[Iscool]

That is a good one. Thanks for posting it. You have a knack for finding great articles.

Great article??? Because some Catholic claims Protestants have to know as little about the bible as the majority of Catholics do???

Like the book of Revelation, Catholics have to throw most of Ezekiel away because they don't have a clue what it's talking about...

in addition to denying real biblical truths such as the Real Presence or infant baptism

There is no infant bapatism in the NT...To call infant baptism biblical is to tell a lie...Anyone that can read can see there is no infant baptism in the bible...But then, you'd have to read the bible to find out...

[Biggirl]

The truth is that even in the days of the apostles, for example such as Paul, who with Silas, when they were in prison, after being liberated it is said in Acts 16:25-34 that the jailer and his family or household were not only were saved but were baptized. This would most likely included babies. So the pratice of infant baptism goes back even to the days of the NT.

[Mad Dawg]

There is no infant bapatism in the NT...To call infant baptism biblical is to tell a lie...Anyone that can read can see there is no infant baptism in the bible...But then, you'd have to read the bible to find out...

Now that there is a magisterial statement. We all know that work has been done on Peter's use of "and your children" (and the use of τεκνον generally in the NT) as reported in Acts, and ditto on "and his whole household". So an unmagisterial look at the Scriptures would have to say that the evidence tilts this way or that rather than "There is NO" or "There certainly is" unambiguous evidence one way or the other in the NT about infant baptism.

So is this a God complex here ? Just asking for the diagnostic criteria....

[AlaninSA]

Are Calvinists born ignorant, or do they have to WORK AT IT???