Should Priests Get Married?

[Dcopymope]

I don't believe that it should be a requirement, there were some that were able to bare this form Of worship. to devote their all to God and Christ.
Paul speak's about this, and concludes that if you can bare this consuming desire of the flesh, Good, But it is better to marry than to burn!!
I believe that If Priest's were to Marry, we might have less Child Abuse, IMO!

HA!!!! Boy, would this make for one hell of an excuse on judgement day. "But Lord, if only I could get marry, I wouldn't be getting touchy feely with children"........

...... Even though a great percentage of these dirt bags are married. Sorry Truth, but I can assure you that this excuse ain't gonna wash with God. I'd rather tie a mill stone around their neck and toss them into the sea burning with fire and brimstone.

Yes. That might be true although child abuse seems to cross all boundaries.

Whatever gives them easy access to children is where you will find these snakes in droves.

 

[Nomad]

Hmm...guess you better throw out the Pentateuch, huh Nomad? It was written down hundreds of years after it was passed down orally.

Compiled and narrated later, yes. Written, absolutely not. Hmm...it would appear that Moses was quite a prolific writer, huh Aspen? Observe.

Joh 5:46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me.
Joh 5:47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"

Rom 10:5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments
shall live by them.

Deu 31:22 So Moses wrote this song the same day and taught it to the people of Israel.

Deu 31:24 When Moses had finished writing the words of this law in a book to the very end,
Deu 31:25 Moses commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD,
Deu 31:26 "Take this Book of the Law and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may
be there for a witness against you.

Jos 1:7 Only be strong and very courageous, being careful to do according to all the law that Moses my servant commanded
you. Do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, that you may have good success wherever you go.
Jos 1:8 This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you
may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will
have good success.

Jos 8:31 just as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded the people of Israel, as it is written in the Book of the
Law of Moses, "an altar of uncut stones, upon which no man has wielded an iron tool." And they offered on it burnt
offerings to the LORD and sacrificed peace offerings.

Jos 8:34 And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessing and the curse, according to all that is written in
the Book of the Law.
Jos 8:35 There was not a word of all that Moses commanded that Joshua did not read before all the assembly of Israel, and
the women, and the little ones, and the sojourners who lived among them.

Jos 23:6 Therefore, be very strong to keep and to do all that is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, turning aside
from it neither to the right hand nor to the left,

Exo 17:14 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I
will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven."

Exo 24:4 And Moses wrote down all the words of the LORD. He rose early in the morning and built an altar at the foot of
the mountain, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.

Num 33:2 Moses wrote down their starting places, stage by stage, by command of the LORD, and these are their stages
according to their starting places.

Deu 31:9 Then Moses wrote this law and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of
the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel.

 

[Grams]

Not just the priest !!!!!!!!!!!!

Because I went to the school for 6 years........ I seen a lot !!!

And the one thing that sticks in my mind is how the nuns would pull the hair on

the boys so often......

In my time things were oh so different.......... the nuns even used yard stick and

rulers to hit us........

 

[Truth]

HA!!!! Boy, would this make for one hell of an excuse on judgement day. "But Lord, if only I could get marry, I wouldn't be getting touchy feely with children"........

...... Even though a great percentage of these dirt bags are married. Sorry Truth, but I can assure you that this excuse ain't gonna wash with God. I'd rather tie a mill stone around their neck and toss them into the sea burning with fire and brimstone.



Whatever gives them easy access to children is where you will find these snakes in droves.

I couldn't Agree with you More, But there seem's to be a lack of Justice!!! With all the Progressive Liberal Influence within our Media, Hollywood, and even Our Government. There is no Shame with People that Have had their Conscience Seared by wickedness. My statement was one made in haste, only giving an Opinion with the O P in mind! I do realize that there are people from all walk's doing these thing's to Children and they should be cast into the Sea with a Unmarked Grave Stone tied around their neck. But God Know's who they are!!!

 

[BreadOfLife]

That's it? I asked to see the "content" of your oral tradition and documented evidence of its transmission from inspired speaker to the present. Your earliest source not only writes toward the end of the second century, which puts him about 100 years after the fact, he doesn't mention baptism in your quote at all. Suffice it to say, your earliest example fails to demonstrate content or evidence of transmission. Oh and btw, Scripture addresses baptism and there's not a single example of paedobaptism throughout.

Your comment in RED is based on a complete misunderstanding of Scripture.

When Peter baptized Cornelius the Centurion, he baptized his entire household including children and servants (Acts 10:1-49, 11:13-14). We see the same thing in Acts 16:23-33 with the household of the Philippian jailer and 1 Cor. 1:16 with Stephanas’ household. The plain fact is that households include children of all ages, including infants. To say that these households did not include small children and infants is simply an exercise in vain denial. The fact is that no Christian objected to infant Baptism for 1500 years – until the Protestant Revolt.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Not just the priest !!!!!!!!!!!!
Because I went to the school for 6 years........ I seen a lot !!!
And the one thing that sticks in my mind is how the nuns would pull the hair on
the boys so often......
In my time things were oh so different.......... the nuns even used yard stick and
rulers to hit us........

Who cares??
I got the same treatment from nuns AND lay teachers.

there was no sexual assault going on.

 

[GodsGrace]

Who cares??
I got the same treatment from nuns AND lay teachers.

there was no sexual assault going on.

Nuns should have known better. They should be transmitting the love of God!
So then what's the difference between Christians and the secular world??

 

[101G]

GodsGrace,

I'm of the view that the RCC has imposed on priests a 'calling' for which some are not equipped. The Scriptures present the view (supported by the Scriptures given above) that celibacy is for those with that gift (1 Cor 7:7).

If RC priests don't have the gift, they should not be in the priesthood.

The better solution would be for the RCC to follow the biblical teaching that only those with the gift of celibacy should be celibate. Therefore, married priests should be encouraged to join the priesthood.

No wonder seminary numbers have dwindled so much in RC seminaries. Could it be that the numbers in seminary represent the true percentage of those with the gift of celibacy?

Oz

if they don't have the gift they should not be in the priesthood.

well I guess everybody needs to get out of the priesthood, because the Holy Ghost said through the apostle Peter, 1 Peter 2:9 "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light".

so I guess God is not going to let anyone marry, then no nation. that's foolishness.

the Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul said,

1 Timothy 4:1 "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

1 Timothy 4:2 "Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

1 Timothy 4:3 "Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

WHAT!, say that again apostle Paul, "Forbidding to marry". Oh ok, I thought that what it said.

PCY.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Nuns should have known better. They should be transmitting the love of God!
So then what's the difference between Christians and the secular world??

Not every nun was "Atilla the Nun".
There were many who were nice and didn't lay a finger on us.

Corporal punishment was ALSO allowed in the public schools at the time.
It was a different time . . .

 

[GodsGrace]

Not every nun was "Atilla the Nun".
There were many who were nice and didn't lay a finger on us.

Corporal punishment was ALSO allowed in the public schools at the time.
It was a different time . . .

Atilla the Nun.
Denial.

OK
You could be fun too.

 

[Nomad]

Your comment in RED is based on a complete misunderstanding of Scripture.

When Peter baptized Cornelius the Centurion, he baptized his entire household including children and servants (Acts 10:1-49, 11:13-14). We see the same thing in Acts 16:23-33 with the household of the Philippian jailer and 1 Cor. 1:16 with Stephanas’ household. The plain fact is that households include children of all ages, including infants. To say that these households did not include small children and infants is simply an exercise in vain denial. The fact is that no Christian objected to infant Baptism for 1500 years – until the Protestant Revolt.

You included and entire chapter as your first example so for the sake of brevity I'm only including the relevant verses.

Act 10:24 And on the following day they entered Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his
relatives and close friends.

Act 10:33 So I sent for you at once, and you have been kind enough to come. Now therefore we are all here in the presence
of God to hear all that you have been commanded by the Lord."

Act 10:44 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.

Act 10:46 For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared,
Act 10:47 "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

1. Cornelius calls relatives and close friends to hear Peter preach. No mention of children or infants.

2. The Holy Spirit falls on all who "heard the word." Again, no mention of children or infants. If children were there at all, they were old enough to "hear the word."

3. Those who "heard the word" and on whom "the Holy Spirit fell" were heard "speaking in tongues and extolling God." Based
on this spectacle Peter commands them to be baptized. Do you really want to argue that this includes infants?

Act 11:13 And he told us how he had seen the angel stand in his house and say, 'Send to Joppa and bring Simon who is called Peter;
Act 11:14 he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.'
Act 11:15 As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning.

No mention of who constituted this "household." To infer more than the text says is no more than a baseless assumption that proves nothing one way or the other. This text is a dead end.

Act 16:30 Then he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
Act 16:31 And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
Act 16:32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.
Act 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.
Act 16:34 Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.

I'm not going to repeat the obvious except to point out that the jailer "rejoiced along with his entire household." Again, do you really want to argue that infants were part of this scene?

1Co 1:16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)

Do I really need to repeat myself here? Again, your assumptions go beyond what these texts actually say and in at least two cases, your assumptions go against common sense. Unless you want to invoke a completely unreported miracle, infants do not speak in tongues, extol God and rejoice in the faith of others.

 

[GodsGrace]

You included and entire chapter as your first example so for the sake of brevity I'm only including the relevant verses.

Act 10:24 And on the following day they entered Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his
relatives and close friends.

Act 10:33 So I sent for you at once, and you have been kind enough to come. Now therefore we are all here in the presence
of God to hear all that you have been commanded by the Lord."

Act 10:44 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.

Act 10:46 For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared,
Act 10:47 "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

1. Cornelius calls relatives and close friends to hear Peter preach. No mention of children or infants.

2. The Holy Spirit falls on all who "heard the word." Again, no mention of children or infants. If children were there at all, they were old enough to "hear the word."

3. Those who "heard the word" and on whom "the Holy Spirit fell" were heard "speaking in tongues and extolling God." Based
on this spectacle Peter commands them to be baptized. Do you really want to argue that this includes infants?

Act 11:13 And he told us how he had seen the angel stand in his house and say, 'Send to Joppa and bring Simon who is called Peter;
Act 11:14 he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.'
Act 11:15 As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning.

No mention of who constituted this "household." To infer more than the text says is no more than a baseless assumption that proves nothing one way or the other. This text is a dead end.

Act 16:30 Then he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
Act 16:31 And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
Act 16:32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.
Act 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.
Act 16:34 Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.

I'm not going to repeat the obvious except to point out that the jailer "rejoiced along with his entire household." Again, do you really want to argue that infants were part of this scene?

1Co 1:16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)

Do I really need to repeat myself here? Again, your assumptions go beyond what these texts actually say and in at least two cases, your assumptions go against common sense. Unless you want to invoke a completely unreported miracle, infants do not speak in tongues, extol God and rejoice in the faith of others.

Infant baptism became common practice after Augustine, not my favorite Catholic theologian, formed the concept of original sin. He believed that Adams sin was imputed to everyone. Thus infants had to be baptized or they'd go to hell if they died because God could not let sin into heaven.
Today, this is no longer believed,,,about hell, I mean.
PS about 400 AD

 

[BreadOfLife]

You included and entire chapter as your first example so for the sake of brevity I'm only including the relevant verses.

Act 10:24 And on the following day they entered Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his
relatives and close friends.

Act 10:33 So I sent for you at once, and you have been kind enough to come. Now therefore we are all here in the presence
of God to hear all that you have been commanded by the Lord."

Act 10:44 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.

Act 10:46 For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared,
Act 10:47 "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

1. Cornelius calls relatives and close friends to hear Peter preach. No mention of children or infants.

2. The Holy Spirit falls on all who "heard the word." Again, no mention of children or infants. If children were there at all, they were old enough to "hear the word."

3. Those who "heard the word" and on whom "the Holy Spirit fell" were heard "speaking in tongues and extolling God." Based
on this spectacle Peter commands them to be baptized. Do you really want to argue that this includes infants?

Act 11:13 And he told us how he had seen the angel stand in his house and say, 'Send to Joppa and bring Simon who is called Peter;
Act 11:14 he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.'
Act 11:15 As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning.

No mention of who constituted this "household." To infer more than the text says is no more than a baseless assumption that proves nothing one way or the other. This text is a dead end.

Act 16:30 Then he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
Act 16:31 And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
Act 16:32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.
Act 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.
Act 16:34 Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.

I'm not going to repeat the obvious except to point out that the jailer "rejoiced along with his entire household." Again, do you really want to argue that infants were part of this scene?

1Co 1:16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)

Do I really need to repeat myself here? Again, your assumptions go beyond what these texts actually say and in at least two cases, your assumptions go against common sense. Unless you want to invoke a completely unreported miracle, infants do not speak in tongues, extol God and rejoice in the faith of others.

Your remarks in RED are as silly as your claim that MINE are.

You don't believe small children and infants were baptizes because it doesn't explicitly say that they were. YET, you believe in things like Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura - which aren't even implicitly taught in Scripture. That's what you call a hypocritical "double standard."

The Early Church testified to the fact that infants WERE baptized and that they got this practice from the APOSTLES.
That's called "corroboration."

You're willing to believe that the Early Church passed on everything that the Apostles taught witch YOU believe - but they got THIS one wrong??
That's preposterous . . .

 

[GodsGrace]

Your remarks in RED are as silly as your claim that MINE are.

You don't believe small children and infants were baptizes because it doesn't explicitly say that they were. YET, you believe in things like Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura - which aren't even implicitly taught in Scripture. That's what you call a hypocritical "double standard."

The Early Church testified to the fact that infants WERE baptized and that they got this practice from the APOSTLES.
That's called "corroboration."

You're willing to believe that the Early Church passed on everything that the Apostles taught witch YOU believe - but they got THIS one wrong??
That's preposterous . . .

If something is not written, we're not supposed to assume it. That's adding to scripture.
It would mean, if this practice were accepted, that we could assume practically anything.
And it's very bad exegesis.

 

[aspen]

Compiled and narrated later, yes. Written, absolutely not. Hmm...it would appear that Moses was quite a prolific writer, huh Aspen? Observe.

Joh 5:46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me.
Joh 5:47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"

Rom 10:5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments
shall live by them.

Deu 31:22 So Moses wrote this song the same day and taught it to the people of Israel.

Deu 31:24 When Moses had finished writing the words of this law in a book to the very end,
Deu 31:25 Moses commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD,
Deu 31:26 "Take this Book of the Law and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may
be there for a witness against you.

Jos 1:7 Only be strong and very courageous, being careful to do according to all the law that Moses my servant commanded
you. Do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, that you may have good success wherever you go.
Jos 1:8 This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you
may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will
have good success.

Jos 8:31 just as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded the people of Israel, as it is written in the Book of the
Law of Moses, "an altar of uncut stones, upon which no man has wielded an iron tool." And they offered on it burnt
offerings to the LORD and sacrificed peace offerings.

Jos 8:34 And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessing and the curse, according to all that is written in
the Book of the Law.
Jos 8:35 There was not a word of all that Moses commanded that Joshua did not read before all the assembly of Israel, and
the women, and the little ones, and the sojourners who lived among them.

Jos 23:6 Therefore, be very strong to keep and to do all that is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, turning aside
from it neither to the right hand nor to the left,

Exo 17:14 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I
will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven."

Exo 24:4 And Moses wrote down all the words of the LORD. He rose early in the morning and built an altar at the foot of
the mountain, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.

Num 33:2 Moses wrote down their starting places, stage by stage, by command of the LORD, and these are their stages
according to their starting places.

Deu 31:9 Then Moses wrote this law and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of
the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel.

So you have no examples of writings from between 1600 and 1200 BC?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Infant baptism became common practice after Augustine, not my favorite Catholic theologian, formed the concept of original sin. He believed that Adams sin was imputed to everyone. Thus infants had to be baptized or they'd go to hell if they died because God could not let sin into heaven.
Today, this is no longer believed,,,about hell, I mean.
PS about 400 AD

This is completely untrue.

First of all - the Church NEVER officially taught that unbaptized infants went o Hell. There has never been an official Church teaching on this matter. the idea of a "Limbo" for infants was posited for many centuries as a way of trying to reason what Scripture is silent about.

As for your comment about Augustine - the following testimonies about Infant Baptism are from Early Church Fathers PRIOR to Augustine . . .

Irenaeus
He came to save all through himself – all, I say, who through him are reborn in God; infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus
Where there is no scarcity of water the stream shall flow through the baptismal font or pour into it from above; but if water is scarce, whether on a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available. Let them remove their clothing. Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D.215]).

Origen
The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian
As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should 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 thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253

 

[BreadOfLife]

If something is not written, we're not supposed to assume it. That's adding to scripture.
It would mean, if this practice were accepted, that we could assume practically anything.
And it's very bad exegesis.

Where does the Bible tell us that we are ONLY to believe what the BIBLE says. the fact is that we are told to hold fast to the TRADITIONS the Apostles taught - EITHER BY an Oral statement - OR BY a Letter (2 Thess. 2:15).

Nobody is "assuming" anything. Infant Baptism is a Sacred Apostolic Tradition.

 

[GodsGrace]

This is completely untrue.

First of all - the Church NEVER officially taught that unbaptized infants went o Hell. There has never been an official Church teaching on this matter. the idea of a "Limbo" for infants was posited for many centuries as a way of trying to reason what Scripture is silent about.

As for your comment about Augustine - the following testimonies about Infant Baptism are from Early Church Fathers PRIOR to Augustine . . .

Irenaeus
He came to save all through himself – all, I say, who through him are reborn in God; infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus
Where there is no scarcity of water the stream shall flow through the baptismal font or pour into it from above; but if water is scarce, whether on a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available. Let them remove their clothing. Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D.215]).

Origen
The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian
As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should 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 thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253

I know about the ECFs. I agree that infants were baptized.
It became acceptable everywhere and common practice after Augustine.
He's the one who came up with the idea of original sin.
It became absolutely necessary to baptize babies after this for the reason I said.
I never mentioned limbo. Limbo was never taught by the church.
Only recently has the church stated that if an unbaptized baby dies without being baptized we must trust God s love and entrust this soul to His Mercy. I'm sure you know the paragraph in the ccc.i can't look for it right now.

 

[GodsGrace]

Where does the Bible tell us that we are ONLY to believe what the BIBLE says. the fact is that we are told to hold fast to the TRADITIONS the Apostles taught - EITHER BY an Oral statement - OR BY a Letter (2 Thess. 2:15).

Nobody is "assuming" anything. Infant Baptism is a Sacred Apostolic Tradition.

This is not what I said....
I said we cannot assume something that is not written. It's a dangerous practice and bad exegesis.

 

[BreadOfLife]

This is not what I said....
I said we cannot assume something that is not written. It's a dangerous practice and bad exegesis.

Exactly.
That's why I said that Infant Baptism is not an "assumption" - but a Sacred Apostolic Tradition.