Illuminator
Well-Known Member
You reject infant baptism because your reject the doctrine of Original Sin, a doctrine accepted by most Protestants. That places you in a fringe minority. You had better rip Romans 5 out of your Bible.
To Explain Infant Baptism You Must Explain Original Sin
The Church’s teaching on infant baptism flows from the Church’s teachings on original sin and the sacrament of baptism. Click here for an explanation.
No, it began in Jerusalem. After the death of James, centrality was shifted to Rome by Peter and Paul.
The historic Church doesn't evolve, it develops.
Development Of Doctrine: A Corruption Of Biblical Teaching?
Doctrines agreed upon by all undergo development, too. The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325; the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381.
www.patheos.com
True, Christ did not establish Protestantism that had a rather late start.
Who told you that? Cite sources please.
Paul is describing Gnostics who were trying to infiltrate the communities. They "forbid marriage" because they believed the flesh is evil; that had nothing to do with Jesus and Paul's teaching on marriage. Same with "abstaining from foods." The Gnostics were not fasting according to Jesus and Paul, they abstained from foods because they thought certain foods were evil.
You are dead wrong about Ignatius.
The Anglican J.B. Lightfoot, no great fan of Catholic (whom he terms “Romanists”) nevertheless concedes that “throughout the thirteen letters the same doctrines are maintained, the same heresies assailed, and the same theological terms employed. In this respect no difference can be traced between the two sets of epistles.” So while there may have been theological reasons (responding to the Apollinarian or Arian heresies) for the forgery of the additional 6 letters, nothing theological (between Catholics and Protestants) turns on these spurious letters. Anything that Protestants would object to in the six false letters is also found in the seven genuine letters.
If that's true, then all the reformers are uninspired men, and nobody is right, except you.
Give scriptures that denies what Ignatius of Antioch advocated, since you claim to have all authority to yourself.
Many Protestants make historical claims about how Christ founded the pure, Apostolic Church but that this Church slowly fell away from the truth: either after Constantine legalized Christianity in the fourth century, or during the so-called “Dark Ages,” etc., then corruption slowly crept in. The Apostolic Church, it is claimed, had a body of “presbyter-bishops,” governing the church by committee. These committees were slowly replaced by individual bishops (even though we have no record of a single church recording such a takeover!); meanwhile, superstitions like the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist crept in.
Ignatius shows that all of these historical claims are pure fiction. Ignatius isn’t inventing belief in the Real Presence or in the distinction between the bishop and presbyters, or about the necessity to be in union with the visible Church (in the person of the bishop) for salvation. He’s speaking to people who already believe this, and speaking to them within a few years of the death of the Apostle John.
For Protestants to be right on these questions, we would have to assume that
(a) the Church fell into heresy almost immediately and universally after the death of St. John, and
(b) that modern Protestants and @Titus understands Apostolic theology better than the men who sat at the feet of the Apostles.
But those assumptions beggar belief. So we now know what Calvin and @Titus did not:
that his beliefs about the early Church are demonstrably false,
and point to the fact that his theology is demonstrably false.
How Do We Know Ignatius’ Letters are Genuine? – Shameless Popery
shamelesspopery.com
Protestant Answer to Ignatius on the Eucharist – Shameless Popery
shamelesspopery.com
Last edited:
