The Doctrine of Purgatory in Catholic Biblical Perspective

[shnarkle]

Who is this even addressing?

I used to ask the same question until I realized that it doesn't matter because when you just see something someone posted with no context, it is either because the person they are responding to has been ignored by you, or they simply don't care if what they post is understood to begin with. If they don't care to be understood , why should anyone else? Either way, who cares?

 

[BreadOfLife]

I have read it and you are resorting to ad hominem because it is frustrating that I proved your point invalid.

Nice try.

It's ALL there in my posts, but your little denial game continues out of desperation.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Who is this even addressing?

Your attention deficit rears its ugly head once again.

R*E*A*D post 1749 . . .

 

[CovenantPromise]

Lastly BOL (BIG ON LIES) My final judgements which you are deserving of are all true. I have approach you with every sensibility, esteem and admonishment openly and in private messaging. YOU, and no one else has proven himself to be mean spirited , spiteful and ungrateful. I have esteemed what good thing you have said. You are self righteous, the esteem you give is if it is an approval of something I supported that you have spoken in truth. But outside of that you have not supported one thing I have spoken which you know you have never been able to prove wrong and is TRUE. So you prove, you are for self not truth. My final judgements of you are correct and justified. You are full of selfish ambition and empty pride and now will reap what you have sown. God spewed you out. That is clear, with no one to blame but yourself!

I shake even the dust from you off my feet!

 

[BreadOfLife]

Lastly BOL (BIG ON LIES) My final judgements which you are deserving of are all true. I have approach you with every sensibility, esteem and admonishment openly and in private messaging. YOU, and no one else has proven himself to be mean spirited , spiteful and ungrateful. I have esteemed what good thing you have said. You are self righteous, the esteem you give is if it is an approval of something I supported that you have spoken in truth. But outside of that you have not supported one thing I have spoken which you know you have never been able to prove wrong and is TRUE. So you prove, you are for self not truth. My final judgements of you are correct and justified. You are full of selfish ambition and empty pride and now will reap what you have sown. God spewed you out. That is clear, with no one to blame but yourself!

I shake even the dust from you off my feet!

Good.
Does that mean I won't have to hear your sanctimonious judgements anymore?

NNNNNice . . .

 

[reformed1689]

Nice try.

It's ALL there in my posts, but your little denial game continues out of desperation.

It's not a denial game. You have yet to provide proof, that you claimed exists, that Tertullian affirmed infant baptism. I showed something that states he did not. Yet, you claimed it was unanimous among ECF. If it was unanimous, show the proof.

 

[reformed1689]

Your attention deficit rears its ugly head once again.

R*E*A*D post 1749 . . .

I did. Not attention deficit, I was told by another member you might be quoting soeone I have on ignore which would not show me the quote. Move along.

 

[BreadOfLife]

It's not a denial game. You have yet to provide proof, that you claimed exists, that Tertullian affirmed infant baptism. I showed something that states he did not. Yet, you claimed it was unanimous among ECF. If it was unanimous, show the proof.

Here you go:

Tertullian on Baptism
And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary— if (baptism itself) is not so necessary — that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood?

The Lord does indeed say, Forbid them not to come unto me. Let them come, then, while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the remission of sins? More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.

So – Tertullian accepts Infant Baptism as an existing reality.

HOWEVER – he recommends the delay in Baptism – not only for infants – but even for unmarried adults because of they are more prone to sin. This was written right before his eventual dissent into the Montanist Heresy – and he viewed any sins AFTER baptism as unforgivable. This is one of the tenets of the Montanist Heresy, as I have already explained to you several times now, Einstein.

So, we have a UNANIMOUS belief in the Early Church of Infant Baptism - AND a belief in the fact that it was an APOSTOLIC Tradition.

Tertullian held the CATHOLIC view of Baptism – not the Protestant view.

He believed that Baptism was regenerative and washed away our sins. His only problem is that he eventually went too far in his believe that ONLY Baptism could wash away sin – and that ALL sins committed AFTER Baptism were unforgivable. This is the heresy Montanism.

Protestants, on the other havd believe Baptism to be merely symbolic – and MANY believe it to be unnecessary.

 

[reformed1689]

So – Tertullian accepts Infant Baptism as an existing reality.

There is a difference between little children and infants. Little children can actually make professions of faith.

 

[BreadOfLife]

There is a difference between little children and infants. Little children can actually make professions of faith.

Then you didn’t read my post.

Tertullian advised against Baptism for EVERYBODY prior to marriage because of his harsh pre-Montanist views about sin.

 

[reformed1689]

Then you didn’t read my post.

Tertullian advised against Baptism for EVERYBODY prior to marriage because of his harsh pre-Montanist views about sin.

I read your post. I also read that nothing in Tertullian said INFANTS should be baptized. There is also nothing in SCRIPTURE that says INFANTS should be baptized.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I read your post. I also read that nothing in Tertullian said INFANTS should be baptized. There is also nothing in SCRIPTURE that says INFANTS should be baptized.

And by the same token – there is NOTHING in Scripture that says Infants should NOT be baptized.

However – it DOES says that ENTIRE households were baptized. Entire households include children of ALL ages.

Can you show me where it says they shouldn’t be Baptized??
Chapter and Verse, please . . .

 

[reformed1689]

However – it DOES says that ENTIRE households were baptized. Entire households include children of ALL ages.

It also said those entire households believed. Obviously that didn't include infants.

Can you show me where it says they shouldn’t be Baptized??

That's not how this works. The only examples of Baptism we have in the NT are believer's baptism. You don't get to just make up doctrine because it doesn't say it shouldn't be done.

 

[shnarkle]

There is a difference between little children and infants. Little children can actually make professions of faith.

I know that you're probably referring to something to do with infant baptism, but on a completely different note, there's all the difference in the world between a profession of faith verses a confession of faith. Anyone can make a profession of faith, and all they're doing is acknowledging the tenets of the faith that have been established by those "witnesses" who can only confess what they have seen, "tasted", etc. Those who confess, confess what they have seen, and therefore can only believe, whereas those who profess a doctrine must believe without seeing. If they can live as those who confess what they have seen, then they are truly blessed. If they only profess what they've been taught without actually living as one who has had the kingdom revealed to them, then they are damned.

 

[BreadOfLife]

It also said those entire households believed. Obviously that didn't include infants.

That's not how this works. The only examples of Baptism we have in the NT are believer's baptism. You don't get to just make up doctrine because it doesn't say it shouldn't be done.

Uhhhhh, once again – show me where the entire household of Stephanas was baptized because of their faith. The text does NOT say this.

Entire households were baptized, as in the case of Cornelius, Stephanas and the Philippian Jailer. According to the ECFs, the APOSTOLIC practice of baptizing entire families STARTS with the infants, then the children – THEN the adults. The infants and small children are represented by a parent or somebody else who can speak FOR them:

Irenaeus
"He [Jesus] 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
"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 the divine sacraments, knew there are 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]).

Gregory of Nazianz
"‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly [I respond], if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated" (ibid., 40:28).

Augustine
"What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. SINCE OTHERS RESPOND FOR CHILDREN, SO THAT THE CELEBRATION OF THE SACRAMENT MAY BE COMPLETE FOR THEM, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing INFANTS is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

 

[reformed1689]

Uhhhhh, once again – show me where the entire household of Stephanas was baptized because of their faith. The text does NOT say this.

It actually doesn't give the account of their baptism. It just said it was done. But if you read ACTS it says that you must believe, THEN be baptized. You and your household. In other words, you must believe, your household must also believe.

And I don't care what an ECF says if it contradicts Scripture.

 

[BreadOfLife]

It actually doesn't give the account of their baptism. It just said it was done. But if you read ACTS it says that you must believe, THEN be baptized. You and your household. In other words, you must believe, your household must also believe.

And I don't care what an ECF says if it contradicts Scripture.

Can you show me where Acts says you must have faith prior to being Baptized??
Chapter and Verse, please.

While you're at it - show me where the Ethiopoan Eunuch in Acts 8 professed faith prior to being Baptized.

Happy hunting . . .

 

[reformed1689]

Can you show me where Acts says you must have faith prior to being Baptized??
Chapter and Verse, please.

When baptism is commanded repentance comes first. Surely you know that. Show me where it says otherwise.

While you're at it - show me where the Ethiopoan Eunuch in Acts 8 professed faith prior to being Baptized.

By asking to be baptized he is showing he already believed.

 

[BreadOfLife]

When baptism is commanded repentance comes first. Surely you know that. Show me where it says otherwise.

By asking to be baptized he is showing he already believed.

WRONG.
You are adding to Scripture what is NOT there.

Nowhere does it even imply that the Ethiopian Eunuch repented or came to faith. It simply says that he asked to be baptized.

Your prerequisite for Baptism has been proven wrong . . .

 

[reformed1689]

Nowhere does it even imply that the Ethiopian Eunuch repented or came to faith. It simply says that he asked to be baptized.

Then you are being willfully blind.

Your prerequisite for Baptism has been proven wrong . . .

Hardly.