Give me an example. And I'll show you that the Church condemned such practices in each case. Where does the Church condemn infant baptism?
Besides, who within the Church was ever in a position to refute it. You can't even refute it to this day, or you will be ex-communicated
Infant baptism wasn't declared infallibly dogmatic until the Council of Trent in the mid 1500's. Certainly during the first few hundred years, you'd think ONE PERSON would write about its incorrect usage in the Church??? Many bishops were in the "position" to question this or any other teaching of the Apostles. The Church constantly is fighting against such people. That is odd that you make this statement.
"We're right because everyone agreed" (under threat of being kicked out and eternally damned).
That is a woeful understanding of the development of dogma. There is a period of time before something is considered infallibly dogmatic where theologians of good will can offer understandings that may not match the future's dogmatic declaration. Contemporary theologians would then have chimed in to refute such a person - but NOT excommunicate! People are given numerous opportunities to recant of false teachings before excommunication occurs. The point is that we'd have records of such initial disagreements - even if a person subsequently recanted (such as Berengar and the Eucharist in the 1000's). Infant baptism is clearly a unanimously held teaching until people began the Sola Scriptura idea in the 1500's.
I am content with what the Bible actually says.
The Bible never says that baptism is only for believers, and secondly, we don't know EVERY person who was baptised in the Bible was of rational age. And finally, you are under the misguided presumption that "only what is in the Bible is to be believed by Christians" - an anti-Scriptural concept. Once you get beyond this false tradition of men, things will fall into place better regarding your understanding of historical Christianity.
Wow! Then that must mean that the scriptures don't speak to you on any kind of a personal level at all.
Lots of books "speak" to me. That is the purpose of a writer in most cases! Does that make Shakespeare was inspired by God?
I don't think the Church is wrong in everything, just those things in which it disagrees with the Bible.
You mean YOUR understanding of the bible. It is clear that your understanding is not the only way one can read Scriptures.
I don't think the Church had anything to do with the writing of the Bible, therefore I do not need its witness.
LOL! Prove to me, without the Church, that what you have is ONLY God's Word, and nothing more, and ALL God's Word is included within its pages... Yours is the most ridiculous statement I have heard. Without the witness of the Church, you would think that Jesus was married and had kids. That is what other "gospels" say? Would you then be an advocate of the Da Vinci Code?!
I rely on God Himself because I am not so forced.
Right. God speaks directly to you in a vision... "If even an angel of light teaches a gospel other than mine, let him be anathema". Your Gospel is not the same as the Church, so what does that say about your "vision"?
You have already been shown why we can know that the Bible is God's word from within the Bible itself, and you disagree. OK.
You haven't shown me anything but your assertions that it is so. Merely saying "Philemon is God's Word" doesn't mean anything without the Church's witness to this fact. When if I was to say I thought God was telling me that the Gospel of Thomas is from God? You'd think I was wrong, wouldn't you? Why??? Explain yourself.
Isn't that why Paul wrote many of his letters, to guide them and correct error? And yes, I will be up front and say that I am unaware of anything in the Bible that specifically prohibits infant Baptism by name. I just take inference from what is there
So where is the correction against this incorrect practice of infant baptism? We don't find it anywhere! Wow...
Regards
Give me an example. And I'll show you that the Church condemned such practices in each case. Where does the Church condemn infant baptism?
Oh, sorry. I wasn't specifically referring to the Catholic Church, I was referring to the human experience in general. I was thinking of things like "leeching" or those who held that the earth was flat. My point was that with humans, such things are always possible, and that just because something is popular now and accepted doesn't equate with it being correct. Even for whatever practices you are thinking of in the Church, there must have been some time before that when they were not condemned.
The Bible never says that baptism is only for believers, and secondly, we don't know EVERY person who was baptised in the Bible was of rational age.
Yes, that's true. And, as I have said before, I am not "offended" by infant Baptism. With my current beliefs I allowed both of my children to go through it, and they were very nice ceremonies. No problem. I'm sure that many, if not most, Protestant churches practice it. I just see that the closest match to what we do see in scripture is to a believer's Baptism. I'm curious as to what you would tell an adult Catholic who had been Baptized in a Catholic Church as an infant, who came to you and said he wanted to be Baptized by immersion as a believer because he felt that it more closely matched how Jesus did it.
Lots of books "speak" to me. That is the purpose of a writer in most cases! Does that make Shakespeare was inspired by God?
If it would even occur to you to compare the Bible to any other book, then that tells me something. (I do know you believe the Bible is infallible and important.)
You mean YOUR understanding of the bible. It is clear that your understanding is not the only way one can read Scriptures.
I freely admit that. :)
Prove to me, without the Church, that what you have is ONLY God's Word, and nothing more, and ALL God's Word is included within its pages... Yours is the most ridiculous statement I have heard. Without the witness of the Church, you would think that Jesus was married and had kids. That is what other "gospels" say? Would you then be an advocate of the Da Vinci Code?! (emphasis added)
No matter how many times I repeat my position, I don't think you are going to get it. God, by Himself, caused the Bible to come into existence. He used certain men as scribes to do the physical labor. Certainly, this included targeting different audiences (in the main) at times, and the inclusion of measures of individual personality. That was His will. ... John is clear that not everything there is to know is in the Bible. But, I believe that everything we need to know is. ... You credit the Church for saving us from blasphemy such as that Jesus was married. I credit God instead, for not allowing it to become part of the Bible. Man-centered vs. God-centered.
Your Gospel is not the same as the Church, so what does that say about your "vision"?
The only "vision" I have is in the Bible. Remember, your "vision" needs severe corrective lenses. :)
When if I was to say I thought God was telling me that the Gospel of Thomas is from God? You'd think I was wrong, wouldn't you? Why??? Explain yourself.
In your example, I would say you are wrong because God did not move the Church to include it in the Bible, and because it contains contradictions to other scripture that God did move the Church to include in the Bible. (I'm just assuming there are contradictions because I know you don't like that "gospel", even though it was supposedly from an eyewitness.)