Scott Cooper

@JohnMB69 You're just ignoring all the actual evidence.

@imscoop22 1. We don’t claim only newborns were baptized. The question is whether the Church baptized children prior to personal profession of faith. 2. Household baptisms are cumulative evidence, not standalone proof. This includes: A. Scripture repeatedly presents whole households 1/

When you hear infant baptism is against Scripture, remind these Anabaptist wannabes that 70-80% of all Christians strongly reject this claim. That’s all Apostolic Churches & most mainline Protestant (Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, & Methodist). Then show them this infograph.

@JohnMB69 *where

@JohnMB69 There were no children in "households" were people weren't even married abd there are zero recorded "family" baptisms in the early church so they obviously didn't view those as prescriptive passages.

@garrettham_esq That's reasonable. I agree on the caricature but I think there is legitimate debate on practical consequences of certain things. It would be much easier to have discussions both ways without such labels thrown around.

That's fair enough, but I'm not arguing that that the Roman bureaucracy was as formal or extensive in the 4th and 5th centuries as it is today. Clearly it wasn't and to say otherwise would be to overstate the case. I'm also more comfortable with the messiness associated with the historical papacy than perhaps Protestants think a Catholic could be. My point is simply that the Church declared Pelagianism and anti-Pelagianism to be heresy, however it is you want to describe the means by which the Church acted in its more nascent state, and it still holds it as such. And my underlying point remains that the Church does not now, nor has it ever, affirmed a works-based salvation.

Protestants say Catholics believe in works-based salvation. Yet, the Church condemned that belief at Carthage in 418 and a subtler version of it at Orange in 529. Trent reaffirmed this rejection. The Church herself refuted the caricature 1,100 years before Luther.

"Councils of bishops in Numidia and Africa Proconsularis condemned [Pelagius'] teachings and forwarded their judgments to the Bishop of Rome. Innocent accepted most of their points, but his successor, Zosimus, failed to discern a problem in the confession of faith submitted by Pelagius, so no action was taken in Rome. The African bishops responded with a technique they had learned in their conflict with the Donatists. After condemning Pelagius’s teachings once again, in May 418, they secured an imperial condemnation, lobbied prominent Roman Christians, and thus achieved Zosimus’s cooperation." J. Patout Burns Jr. and Robin M. Jensen, Christianity in Roman Africa: The Development of Its Practices and Beliefs (Chicago: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2014), 88. These are Catholic scholars—they hardly describe authoritative "ratification" as it is presented by modern apologists. Rome and Carthage were always close and the draw was as much imperial "authority" as ecclesial (they gradually became one in the same after 380). And again, it was mostly meaningless in other parts of the empire.

I take your point and appreciate the difference between a regional and ecumenical council, but I have to push back if your claim is that they didn't have significant influence. The pope ratified the findings of both councils, and Plagianism and the later semi-Pelagianism these councils condemned did not subsequently gain a foothold in the Church.

@SeanNea71990714 @l_vliet72077 @ShamelessPopery Your so-called result is both false and unrelated to Sola Scriptura. This is just a brainless apologetic narrative to avoid intelligent discussion.

@imscoop22 @l_vliet72077 @ShamelessPopery "Relying on your own false definitions"--can you read? I wasn't giving a definition. I was giving the RESULT of sola scriptura. And it most certainly does give nothing but chaos.

The problem of Sola Scriptura... Watch the full episode here: bit.ly/4u1cLfy

@SeanNea71990714 @l_vliet72077 @ShamelessPopery No, it doesn't. Relying on your own false definitions to have an argument just means you have no real argument. But it indoctrinates the masses and brings in donations...

@imscoop22 @l_vliet72077 @ShamelessPopery Yes it does. The reason that it has to do with interpretation: sola scriptura does not provide any official interpretations from a visible infallible Church--which IS given in Catholicism. Instead everyone is the official interpreter and all claiming the "Spirit"--result: chaos.

@Cath_SteelMan *one institutional church—in which a modern notion of "rites" now exists. They are separate but related things. The old "chaos" argument is way overstated and overused, as is the myth that Catholic is "catholicity."

It seems the goalposts here have moved from “rites are modern” to “there was no institutional Church.” But ecumenical councils, bishops, apostolic succession, excommunications, patriarchates, and canon debates only make sense if Christianity already understood itself as a visible institutional communion. Ancient diversity is compatible with Catholicity however chaos is not.

No, your test fails itself. Let me elaborate: First, it is not the “Roman Catholic Church” as if every Catholic is Roman. It is the Catholic Church. Roman is one rite within the Catholic Church. Second, saying “Rome teaches a false gospel” is ironic, because the written Gospel came to you through the Church’s apostolic life, preaching, liturgy, bishops, councils, and canon. You are using the Church’s book to accuse the Church that preserved it. Third, Matthew 15 is not Jesus condemning all tradition. That would condemn Scripture itself (2 Thess 2:15) because Paul commands Christians to hold fast to apostolic traditions, both spoken and written. Jesus condemns human traditions that nullify God’s command. Catholic doctrine does not nullify Scripture. And your “not in Scripture” test collapses immediately. The Trinity, the two natures of Christ, the canon of Scripture, sola scriptura, sola fide, and many versions of predestination are not stated in the exact Protestant formula either. Everyone uses theological reasoning from Scripture. The real question is: whose interpretive authority did Christ leave behind?

The Inquistion has tended to be exaggerated and used too polemically, but the French wars of religion were a good bit lopsided. I don't think on the whole, one can equate violence in Protestant territories with that of Catholic ones, especially considering they were still functioning with things like canon law systems inherited from the church. But it also wasn't a "Protestant vs. Catholic" thing as it's typically portrayed, at least not in today's terms that are more doctrinal. The church-state divide was the positive development in this regard. It had other consequences but that's another discussion.

@BibleInContext1 3,000 - 5,000 people were killed during the Inquisition over 300 years. Not great, but not “countless” and about the same number of people Protestants killed for heresy over a shorter period of time.

Catholics often claim that if you study “Church history,” you’ll become Catholic. What they rarely mention is that this same history includes the bloody Inquisition and the persecution of countless Christians who refused to bow to Rome. Notice the sleight of hand: the issue isn’t merely studying their version of “church history,” but studying Christian history in its entirety not just through the lens of one institution’s biased narrative.

I understand exactly but the point is there was not one institutional "church" through history, as is assumed. Even the ostensibly imperial "church" formed in 380 did not extend beyond the empire, though Christianity did. I wasn't suggesting the Syro-Malabars began in the 20th century, which is precisely the point. It is when they were subjugated according to the modern notion of Rites.

Well I’m not claiming the Syro-Malabars used the modern canonical category “Eastern Catholic Church” in the first century. I’m saying diverse apostolic liturgies existed without requiring separate churches. Additionally, the Syro-Malabar Church didn’t begin in the 20th century. Its restoration from Latinization developed then, but its East Syriac liturgical tradition is ancient. But this actually proves my point: Catholic unity is not Roman liturgical uniformity. You’re confusing the modern classification with the ancient reality. The label developed later, but the liturgical diversity did not.

@SeanNea71990714 @l_vliet72077 @ShamelessPopery You just proved you don't understand it. It has nothing to do with interpretation.

@l_vliet72077 @ShamelessPopery Catholics do understand the nonsense of sola scriptura. It is false and totally irrational. And the ones who believe in it all bicker and roar with contention and divide into endless sects--but oh! Every one of them claim it is "clear" and "the Holy Ghost told me!"

@l_vliet72077 @ShamelessPopery I think he actually does understand, which would make dishonesty and apathy operative. But that's what attracts donations.

@ShamelessPopery When Catholics don't understand Sola Scriptura they show their true colours. "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1Cor. 2:14).

Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with the canon of Scripture, it regards the *nature* of Scripture. You claim "ex cathedra" statements as another source of infallibility, yet you have no canon of such statements. Apply the same standard. And rather than obsessively attacking something with the same old straw man, try crafting a real argument. The only way a "solely" infallible authority can really be disproved is by demonstrating positively that another source of infallibiliy exists...but you won't do that. It's just the same lame arguments, over and over, using your own definitions, because the argument doesn't work without you setting false parameters.

@ChadTheBad It fails on your first premise because you're assuming false definitions, as explained. One with basic reading comprehension and less arrogance could have put that together.

So, I gave you what’s known as a syllogism. Do you know what that is? Being the brilliant mind that you are (and me the big dummy), you should be well prepped to know how to respond to a syllogism. My 10 year old does, so you should be fine. Either my premises are wrong, or I have snuck in a fallacy somewhere—a category error perhaps. Should be easy for you to identify. Then we are playing on the same difficulty level. For example, kicking and screaming about ex cathedra and exactly how many there are, is an easily recognizable red herring. The floor is yours.

That's the same old tired Catholic Answers argument. It has nothing to do with boundaries or interpretation. It describes the *nature* of Scripture as an unique authority. You don't apply the same standard to "ex cathedra" statements. You're perfectly content to say they are likewise infallible, while having no idea how many have been made.

Sure, here’s the argument. MP: If Sola Scriptura is true, then every essential Christian doctrine (including SS itself) must be contained in Scripture, either explicitly or by clear implication. mP: Sola Scriptura is not contained in Scripture, either explicitly or by clear implication. C: Therefore, Sola Scriptura is false.

Where does Scripture teach that Scripture alone is the sole infallible authority for Christians?

@Cath_SteelMan You're imposing anachronism. The Syro-Malabars would have happily existed with their liturgy...until the 20th century.

Distinct liturgies do not equal separate churches. No one is claiming Antioch, Alexandria, or the Maronites were “Roman rite.” That’s the category error. The Catholic claim is not uniformity under Roman liturgy but rather unity in catholic communion, with Rome holding primacy. Respectfully, ancient diversity hurts your argument, not mine.

@Cath_SteelMan Not under Rome they weren't.

@imscoop22 rites are not a modern invention. The terminology may develop, but distinct liturgical traditions in the Catholic Church are ancient.

@gavinortlund That is NOT what I picture you listening to while doing yard work but I'll trust your intuition here and give it a shot. LOL

here's a good one: youtu.be/X9NjB38sDvQ?si…

Lately I've been doing yard work and listening to songs about the second coming. (Good strategy for sanity.) A hopeful thought keeps emerging: the crazy tension we feel increasing around us is bringing us closer to that Day. It's not random. It's part of the process. Our Lord even spoke of "birth pains" (Matthew 24:8). Of course we don't know the timing. It could be distant or near, I have no idea. But the pain in the meantime is temporary and purposeful. Every day we are nearer to seeing Jesus in the clouds. Happy thought.