a few comments in response:
1. re: mocking derision. when i see storm clouds gathering, i know it’s going to rain. when i hear someone say abraham lincoln was the first president of the us, i know they don’t know american history. and sadly, when i read someone say Irenaeus didn’t practice infant baptism, i know i am dealing with someone who doesn’t know Church history. here is the quote for anyone who didn’t read my prior post:
“He came to save all through Himself; all, i say, who through Him are reborn in God: INFANTS, and children and yoths.....” ( my emphasis ) Irenaeus learned the faith from Polycarp, who learned from John. Ireneaus taught Hippolytus, who said infant baptism was taught by the Apostles. does anyone think Polycarp didn’t know if the Apostle John baptized infants? does anyone think Ireneaus didn’t know what Polycarp though of infant baptism? was Hippolytus dreaming, when after learning the faith from Irenaeus, he wrote “the apostolic tradition” in 215ad and said infant baptism was from the Apostles?
2.”our common ancestors in the faith” i see this thinking a lot. for someone to be your “common ancestor”, you need to hold the same “common faith” the church fathers believed in baptismal regeneration, do you? they believed in infant baptism, do you? they believed in the Catholic Church, do you? they believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, do you? i could go on, but i think my point is made. how could they be your common ancestor in faith if you would not have worshipped with them and they wouldn’t give you the Eucharist even if you did worship with them since you deny it is the Body of Christ?
3. infant baptism is a minor issue, REALLY??? you should have told the Baptists that, they seemed to have caused a lot of trouble in the 16th century over a “minor issue”
4. the core of the problem is a complete misunderstanding of what baptism is. baptism is for the remission of sins, receiving the Holy Spirit and placing us “into Christ”. no one was ever told to be baptized as an “outward testimony” ( please provide Scripture for this assertion ) or to be obedient ( again, Scripture please ) as i proved previously these are 16th century inventions. John, Polycarp, Ireneaus and Hippolytus all believed in the Catholic doctrine of baptismal regeneration.
5.” i don’t dispute the concept developed....” translation, i hope it developed, because if it didn’t, i have a different Gospel than traditional, historical Christianity. what is the proof of this “development”? THERE IS NONE. History shows the Catholic Church dealt with many heresies in the 1st four centuries after Christ, but there is NO RECORD of any “bible christians” who opposed the Catholics in this regard. WHY NOT, WHERE WERE THEY? again, imagine the controversy that would ensue if one day a local parish was practicing “believers baptism” and then the next day the priest was baptizing a baby!!
5. “it is not the act that saves us” who are we to believe in this regard you or the Holy Spirit who thru Peter, tells us baptism does save us? Baptism is not done by us, it is not a “work” Baptism is done TO US, by the Holy Spirit, through the Body of Christ on earth, the Church.
6. “ i follow His teachings as laid out in Holy Scripture”
REALLY? Jesus prayed in John 17 that His followers be One, as a testimony to the world. Do you follow Your Lord in this regard or do you seperate yourself from His Church and contribute to the religious confusion and make all kinds of accusations against the Church? Paul exhorts the Corinthians to be One and not have any dissention. Do you follow Paul in this regard? Many will say Lord, Lord, and think they were being obedient, but they are really in rebellion against the Lord.
Finally, i wish to comment on this whole notion of former Catholics and alleged former Catholics being attacked on FR for disagreeing with Catholic doctrine. Speaking for myself, i have no problem with anyone disagreeing with the Church on anything IF THEY CORRECTLY STATE THE TRUE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE. I can’t think of one “former” or alleged former Catholic who has ever correctly stated the Catholic doctrine, never. so i will read Catholics worship Mary, bread, statues, Catholics aren’t allowed to read the Bible, Catholics believe we are saved by works, Catholics think the Pope is perfect, Catholics think we will be God, etc etc. If i ever read a former Catholic correctly state Catholic doctrine, i think i would pass out!! i would feel they would deserve a prize! But then i realize that if they really did understand Catholic doctrine, they would still be Catholic! so i for one, will continue to expose the phony former Catholics who obviously learned what they know about the Faith from someone who they themselves have no clue or a comic book tract of some kind.
but i love the discussion, because i believe someone is going to actually look up Irenaeus and see what this defender of the faith in the second century actually believed ( and that’s a very good thing for Christ and His Church! )
It is the utmost in irony or hubris or willful ignorance, I can’t decide which, for the dissenters to hold fast to those doctrines which they can accept and reject others on their own “feeling” of being led by the Spirit from Scripture.
The hubris, irony or ignorance is that they hold to those doctrines citing Scripture, which came to them from the authority and tradition of the Church that they reject.
In fact, any orthodox doctrine of faith they have, came to them from the Catholic Church. The “reformers” didn’t reinvent the wheel, they warped the old one and called it good.