catholic before break, but after the break they called themselves Orthodox, and we remained Catholic.

If the doctrine of infant baptism was so important, why isn’t it in Scripture?

Click to expand...

It’s implied in Scripture when whole families were baptised.

Nowhere does it say ‘ Deny thy infants baptism and only baptise adults ‘ that’s human tradition founded in the 1600s, not Scripture.
So, unscriptural.

Since baptism is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh(1 Peter 3:21) there is no need for an infant to be baptized.

Click to expand...

Yes there is, Original sin.

I could claim Baptists are the original church members and Catholics are the denominational break offs.

Click to expand...

You could, but that would be false, and Church history proves that wrong.

You need to understand the difference between the words catholic and Catholic. It makes a huge difference.

Click to expand...

I do. It would make a huge difference if you understood it too.