Do you have any evidence for that, or is that a desperate to uphold your belief that is not clearly stated in Scriptures? With the primitive communication network in use at the time, couldn't any teaching have spread from village to village as long as it was popular?
So why would the Spirit protect ONLY the writings of the future New Testament, while ignoring what they were taught orally? The Spirit protects ALL of the Apostles' teachings, whether oral or written. One way or another, they will continue as a part of the deposit of faith.
And then, if a Catholic writer happened to like it and pick up upon it, it is then presumed to have been taught by the Apostles. To me, that is a lot of presumption
The Church, infallibly protected by the Spirit, makes it clear to everyone that a belief is part of the Apostolic Tradition and was held as such. Do you realize we can apply the same strictness to the Scriptures themselves and thus discount them (if the Church was not infallible protector of the Apostolic Tradition)?
The point is that no one can be sure what the truth is, even though it was "officially" solved. If translated to Catholicism, the Warren Report would have been declared infallible, and anyone disagreeing with it would have been a heretic. No room for disagreement or further study.
The Church is like its head, divine AND human. It is protected from error by God. IT is the pillar and foundation of the truth. The Warren Report never makes the claim to be infallibly protected by God. Either the Church is correct or it is wildly arrogant. One needs to make that determination. HOWEVER, if one holds the latter, then the New Testament is nothing more than another set of writings written by men whose testimony cannot be trusted.
It is possible that was a reason that infant baptism didn't have widely published opponents. It was popular, so the only ones who got the ink were on message.
Those who explored this human question did not find evidence to support that the Church considered that only adults were to be baptized. Even the Bible never makes that claim.
The only difference is that the SCOTUS is specifically ordained in the Constitution. I don't know where Councils are to be found in the Bible.
I also use that analogy - that the SCOTUS is to the Constitution as the Church is to the Bible. Councils are found in Scripture. Consult Acts 15.
Regards
Do you have any evidence for that, or is that a desperate to uphold your belief that is not clearly stated in Scriptures?
No, I don't have any evidence as proof, but neither am I desperate. I was merely asserting possibilities, the same as you do. :) (More on this below.)
So why would the Spirit protect ONLY the writings of the future New Testament, while ignoring what they were taught orally?
Why would the Spirit protect errant oral teachings when He knew the scriptures were on the way? My point was that an oral teaching is not automatically infallible BECAUSE it was oral AND popular. You appear to disagree. You seem to accept any oral teaching automatically, if it "survived" as being popular, and was accepted by some men.
Do you realize we can apply the same strictness to the Scriptures themselves and thus discount them (if the Church was not infallible protector of the Apostolic Tradition)?
I'm afraid I do not realize or accept that at all. You again give credit and glory to men, when all the glory belongs to God.
The Warren Report never makes the claim to be infallibly protected by God.
HA! Ask Gerald Ford. :)
Either the Church is correct or it is wildly arrogant. One needs to make that determination. HOWEVER, if one holds the latter, then the New Testament is nothing more than another set of writings written by men whose testimony cannot be trusted.
I respectfully disagree. In order to hold the latter, one must also disagree with the premise of your conclusion, which is not unreasonable from a logic standpoint. IOW, it does not definitionally offend common sense to assert the latter. One explanation would be that God directed the writing of the Bible through its physical authors. He did so infallibly, because it was His will, and would seem to be an efficient way to reach His children with His actual word. God also gave guidance to the Church, but did not overpower them so as not to interfere with their free will.
So, the hierarchy, armed with their free will, did the best they could, but did make mistakes. God always respects the free will of His children. And after a while, say 1500 or so years, enough mistakes had piled up that the Spirit decided to lead other men in a new direction. These other men heard the Spirit and followed His direction. The rest is history. The important thing is that the hierarchy of the Church never lost its individual free will at any stage, because that is the most important thing.
Those who explored this human question [of infant Baptism] did not find evidence to support that the Church considered that only adults were to be baptized. Even the Bible never makes that claim.
But, I would submit that ALL of the Biblical evidence that we do have leans toward a believer's Baptism. Jesus said:
Matt. 28:19-20 : "19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
FIRST, He said "Go". SECOND, He said "make disciples". THIRD, He said to go "baptizing them". FOURTH, He said to go "teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you". I don't believe this order was by accident. Look at the sentence structure. If Baptism was the big deal, why in the world would it come after "make disciples"? Why wasn't Baptism the first command? The plain meaning to me says there is a reason for this.
I also use that analogy - that the SCOTUS is to the Constitution as the Church is to the Bible. Councils are found in Scripture. Consult Acts 15.
Thank you, I did. But even at best, wouldn't the equivalent of this be a local council, not one carrying infallible weight? My Bible has James being the president of the council and making the sole decision. Is this correct? If that's right, then this council couldn't be on a par with the Supreme Court because what about Peter?