DavidJ – I agree wholeheartedly with you - scripture is infallible. What is not infallible is private interpretation of scripture. Wouldn’t you agree???? If you disagree, can you offer an explanation as to why your scripturally based interpretation of baptism is not in 100% agreement with Chafers? Or why yours and Chafers understanding of baptism is not in agreement with other Protestants or with 1500 years of other interpretations??? You both proclaim sola-scriptura and you both proclaim scripture interprets scripture. Well then why don’t you and Chafer agree fully with each other?
You said “scripture is infallible – Tradition of Apostles is fallible”. So are you saying that what the Apostles handed down was fallible? Are you saying that since the first of the N.T. letters were not written until some 20 years after Christ and not completed until about 40 years later, we cannot be certain that what the Apostles were teaching was truth? Were they fallible in their teachings and then the H.S. inspired them to write what is now the N.T. and then from that point forward they could only use Sola-Scriptura because their oral tradition was fallible?
I also agree that any religion based on tradition is fallible. However, a faith based on the promises of Jesus Christ is truth. Doctrine based on private interpretation of scripture is fallible. Jesus and the Apostles knew this. So much so, that the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to proclaim the Church as the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. So your claim that scripture is the only infallible source of truth contradicts scripture itself!!!!
With regards to Apostolic Succession and the office of the “Al-bayit”/Leader of the Church/Papacy, the thread did not bring about any conclusion. All you did was wear out the others in the thread by failing to adequately answer questions and bring up tangential topics. So let’s put this aside for now as it is not directly related to this thread.
(cont …)
(… cont)
Back to baptism …. Could you please take a stand on infant baptism instead of straddling the fence? It is either appropriate or it is not. And let’s not call it a “non-essential”, after all, baptism is part of the Great Commision. You should be able to come up with a definitive answer using Sola-Scriptura. Is Chafer right, that infant baptism is “merely getting wet” or were the authors of the Westminster Confession correct in their interpretation?
And I still don’t see how you can say my scriptural interpretation of baptism is in error. I’ve used scripture to prove it and I believe this was done under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Isn’t this the same means by which you’ve come to your conclusions? The only reason why I bring tradition into the picture is because 1500 years of it supports what the Holy Spirit has inspired me to believe.
So we have a dilemma here. My interpretation, your interpretation, and Chafers interpretations all differ. Does this mean that baptism can mean different things to different people or is there some sort of arbitrator we can turn to? I will turn to the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. You and Chafer can continue to disagree all the while insisting that your personal interpretations are “totally correct”.
And thanks for not using the term “papist”. I’m sorry for assuming that just because you use it in nearly every other thread, that you would use it here also.
Baptism without repentance is merly a free bath...
You must be aware of sin and guilt before you can repent...
Infants are not aware of any of these...
It is written:
1 Peter 3:21
21 There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The above is Kind of a deep consept for a 2 month old...
wouldn't you say?
Furthermore, I would like to add,
That the first church, under Peter and Paul, baptised ONLY by immursion and ONLY "In Jesus' name"...
So, if you want to be like the first Church (which got it right) then you, all of you, should go and do the same.
You have the book of Acts in your Bible as literal proof.
Go ahead, Look it up...
DavidJ – I agree wholeheartedly with you - scripture is infallible. What is not infallible is private interpretation of scripture. Wouldn’t you agree????
If anyone at all is guilty of imposing privately interpreted scripture on its followers and throughout history violently imposing it on others it is the office of Pope.
If you disagree, can you offer an explanation as to why your scripturally based interpretation of baptism is not in 100% agreement with Chafers?
I assume your speaking of infant baptist; I cannot give any scriptural interpretation of this becauyse there is nothing in scripture to support it.
Or why yours and Chafers understanding of baptism is not in agreement with other Protestants or with 1500 years of other interpretations??? You both proclaim sola-scriptura and you both proclaim scripture interprets scripture. Well then why don’t you and Chafer agree fully with each other?
I did not know Chafer was a protestant. I am certainly not a protestant, which makes your question rather pointless.
You said “scripture is infallible – Tradition of Apostles is fallible”. So are you saying that what the Apostles handed down was fallible?
Yes, that is what I am saying; if tradition handed down by apostles is not supported by scripture interpreting scripture then what they hand down is infallible.
Are you saying that since the first of the N.T. letters were not written until some 20 years after Christ and not completed until about 40 years later, we cannot be certain that what the Apostles were teaching was truth?
You are being manipulative my friend! I never mentioned the Apostles TEACHINGS recorded in scripture. The Apostles TEACHINGS recorded in the New Testament are God breathed infallible scripture!
David
wkirscher Wrote: I also agree that any religion based on tradition is fallible.
Exactly my point! And that is the basis of fallible doctrine of the Roman Church.
However, a faith based on the promises of Jesus Christ is truth.
I was not aware that this was an issue. What has it got to do with this thread?
Doctrine based on private interpretation of scripture is fallible.
The born of the spirit Bible believer does not make 'private interpretation' of scripture. I don't see the point you are making unless you a making an oblique accusation that Chafer is not 'born again of the Spirit of God'.
So much so, that the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to proclaim the Church as the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. So your claim that scripture is the only infallible source of truth contradicts scripture itself!!!!
This is very typical of YOUR personal interpretation of 1 Timothy 3;15.We read in 1 Timothy 3:15 of “the church of the living God” being “the pillar and support of the truth,” we should think of the men and women who are of God’s family. As brothers and sisters within the family of God, our nature, our character and our behavior should be a reflection of our Father’s. We are responsible for upholding and defending the truth; THE TRUTH BEING JESUS "I am ...THE TRUTH ..." (John 14:6)
David
(… cont)
Back to baptism …. Could you please take a stand on infant baptism instead of straddling the fence? It is either appropriate or it is not. And let’s not call it a “non-essential”, after all, baptism is part of the Great Commision. You should be able to come up with a definitive answer using Sola-Scriptura. Is Chafer right, that infant baptism is “merely getting wet” or were the authors of the Westminster Confession correct in their interpretation?
Infant baptism is not mentioned in the Great Commission!!!!!!!!!!! Chafer is absolutely correct; infant baptism is "mereley getting wet". No harm, at all in an infant "just getting wet" is there?
And I still don’t see how you can say my scriptural interpretation of baptism is in error. I’ve used scripture to prove it and I believe this was done under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Isn’t this the same means by which you’ve come to your conclusions? The only reason why I bring tradition into the picture is because 1500 years of it supports what the Holy Spirit has inspired me to believe.
You are evading my point. Jesus' baptism is our example - did Jesus require 'regeneratio' by His water baptism? Why in the Jordan? Why in that spot in the Jordan? If you don't know please say so instead of hammering us with unscriptural tradition!
So we have a dilemma here. My interpretation, your interpretation, and Chafers interpretations all differ. Does this mean that baptism can mean different things to different people or is there some sort of arbitrator we can turn to? I will turn to the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. You and Chafer can continue to disagree all the while insisting that your personal interpretations are “totally correct”.
I have no disagreement with Chafer as much as you may fervently desire to invent one.
And thanks for not using the term “papist”. I’m sorry for assuming that just because you use it in nearly every other thread, that you would use it here also.
I did not desist volunarilty from using the word papist; it was at the direction of the Moderator. I see the word as a very appropriate word to use as did many learned and respected historians, statesmen and true men of God.
David
Just for everyones information.
I looked up the word papist as I was unfamiliar with the term.
The dictionaries seem to consistently list the term a perjorative.
EG. Papist: Offensive. Used as a disparaging term for a Roman Catholic.
Just consider me to be sensitive to words which might be disparaging labels of religious or ethnic groups.
One online site recommended Papalism as a term in its place.
Just for everyones information.
I looked up the word papist as I was unfamiliar with the term.
The dictionaries seem to consistently list the term a perjorative.
EG. Papist: Offensive. Used as a disparaging term for a Roman Catholic.
Just consider me to be sensitive to words which might be disparaging labels of religious or ethnic groups.
One online site recommended Papalism as a term in its place.
If my use of the word 'papist' offends I will not use it. However, maybe I could be allowed to explain that my use of the term papist is (and always was) in line with the term 'papist' used by the Roman Catholic writer, Father Peter Millward, (born London, 1925) a Jesuit priest, and author of the book 'Shakespear the Papist', book reference: ISBN 193258921X.
Father Peter Millward was ordained a Roman Catholic priest in 1960 and his reference to the English Baird William Shakespear as a papist carried on into his retirement as one of the leading proponents of the view that William Shakespeare was a crypto-Roman Catholic.
David
DavidJ – this again is where you are showing your ignorance of something you are so passionately against. No doctrine of the Catholic Church is the opinion of one man. Not even the Pope. There is an office called the teaching Magesterium. Bishops and other church leaders (or elders if you prefer) gather together and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, are lead into truth. Check out Acts 15 and you can see that this ecclesial model was put in place from the very beginning. The Church did not gather only to continually divide upon every disagreement as we see in the Protestant ecclesial model. So no, the Catholic Church is not guilty of private interpretation. It is guilty of following the very model set forth by the Apostles, as recorded in Acts 15, and in the earliest of extra-biblical Christian writings.
If there is nothing in scripture against infant baptism, then why do you reject it as valid? We know from scripture that entire households were baptized. Also, there is absolutely no instance in scripture of anyone ever being denied baptism because of age. We know from early Christian writings that infants were baptized. In fact, there was even discussion among the early church as to infants being baptized on the 8th day. Denial of infant baptism is a tradition of man practiced by only a subset of Protestants.
I’m not being manipulative - you are avoiding the question. You are claiming that the teachings of the Apostles, those who walked with our savior, are fallible unless they are teachings that were recorded in scripture. So then, by your reasoning, the first 20 years of Apostolic teaching were fallible since N.T. scripture had not yet been written. I agree with you that the scriptures are infallible. I emphatically disagree with you that what the Apostles taught for the first 20 years was fallible.
I’m not making any accusations about anyone’s faith. You say that the born again believer doesn’t make “private interpretation” of scripture. What makes it not private? I assume that you are implying that their interpretation is guided by the Holy Spirit, exclusive of any authoritative Pillar and Foundation of Truth. Then again I ask, why do so many born again believers, who interpret scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, differ in things as significant as baptism, eternal security, real/spiritual presence in the Eucharist ….? Your position is that the Church, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth is not really truth at all. Truth can only be found by “scripture interpreting scripture” under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Yet your truth varies from Chafers truth which varies from a Baptists truth which varies from a Presbyterians truth which varies from a 5 point Calvinists truth which varies from a ….
(cont …)