A Protestant Discovers Mary

Romano Guardini wrote in his book on the Rosary, “To linger in the domain of Mary is a divinely great thing. One does not ask about the utility of truly noble things, because they have their meaning within themselves. So it is of infinite meaning to draw a deep breath of this purity, to be secure in the peace of this union with God.”

Guardini was speaking of spending time with Mary in praying the Rosary, but David Mills, in his latest book, Discovering Mary, helps us linger in the domain of Mary by opening up to us the riches of divine revelation, both from tradition and Scripture. Mills, a convert from the Episcopal Church, former editor of the Christian journal Touchstone and editor of the 1998 book of essays commemorating the centennial of C.S. Lewis’ birth The Pilgrim’s Guide: C. S. Lewis and the Art of Witness, as well as the author of Knowing the Real Jesus (2001), has written a rock-solid introduction to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and done so with intellectual rigor and an affable tone.

His book begins with an introduction in which he describes how he came to discover the riches of the Church’s teachings on Mary: “I began to see how a sacred vessel is made holy by the sacred thing it carries,” he writes. “I began to feel this in a way I had not before. I found myself developing an experiential understanding of Mary and indeed a Marian devotion. Which surprised me. It surprised me a lot.”

Unfortunately, he notes, he did not learn about Mary from contemporary Catholics, nor in homilies, “even on Marian feast days.” It seems he learned on his own by reading magisterial documents and going back to Scriptures in light of those documents.

This book shares the fruit of that study. Mills examines the life of Mary, Mary in the Bible, Mary in Catholic doctrine, Marian feast days and the names of Mary. He includes an appendix full of references to papal documents and books on Mary.

Most of the book is done in a question-and-answer format, which usually works well, although at times it feels awkward. Would someone really ask, for instance, “What is happening in the liturgy on the Marian feast days?”

But most of the questions are natural. “What is the point of Marian devotion?” Mills asks. It is “to live the Catholic life as well as we can,” he answers. “This means going ever more deeply into the mystery of Christ, to become saintlier, more conformed to his image, by following Mary’s example and by turning to her for help and comfort.”

“Christians since the beginning of serious Marian devotion have been careful to emphasize Mary’s subordination to her son,” Mills replies. “In fact, they have said it so often that the reader begins to expect it. In the fifth century St. Ambrose put it nicely: ‘Mary was the temple of God, not the god of the temple.’”

David Mills, with the same radical clarity he showed in Knowing the Real Jesus, has written what has to be one of the best, if not the very best, short introductions to Catholic teaching on Mary, the Mother of God. Discovering Mary is ideal for those wanting to know more about her, whether they be skeptics, Protestants, or Catholics who don’t know the Mother of the Church well enough.

Wm --> if one reads scripture in depth and entirety one sees that scripture disagrees with you about the sacrament of Baptism -- both xone and I believe that it is NOT merely a symbol and to prove that we quote

When the Redeemer declares (John 3) that it is necessary to be born again of water and the Holy Ghost in order to enter the Kingdom of God, His words may be justly understood to mean that He includes all who are capable of having a right to this kingdom. Now, He has asserted such a right even for those who are not adults, when He says (Matthew 19:14): "Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such." It has been objected that this latter text does not refer to infants, inasmuch as Christ says "to come to me". In the parallel passage in St. Luke (18:15), however, the text reads: "And they brought unto him also infants, that he might touch them"; and then follow the words cited from St. Matthew. In the Greek text, the words brephe and prosepheron refer to infants in arms.

and

Moreover, St. Paul (Colossians 2) says that baptism in the New Law has taken the place of circumcision in the Old. It was especially to infants that the rite of circumcision was applied by Divine precept. If it be said that there is no example of the baptism of infants to be found in the Bible, we may answer that infants are included in such phrases as: "She was baptized and her household" (Acts 16:15); "Himself was baptized, and all his house immediately" (Acts 16:33); "I baptized the household of Stephanus" (1 Corinthians 1:16).

To the objection that baptism requires faith, theologians reply that adults must have faith, but infants receive habitual faith, which is infused into them in the sacrament of regeneration. As to actual faith, they believe on the faith of another; as St. Augustine (De Verb. Apost., xiv, xviii) beautifully says: "He believes by another, who has sinned by another."

Question -- what do you believe for those perpetually insane? Do you baptise them?

And, the proof that the Early Church DID baptise infants is from here by St. Cyprian of Carthage

In respect to the case of infants, which you say ought not to be baptised within the second or third day after birth, and that hte law of ncient circumcision be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptised and sanctified within the eighth day,we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man.. we ought to shrink from hindering an infant, who being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh accrding to Adam, he has ontracted teh contagion of the ancient death as its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins -- that to him are remitted, not his own sincs, but the sins of another (Adam)

And from Origen (c 185 to 254)

The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed teh secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit

and from St. Augustine in Epistle 28

Who is so impious as to wish to exclude infants from the kindgom of heaven by forbidding them to be baptised and born again in Christ? This the Church always had, always held; this she received from the faith of our ancestors; this she perserveringly guards even to the end

Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without the participation of His Sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they can not possibly be vivified in Christ,"

Scripture, Tradition and History hold to the viewpoint shared by Orthodox, Orientals, Catholics, Lutherans and Anglicans that baptism is NOT just a symbol and that it is valid for infants.

from Tim Staples book Surprised by Truth

I toook Jimmy Swaggart's challenge: 'We would like to challenge the Catholic Church to demonstrate that the saints and martyrs of the first three hundred years accepted the beliefs and practices of the Catholic Church as it exists today' I acquired a copy of J.B. Lightfoot's The Apostolic Fathers and devoured it. I went to the library on campus and began to study the ives and works of other Fathers of The CHurch, reading their writings in the original Greek and checking their theological arguments against what the Greek text of Scripture said. I researched all of the early councils of The CHurch. To my dismay, all I found was Catholic truth. I could not believe Brother Jimmy couldd have read what I read and issued his 'challenge'. The writings of the Church Fathers clearly show that the early Church ws Catholic long before the time of the Emperor Constantine"

The 'symbolic view' of Baptism originates as a doctrin of the Anabaptists movement which broke away from MArtin Luther's reform efforts

Both Catholicism and Orthodoxy hold to the sacramental and efficacious nature of baptism.

And yet those outside the Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Churches ask: are we saved by faith or by baptism? Are we saved by beleiving or by the Spirit? These are false dichtomies.

If youwant to receive salvation, justification, new birth and eternal life, what does scripture say?
By believeing in Christ (Jm 3:16, Acts 16:31)
By repentance Acts 2:38, 2 Pet3:9
By baptism Jm 3:5, 1 Pet 3:21, Titus 3:5
By the work of the Spirit Jm 3:5, 2 Cor 3:6
By declaring wit our mouths Lk 12:8, Rom 10:9
By coming to a knowledge of the truth 1 Tim 2:4, Heb 10:26
By works Rom 2:6, Jame 2:24
By grace Acts 15:11, Eph 2:8
By His blood Rom 5:9, Heb 9:22
By His righteousness Rom 5:17, 2 Pet 1:1
By His Cross Eph 2:16, Col 2:14

We can't take out any ONE of these and proclaim it ALONE as themeans of salvation. The Bible is a book in it's entirety -- no one part contradicts the other. To restrict this to faith alone or works alone is false -- salvation, justification is more than that, Can we be saved without faith? No. Can we besaved without repenteance? No. Withotu God's face? No. Without Baptism? No. Without the Holy Spirit? No

These are all involved and necessary, you cannot dismiss one as the means of obtaining eternal life, neither can ONE be emphasized to the exclusion of another. They are all involved in salvation and entry into The CHurch. The CHurch does not divide these various elements of salvation up, overemphasizing some while ignoring others: rather, she holds them all in their fullness

Thank you so very much for sharing your concerns and insights, dearest sister in Christ!

Your objections are significant to me because you are on the front lines engaging atheists, particularly the anti-Christs, just about every day. I'm confident that you love God surpassingly above all else. You don't let the atheists get a pass.

However, complaints about remarks directed at religious authorities by persons who all the while ignore similar or worse remarks directed at God Himself, ring hollow to me.

After all, regardless of how one perceives his religious authority's place in the metaphor of the vine, the Father is the husbandman and Jesus is the vine.

I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every [branch] that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. - John 15:1-5

I wonder how much of a difference it would make if all the effort that went into arguments among the people who agree on Who God IS were instead spent on the front lines, witnessing to the ones who don't know or don't care and refuting the ones who hate God or want to remove His Name throughout our country?

God's Name is I AM.

Worthy points, for sure.

Interesting question.

imho, some are called MORE to this arena, some MORE to that arena others MORE to another arena.

I have contended a LOT with pagans, animists, unbelievers, atheists, agnostics, Communists, Buddhists, Hindus . . . And still do . . . as it falls in my lap, to do so . . . whether at the univ, online, at the mall or impromptu at some restaurant.

For some time, it has not felt, seemed like, appeared to be my priority brief to emphasize those arenas in time and energy.

My . . . leading, maximum effectiveness, facility, anointing, peace in my spirit . . . etc. has not felt like it was nor appeared to be in those arenas and directions—not on the net, anyway.

The classroom is different and a LOT trickier on those scores—yet, also—with a greater aresenal due to the face to face aspect. I may have more effectiveness in the classroom—yet with far smaller numbers. I think the raw numbers of ‘above average anointed sentences & paragraphs’ are very likely to absolutely hereon.

The Body of Christ is riddled . . . as are so many of us as individuals . . . with fractured focus . . . divided loyalties, inordinate-unfitting-preferences, sinful pollutions and bondages of mind and action; . . .

We are exhorted that God will begin cleaning house with the Body of Christ first.

LOVING GOD AND ONE ANOTHER, as you have articluated well so often are the ultimate, most urgent, paragon, most redemptive, most crucial . . . priorities.

Exhorting one another daily; iron sharpening iron; warning a brother headed for the ditch; picking one another up from falling . . . are fitting, worthy, urgent and timely tasks.

And, there are luke-warm ‘believers’ of every label . . . as well as pagans of every label watching from the sidelines and borders . . . and pondering . . . with the enemy’s distractions, distortions and seductions.

Clear calls to right Biblical thinking and actions are warranted for such folks. Warnings about the cliffs, chasms and pits on all sides are fitting and crucial.

There are Jeremiah’s and there are Barnabases . . . Paul’s, Peter’s and Timothy’s. I’d prefer to be a Barnabas and have often been called such by those who know me best. Yet, I often feel most compelled in some contexts to be more of a Jeremiah . . . and have often been called so as well by those who know me best.

I doubt Jeremiah had a very big cheering section or support group. I don’t think even the Israelites acclaimed him Prophet or Pontificator of The Year at the annual awards banquet.

Rush L talks about being a warm & friendly ‘fuzz-ball’ . . . all the while wielding a very hefty verbal golf club right and left. I think of myself as a very warm, fuzzy, generous-hearted, empathetic and compassionate tender-hearted teddy bear full of hugs and kisses, too. I suspect some feel and see only the sharp spear of very pointed words.

I don’t know how to apply myself any differently to the ‘thrownness’ I feel the Lord casts me daily into. When occasion presents itself of His scheduling to contend more with atheists, agnostics and the like, I certainly do—whether it’s hereon, ATS (far more plentiful there—and far more resistent, ‘lost causes’ there, as well); or the univ.

Most don’t see, hereon, directly the ‘binding up of the brokenhearted’ believers etc. that I engage on hereon. Most of it is via FREEPMAILS.

So, Dear Sister in The Lord Angel-Gal, I don’t know how better to apply your wistful point, observation, exhortation. If you ever feel that The Lord has given you an exhortation I can apply better or more specifically on that score—please feel free—I’ll certainly take it immediately to prayer for possible application.

And to be more succinct for you, here's details from New Advent which explains it better than I did

Holy Scripture is therefore not the only theological source of the Revelation made by God to His Church. Side by side with Scripture there is tradition, side by side with the written revelation there is the oral revelation.

This granted, it is impossible to be satisfied with the Bible alone for the solution of all dogmatic questions. Such was the first field of controversy between Catholic theologians and the Reformers. The designation of unwritten Divine traditions was not always given all the clearness desirable especially in early times;

however Catholic controversialists soon proved to the Protestants that to be logical and consistent they must admit unwritten traditions as revealed. Otherwise by what right did they rest on Sunday and not on Saturday?

How could they regard infant baptism as valid, or baptism by infusion?
How could they permit the taking of an oath, since Christ had commanded that we swear not at all?

The Quakers were more logical in refusing all oaths, the Anabaptists in re-baptizing adults, the Sabbatarians in resting on Saturday. But none were so consistent as not to be open to criticism on some point. Where is it indicated in the Bible that the Bible is the sole source of faith? Going further, the Catholic controversialists showed their opponents that of this very Bible, to which alone they wished to refer, they could not have the authentic canon nor even a sufficient guarantee without an authority other than that of the Bible.

Calvin parried the blow by having recourse to a certain taste to which the Divine word would manifest itself as such in the same way that honey is recognized by the palate.

And this in fact was the only loophole, for Calvin recognized that no human authority was acceptable in this matter. But this was a very subjective criterion and one calling for caution. The Protestants dared not adhere to it. They came eventually, after rejecting the Divine tradition received from the Apostles by the infallible Church, to rest their faith in the Bible only as a human authority, which moreover was especially insufficient under the circumstances, since it opened up all manner of doubts and prepared the way for Biblical rationalism.

There is not, in fact, any sufficient guarantee for the canon of the Scriptures, for the total inspiration or inerrancy of the Bible, save in a Divine testimony which, not being contained in the Holy Books with sufficient clearness and amplitude, nor being sufficiently recognizable to the scrutiny of a scholar who is only a scholar, does not reach us with the necessary warrant it would bear if brought by a Divinely assisted authority, as is, according to Catholics, the authority of the living magisterium of the Church. Such is the way in which Catholics demonstrate to Protestants that there should be and that there are in fact Divine traditions not contained in Holy Writ.

In a similar way they show that they cannot dispense with a teaching authority, a Divinely authorized living magistracy for the solution of controversies arising among themselves and of which the Bible itself was often the occasion. Indeed experience proved that each man found in the Bible his own ideas, as was said by one of the earliest reforming sectarians: "Hic liber est in quo quaerit sua dogmata quisque, invenit et pariter dogmata quisque sua." One man found the Real Presence, another a purely symbolic presence, another some sort of efficacious presence. The exercise of free inquiry with regard to Biblical texts led to endless disputes, to doctrinal anarchy, and eventually to the denial of all dogma. These disputes, anarchy, and denial could not be according to the Divine intention

Moreover it was enough to look at the Bible, to read it without prejudice to see that the economy of the Christian preaching was above all one of oral teaching. Christ preached, He did not write. In His preaching He appealed to the Scriptures , but He was not satisfied with the mere reading of it, He explained and interpreted it, He made use of it in His teaching, but He did not substitute it for His teaching. There is the example of the mysterious traveller who explained to the disciples of Emmaus what had reference to Him in the Scriptures to convince them that Christ had to suffer and thus enter into His glory. And as He preached Himself so He sent His Apostles to preach; He did not commission them to write but to teach, and it was by oral teaching and preaching that they instructed the nations and brought them to the Faith. If some of them wrote and did so under Divine inspiration it is manifest that this was as it were incidentally. They did not write for the sake of writing, but to supplement their oral teaching when they could not go themselves to recall or explain it, to solve practical questions, etc.

St. Paul, who of all the Apostles wrote the most, did not dream of writing everything nor of replacing his oral teaching by his writings. Finally, the same texts which show us Christ instituting His Church and the Apostles founding Churches and spreading Christ's doctrine throughout the world show us at the same time the Church instituted as a teaching authority; the Apostles claimed for themselves this authority, sending others as they had been sent by Christ and as Christ had been sent by God, always with power to teach and to impose doctrine as well as to govern the Church and to baptize. Whoever believed them would be saved; whoever refused to believe them would be condemned. It is the living Church and not Scripture that St. Paul indicates as the pillar and the unshakable ground of truth. And the inference of texts and facts is only what is exacted by the nature of things. A book although Divine and inspired is not intended to support itself. If it is obscure (and what unprejudiced person will deny that there are obscurities in the Bible?) it must be interpreted. And even if it is clear it does not carry with it the guarantee of its Divinity, its authenticity, or its value. Someone must bring it within reach and no matter what be done the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities between the word of God and his reading. Now, authority for authority, is it not better to have recourse to that of the Church than to that of the first comer? Liberal Protestants, such as M. Auguste Sabatier, have been the first to recognize that, if there must be a religion of authority, the Catholic system with the splendid organization of its living magisterium is far superior to the Protestant system, which rests everything on the authority of a book.

The prerogatives of this teaching authority are made sufficiently clear by the texts and they are to a certain extent implied in the very institution. The Church, according to St. Paul's Epistle to Timothy, is the pillar and ground of truth; the Apostles and consequently their successors have the right to impose their doctrine; whosoever refuses to believe them shall be condemned, whosoever rejects anything is shipwrecked in the Faith.

Cronos quoted New Advent, saying:

“however Catholic controversialists soon proved to the Protestants that to be logical and consistent they must admit unwritten traditions as revealed. Otherwise by what right did they rest on Sunday and not on Saturday?

How could they regard infant baptism as valid, or baptism by infusion?
How could they permit the taking of an oath, since Christ had commanded that we swear not at all? “

Catholic controversialists proved nothing of the kind.

1) First, in regard to Sunday rather than Saturday. The laws given to Israel through Moses were just that, laws given to Israel. They were not binding on the Gentiles, as the New Testament clearly teaches. Those laws that are binding are stated by Jesus and the Apostles. The commandment regarding the Sabbath is the only one not reiterated in the New Testament. Did someone just forget? Or was it not repeated purposely, in view of what was coming and had been fulfilled in Christ? There is much more to be said here. But it is all taught in the Holy Scriptures.

2) Second, baptism of infants is presupposed. If “all nations” are to be made disciples through baptism and teaching, Matthew 28:18-20, just as “all nations” will stand before the judgment seat of Christ on the last day, Matthew 25:31-46, the burden of proof lies on those who would assert that “all nations” does not mean all people. There is much more to be said here as well, regarding also immersion/infusion (pouring). But it is all taught in the Holy Scriptures.

3) Third, legitimate oath taking was never forbidden. Illegitimate oath taking is self-appointed oath taking. If lawful higher authority requires an oath, it is rendered by the Christian. Case in point: “And the high priest arose and said to Him, ‘Do You say nothing? What is it these men testify against You?’ But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, ‘I put You UNDER OATH by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God?’ Jesus said to him, ‘It is as you say ...’” (Matthew 26:62ff.) I dare say Jesus did not sin in accepting the authority of the high priest, sinful as he was. He was none the less the lawful high priest of Israel and one who could legitimately place someone under oath. All such regarding proper oath giving and taking is taught in the Holy Scriptures.

I am sorry, Cronos, but New Advent is quite incorrect in its assertions here.

The Catholic Church puts forth a false dichotomy, one in which “tradition” is imagined to be something other than, and supplemental to, what is taught in the Holy Scriptures. Tradition, in the right sense, is nothing more than the oral passing on of the same doctrines of the written Scriptures. This false dichotomy, in part, is what the Reformers rejected as part of Rome’s wandering from apostolic doctrine, and rightly. Tradition is to be respected, which is something that some on the Protestant side fail to do. Some, I said. Honoring tradition is nothing more or less than honoring father and mother (God never said that we were to cease honoring them at their death). Thus, Jesus, for example, was constantly pointing Israel back (repent!) to their fathers, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob etc. Thus also, the last verse of the Old Testament: “And he (the Elijah who was to come, i.e. John the Baptizer) will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to THEIR fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a curse.” (Malachi 4:6)

Please note that all this can be shown from the Holy Scriptures without even using St. Paul, who sharpens all these points.

From Eerdman's commentary on the Bible -->, note, this book (2 Peter) IS inspired and IS authentic scripture and canon,

2 Peter is the last will and testament of the apostle Peter, but was probably composed within two decades after his death. No book in the Bible had more difficulty establishing itself in the canon. As late as Eusebius (d. 371) some did not consider 2 Peter to be from teh Apostle or part of the canon (Hist. Eccl.); doubts contined for centuries (e.g. Calvin and Luther). Even if
1. Early Christians rejected pseudonymous letters,
Peter's name begins the letter (2 Pet 1:1-2) and
3. Petrine reminscences do appear (1:16-19), the letter is actually in the form of an ancient testament, a literary form consistently connected with pseudonymity (Bauckham). This literary form was well known in the first century and, if noticed, would have led readers to suspect pseudonymity. (For other early testaments, cr. Genesis 49, Deuteronomy 31-33; Matthew 24-25; John 14-16; Acts 20:17-34; 2 Timothy; 2 BAruch 78-86; Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs)

There is clear evidence that 2 Peter is either dependent on Jude or on a later revision of a tradition used by the author of Jude and then by the author of 2 Peter. That 2 Peter and Jude reveal some striking similarities (2 Pet 2:1-8 with Jude 4:16; 2 Pet 3:13-14,18 with Jude 24-25; 2 Pet 1:5 with Jude 3; 2 Pet 1:1-2 with Jude 1-2; 2 Pet 1:13 with Jude 5 and 2 Pet 3:13-14 ,18 with Jude 24-25) is not the whole story: these passages contain highly unusual terms and expressions and make dependence likely. Though the evidence is not as clear as it is in the Synoptic Gospels, a majority of scholars think 2 Peter is a reapplication of Jude (Elliott; Meade; Neyrey; Watson)

A few items in 2 Peter indicate that this "epistolary testmaent" was put together after the death of Peter. 2 Pet:3-4 indicates that
a.sufficient time had elapsed for doubts to arise about the parousia, suggesting a decade or two after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, an event around which a large number of Jesus' prophecies centered and after which some of the early Churches may well have expected the coming of the Son of Man (cf Matt 10:23; 24:29-31; In 1 Pet 4:7 imminent expectation still dominates the horizon; cf. also 1:13; 4:17-19), and that
b. The first generation of christians (here called "the fathers") had already died

Assuming liberally that the first "fathers" lived seventy years, we can infer that the fathers would have died by AD 80. The crisis created by the destruction of Jerusalem and the death of the apostles was no doubt serious. 2 Peter attempts to come to terms with this crisis.

Finally the style, grammar and theological concerns of 2 Peter are at some remove from those of 1 Peter. The vocabulary is unusual, the style of the letter is characterized by an exaggerated rhetoric and almost grotesque use of redundancy, and its theology diverges from that of 1 Peter in its concerns, center and orientation (Elliott; Bauckham). The letter probably emerges from a Hellenistic Jewish context, possibly in Asia (Neyrey: 118-20; Webb), while 1 Peter breathes a different atmosphere. The allusion to Paul's "scriptural writings" (cf. 3:15-16) is also more probably in the later part of the first century. IT is then reasonable to think that an associate of Peter later put down "Petrine" thougths in an attempt to speak apostolically to a time that was subapostolic (Bauckham, Meade). In what follows we shall refer to the author as the "Apostle" meaning by this only that the author had an association with Peter
BThe author of 2 Peter speaks prophetically against recent trends in some churches. His concerns are:
1. a denial of the parousia and skepticism over the return of Christ (1:16-18; 3:4, 5-10) and
2. an ethical permissiveness not unlike that of Epicureanism (2:2,10,13,18,19-22; 3:2, 15-16) The False teachers (2:1) that propagate these two ideas are causing division (2:1-3,14,18) and may well claim speficalm, Spirit-inspired interpretation for their views (1:20-21). It is possible that their views contained some heterodox beliefs about Jesus Christ (2:1,10) and they seem to have questioned the likelihood of the final judgement (2:3-10). We must bear in mind, however, that this picture of the opponenet has been drawn by the author and is in part rhetorical.

Peter's message in this context is that his readers should
1. hold fast to the ancient faith taught since the days of the apostles (1:12-21;3:1-2)
2.live a life of holiness and love (1:3-11;3:11-18) and
3. be aware of the consequences of those who have repudiated the ways of God (2:1022)
BOutline: In general, the Apostle begins his letter with a typical ancient greeting formula (1:1-2), an introductions (1:3-15)(exordium) with both theme (1:3-11) and occasion (1:12015), the argument itself (1:16-3:13) (probatio), and a conclusions (3:14-19) (peroratio).

1. Yes, then if this is not binding, why celebrate on Sundays? Why not on some other day?
2. I posted an early post here that argues against that. Here it is

When the Redeemer declares (John 3) that it is necessary to be born again of water and the Holy Ghost in order to enter the Kingdom of God, His words may be justly understood to mean that He includes all who are capable of having a right to this kingdom. Now, He has asserted such a right even for those who are not adults, when He says (Matthew 19:14): "Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such." It has been objected that this latter text does not refer to infants, inasmuch as Christ says "to come to me". In the parallel passage in St. Luke (18:15), however, the text reads: "And they brought unto him also infants, that he might touch them"; and then follow the words cited from St. Matthew. In the Greek text, the words brephe and prosepheron refer to infants in arms.

and

Moreover, St. Paul (Colossians 2) says that baptism in the New Law has taken the place of circumcision in the Old. It was especially to infants that the rite of circumcision was applied by Divine precept. If it be said that there is no example of the baptism of infants to be found in the Bible, we may answer that infants are included in such phrases as: "She was baptized and her household" (Acts 16:15); "Himself was baptized, and all his house immediately" (Acts 16:33); "I baptized the household of Stephanus" (1 Corinthians 1:16).

To the objection that baptism requires faith, theologians reply that adults must have faith, but infants receive habitual faith, which is infused into them in the sacrament of regeneration. As to actual faith, they believe on the faith of another; as St. Augustine (De Verb. Apost., xiv, xviii) beautifully says: "He believes by another, who has sinned by another."

And, the proof that the Early Church DID baptise infants is from here by St. Cyprian of Carthage
In respect to the case of infants, which you say ought not to be baptised within the second or third day after birth, and that hte law of ncient circumcision be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptised and sanctified within the eighth day,we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man.. we ought to shrink from hindering an infant, who being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh accrding to Adam, he has ontracted teh contagion of the ancient death as its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins -- that to him are remitted, not his own sincs, but the sins of another (Adam)
and from Origen (185-254 AD)
The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed teh secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit
and from St. Augustine
Who is so impious as to wish to exclude infants from the kindgom of heaven by forbidding them to be baptised and born again in Christ? This the Church always had, always held; this she received from the faith of our ancestors; this she perserveringly guards even to the end

Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without the participation of His Sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they can not possibly be vivified in Christ,"

3. Good point on 3

The Church does not say that Tradition is different from Scripture -- it isn't, it complements scripture. Scripture is written tradition, but not all -- The NT is the child of The Church -- the primary author IS the Holy Spirit -- God is the author. The writers were a part of the Church and the Church had the authority to recognise the inspired books and the authority to close the canon. Without the authority of The Church, how does a Protestant know which books belong in the New Testament? Reformed theologian R.C> Sproul says in Essential truths of the Christian faith that the Protestant position can at best claim "a fallible collection of infallibile books"

If Christ wanted us to have an infallible colleciton of writings, he needed to do one of two things:
1. Give us an authoritative list of writings, dictated by an apostle that would form the canon to provide certainty, so there would be no confusion OR
2. Establish an infallible community, a Church that could give us a list of infallible writings so we could be certain.
The did not do the first, and the Protestant viewpoint denies the second

The NT is the collected and inspired writings of the apostles and their immediate followers. It is not however, the sum total of all their teachigns and traditions

St. Epiphanius (315-403) wrote "It is needful to make use of Tradition; for not everything can be gotten from Sacred Scripture. The holy Apostles handed down some things in the Scriptures, other things in Tradition" (Panarion)

St. John Chrysostom (347-407) "So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours"

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.