I am cautious on tradition. While it can give an explanation to scripture, it may not be the correct one. The pharisees taught traditions of men, and interpreted scripture through that lense.
@@truthtransistorradio6716 Jesus established His church through tradition, which his disciples carried throughout the world. In the fourth century, the construction of the Bible as we know it today (ot and nt) was finalized and joined church tradition. Christian tradition was not established by anyone other than Jesus Christ.
@@patriciagouveia2616 The bible is my foundation for truth. When you talk about tradition, which one? Jesus rebuked the pharisees for teaching the traditions of men. I believe some things have crept in over the years that have become traditions. Even by the 3rd and 4th centuries, some Greek philosophy and Gnostic doctrines had come in.
Jesus promised to send the Paraclete to guide His Church in all truth. He never said that he would write and send a book from heaven. The NT books were written to be read to the laity on the Lord's Day during Mass or the "Breaking of Bread". This was the practice in the early Patristic period, and has been ever since. The Bible is like a loaded gun. It can be dangerous and even fatal if put in the wrong hands.
@@johnzuma4688 The power to bind and loose was given to Peter and the apostles and their valid successors through the sacrament of Holy Orders (Apostolic Succession). The reason why Protestantism comprises tens of thousands of denominations of disparate persuasions is because a loaded gun has been placed in too many wrong hands of people who solely rely on the fallible principle of private judgment. John Salza explains what the terms binding and loosing mean in a Jewish context. “’Binding and loosing’ (Heb. asar ve-hittar) were common rabbinical terms used by the Jewish religious authorities of the day. These terms described their legislative and judicial authority to ‘forbid’ or ‘permit.’ This included rules of conduct (halakah) for God’s people, as well as issuing definitive interpretations of Scripture, oral tradition, and the whole of the Mosaic law. In short, the terms described the Pharisees’ authority over doctrinal and disciplinary matters.” I can assure you that Jesus, Mary, and Joseph didn't keep a copy of the Torah on their kitchen table. They had to go to their local synagogue to hear the written word of God by His appointed teaching authority.
Our Lord says (from 9/4/2007 message in 'god speaks will you listen'): "At Baptism (the Sacrament of Baptism), you receive My Divine Life (Sanctifying Grace) in your soul. The Holy Eucharist (the Sacrament Holy Eucharist) continues to nurture My Divine Life in your soul and promotes spiritual growth. Without My Presence in your life, your soul can die. How many plants survive without continual water? Does an infant survive without its mother’s food? Thus, your soul is no different. When you seek other means to satisfy your soul, you are telling Me in your pride, you know better than God. If you seek Myself in other religions or denominations who deny My Eucharistic Presence, you will not find Me and you will deny the food for your soul.
For truly, Satan will do everything to distract and prevent you from participating in the Holy Mass, because he knows the Truth. If you eat My Flesh and drink My Blood worthily, you shall have everlasting life (John 6:54). For I prophecy to you, when you deny My Eucharistic Presence, you are contributing to the abomination of desolation foretold by the prophet Daniel (Matt 24:15, Dan 12:11) in bringing about the reign of the man of sin (2 Thes 2:3-4). For the abomination of desolation, is a belief in the protestant doctrine of the Mass, as My Blessed Mother has explained through many messengers. You are either with Me or against Me (Matt 12:30, Luke 11:23). You either have faith in All My Words, or you have no faith at all."
I appreciate this video. It was explained very well. I also agree with the comments here about "bible alone" and "faith alone." The bible never said that "the bible alone" is the source of all truth. In fact, St. Paul says on 2 Thessalonians that the early Christians should hold the traditions that they have learned, whether by word or by epistle. If a tradition was taught by word, it likely would not have been written in the bible (epistle). Otherwise, there is no need to mention both "word" and "epistle." The bible also never said that "faith alone" is necessary for salvation. Faith is necessary for salvation. But is not the only requirement. Our Lord Jesus said in Matthew 25 that those who will be saved are the ones who gave our Lord food when He was hungry, drink when He was thirsty, and so on. Our Lord also told the parable of the Good Samaritan to explain His response to the question regarding what must be done to have eternal life. That parable is not about faith but about loving our neighbor.
The Bible is not silent on infant baptism unless you actually believe "households" had no infants at all within them. Acts 15:16 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.
Historians demonstrante that it was not until at least the second century that babies were baptized. Inferring that "household" means that they baptized babies is an argument from silence. Silence which lasted for centuries
@@ike991963second century begins in year 100, so silence lasted 1 century, but more accurate to say roughly 70 years since the church doesn’t start until 33-34 AD.
Doug, I wish you had been around 40 years ago to lay this argument on my fundamentalist EX-Catholic EX-fiance (unfortunately I've had to emphasize the "EX"). It would have been incredible to see the expression on her face. Keep doing the Lord's work, bro'. G*d bless ya!
I was baptized when I was 7. I certainly was not a biblical scholar then, nor did I realize how much the world would hate the Christian lifestyle. Saying that a person should be make a conscience decision to be baptized is silly. I think most people have no idea what they're getting into when they're baptized. This is definitely only the beginning - the initiation - of being a Christian. Welcome to the journey no matter your age.
Knowing Jesus and knowing everything about following Jesus are not the same. Likewise, Abraham believed God and "went" but it was decades later that God asked him to sacrifice his son. One need not be a biblical scholar to know Jesus and to start to trust Him.
There are good reasons as to why infant baptism became an accepted practice. Up until the second half of the last century infant mortality was high and babies were baptised at the first opportunity to ensure their salvation should they die in childhood. Not to do so could have serious consequences for the child after death. Those who reject infant baptism are looking at it and interpreting scripture through 21st century eyes and ignoring the historical background to the practice. Many parents want their child doing and a naming or dedication ceremony is just seen as their child missing out on something important.
@@jeffreypaulross9767 You have to understand the doctrine of original sin to see why this is the case. We all bear the guilt of Adam and are undeserving of God's love and his salvation. This fuelled the teachings of the ancient and medieval about sin and judgement where an unbaptised baby did not go to heaven and did not receive the benefits of the resurrection. Because infant mortality was high in the ancient and medieval world there was some urgency to baptise babies so that they received the Holy Spirit and were given a new beginning. Part of the ceremony is exorcism to cast out sin which is not so easy to see but in the ancient rites was more prominent and salt was used. You have to put aside your 21st century eyes and look at God as taught in the Middle Ages who was seen as a judge rather than someone who loves. Most could not read so had to accept what the church taught. It was common in many churches to have a large wall painting of the last judgement to keep them in line.
I love this!! When you started I was thinking where is he going with this then wow you delivered!!! Thanks for making this video! I also love the websites you referenced, when I left the Catholic Church and was looking for the true church I visited these sites looking for answers. Thanks be to God for people like you to show me that I had left it and helping me to get back to the true church that Christ established!
As you said about infant baptisms then Communion also applies. However the Bible also says that whole families were baptized. So the logic holds up for Catholics too. The issue of men is often addressed by saying then men was a poetic verbiage to mean proactive people.
They usually deny it on a principle that is contradicted within the Bible: how can the parents will be credited to their child? This also goes along with that most protestants don't believe in the external transmission of grace through the sacraments
thank you very much Douglas! you help clarified why the scripture alone is wrong by giving the best argument about it. if the principle is wrong (scripture alone), any claim based on it will give wrong conclusion. A giant help in my efforts to counter protestant beliefs. God bless you all the more!
Premise1 In order to participate in a religious practice with God's approval, we must find New Testament teaching authorizing that practice. False Premise 2 If a practice is not included in God's word it must not be a good work. False Conclusion Babies should be baptized only if we can find statements in the New Testament that show that God want us to practice this. False Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura are both false. I would first ask how is a man able to quote the Holy Scriptures to begin with. This goes back to the issue of authority and proper exegesis. Having a website goes beyond the sacred page, having a worship band goes beyond the sacred page. What constitutes true biblical liturgy? Man refers to mankind. Both men and women have a share in the covenant. This would be true for both the old and new covenants. Matthew 26:28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
So do you think the Catholic Church is authorized to instruct using words and ideas not explicitly mentioned in the Bible? Or, whose liturgy do you trust?
Hello, I'm a catholic but was wondering if brethren is just a general term for men and women? In spanish ellos can mean a group of men and women but is a maculine form word.
Yes it is - in fact in the Greek, "brother" can mean practically any kind of familial (or even non-familial) relationship. The point of my using that as an argument was to show how bad of an argument it is. ;)
" Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Col 2:8
OK, this is clever. I'm going to change my tongue in cheek argument when they ask me "Where do you find infant baptism in the Scripture" from "I also have a question for you, and if you answer it I will tell you where I find it. 'The age of accountability...'" to communion of women. This is much, much better and forces them to lay the groundwork for infant baptism. It also gave me a way to troll my wife. "Honey, I have a video that argues women cannot receive communion..."
Luke 18:15-16 15 People *were also bringing **_babies_** to Jesus* for him to place his hands on them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. *“Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."* Also: Acts 2:38-39 38 Peter replied, “Repent and *be baptized, **_every one of you,_* in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is *for you and **_your children_* and for all who are far off-for all whom the Lord our God will call. Take note: be baptized EVERY ONE... ...for you AND YOUR CHILDREN! Amen and God bless
Any more than 1 is a problem, but that number is highly inaccurate. Unfortunately, this urban legend continues to be cited even by Catholic apologists. The source is the World Christian Encyclopedia which says, "World Christianity consists of 6 major ecclesiastico-cultural blocs, divided into 300 major ecclesiastical traditions, composed of over 33,000 distinct denominations." So first, this huge number does not just include Protestants. Second, to get to this number, the Catholic Church is said to have 242 "denominations"!
@@paulcapaccio9905 Sure it has - a lot. but the question is not about change, it is about legitimate development vs. illegitimate distortion. Read Newman.
If you apply the same logic then, do the scriptures say women “cannot” take communion, meaning, is their a law specifically against women taking communion. It simply does not mention women specifically, however when “mankind” is used this word includes male and female. When Jews and Gentiles is used it includes both male and female.
Right! The goal of this video was to show what happens when the flawed principle behind an argument against infant baptism is applied to women's communion. Yes, women were included in communion even though the Bible doesn't specifically mention them - as is also the case with children and baptism. :)
The apostle Paul wrote " When I am baptized I am buried with Christ " That is why we baptize our children. It means the life of Christ enters into us in baptism and Jesus told the disciples you must be baptized by water and spirit so there.
Argument on infant baptism. Acts 16:25-34. Paul and Silas were imprisoned. At midnight a great earthquake freed all the prisoners from their chains and opened up all the doors. The jailer fearing punishment for losing the prisoners attempted to kill himself. Paul stopped him telling him we are all still here. The jailer asked how he could be saved. "He was baptized at once, with all this family." - Acts 16:33. In the same vein Acts 16:11-15 - Lydia and all her household were baptized. Examples of whole households being baptized. No qualifiers about infants or examination of each household member. Paul didn't challenge the authority of Lydia or the jailer in having their whole household baptized based on their own belief. There is an echo of this in Genesis 17. Abraham makes a covenant with God. Based on that covenant every male member of Abraham's household is circumcised. Abraham uses his authority as head of household to make the decision. Just as Lydia and the Jailer use their authority to make the decision on baptism for their households. Furthermore there is Luke 18:15-16 under the heading Jesus Blesses the Children - "Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it; they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God." Jesus didn't say get those children away from me for they know not what they do.
All that and not one word that actually demonstrates a non-believing individual was baptized. If anything, bringing up circumcision is evidence that it is not necessary to baptize children. Girls aren't circumcised, their entrance to the covenant comes through who? 1 Corinthians 7:14 - because of a believing spouse "they are holy"
Interesting point, but Paul had Junia and Lydia, meaning when he was addressing all Christians, he didn't always mean men, despite favoring the use of "brothers" for fellow practitioners. Therefore, when Paul's vision of Jesus is saying "you" to Paul & Christians, he doesn't only mean men. And for further context, I think Paul is saying that the prayer and drink meal isn't being done right because he's referring to the Kiddush, the Jewish daily prayer practice (esp. Shabbat), which would be done with the whole household even if the patriarch leads the prayer, thanking god and blessing the wine, then everybody drinks, including the wife and children. Paul took this Jewish service about God and made it about Jesus, while mixing in some of his Greek influence with the Orphic religions based on Dionysus and Zagreus, which became popular in the Mediterranean starting in the 500s BCE. This seems to be where Paul gets the idea of drinking deity blood, whereas in Judaism drinking blood is expressly forbidden (even though the communion isn't with real blood). And in those Orphic rituals, the sacraments are taken by everyone. As I understand it, Paul's new Kiddush is one of those things that made Pauline Christianity seem especially Hellenized to most Jews at the time (and probably part of why Paul, as he admits, had much more success preaching to gentiles).
The point of this video is to show what happens when the flawed principle behind an argument against infant baptism is applied to women's communion. Yes, women were included in communion even though the Bible doesn't specifically mention them - as is also the case with children and baptism. :)
@@DouglasBeaumont I do understand that, though I think you understand that if you make a remotely convincing argument for what the Bible sees as the orthodox position, people will earnestly take that up. There are plenty of modern dude-bro Christians who say women shouldn't be allowed to be ordained or speak in church or be leaders, based on only a verse or two. I think you're responding to that mentality, but inadvertently fueling it.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. - Galatians 3:28
I expect some Protestants would try to bring in another perhaps overarching principle like "there is no male or female in Christ Jesus." But Paul's context and application of that principle is actually quite specific, and a broad application would conflict with how Paul views hierarchy in the family and Church.
Sure, but I'm just dealing with the simple fact that no woman is said to receive communion in scripture. If they can then it must be argued on a different principle, which is fine.
3:13 "If a practice is not included in God's word, it must not be a good work." Well, creating a website is also not included in the New Testament, so... Good video, by the way!
If they have eyes to see, here is infant baptism mentioned in the NT, unless so foolish you defend there are no infants in households. Acts 16: 33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized.
Wow, this "if it's not in the bible EXPLICITLY..." is so ridiculous, especially when bible alone-ist (made up word I know) are reading in ENGLISH, far removed from the original Hebrew and Greek (and St Jerome used the literal translation for Latin, so as not to inject "personal interpretation". So 'abortion' is not mentioned, explicitly, in English, so it's allowed. In fact, while the real and hard-coded Catholic doctrine condemns homosexuality (the act, not the individual whose soul can only be judged by God), there are rebel laity and clergy who use this exact same argument - Jesus did not explicitly mention homosexuality, and thus all OT references were "cultural" and "patriarchal". Extend this logic further, and transgender surgery is not condemned, neither is stem cell research using aborted babies. This is why we need a teaching authority - "whatsover you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatsover you loosen on earth will be loosed in heaven". Because, the bible was never written as a car repair manual with index. On infant baptism, while it doesn't say it explicitly, read Acts - the WHOLE family is baptised. Catholic theologians (the good ones) always say, you cannot understand the NT without the OT, because it is not a clean break, it is a continuation. Jesus says I came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. And in Judaism, the whole family is Jewish, the boys are circumcised as infants. You don't say "I'll wait till they reach 15, and decide for themselves whether to accept Yahweh and the Prophets or not, before circumcision. So Catholic teaching merely continues. Plus, if baptism saves (Jesus said to Nicodemus, and St Paul repeats - baptism now saves you), would you want your precious children to be saved, or not? What if there's a car accident, a plane crash, a plague, a 9/11, before they can "make up their own minds"? Crazy thinking....
Women did not have to be present. Since women are perfectly received at the Catholic Mass..they too..receive communion. It is for men and women alike. No difference..period.
The strongest argument i can find for infant Baptism is Luke2:21. The circumcision of Jesus. Jesus is welcomed into the covenant of Moses on the eight day. It is a small step to welcome Christian children into the new covenant as infants by Baptism.
Exodus 12 and 13. Where it speaks of consecration of the firstborn and then explaining the faith later when they ask. Seems like infants didn't have a choice in the old covenant. My question to protestants is if God wanted infants in His old covenant and Paul said the new covenant is built on better promises than the old then why does God not want infants in His new covenant now?
In Acts 2:38, Peter says, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” The Greek translation literally says, “If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”). This actually proves that babies are baptized based on their parents’ faith and were in the New Covenant church in the apostolic time. Further, Peter specifically points out in the following verse that baptism is given to children as well as adults: “Those far off” refers to those who were at their “homes” (primarily infants and children). The word “children” that Peter uses comes from the Greek word teknon (τέκνον). Teknon in Greek means a young person from birth to adolescence and is glossed as ‘child’ or ‘children’ in the plural. The word does not refer to future adult posterity. In fact, Luke 1:59 proves that teknon includes infants. Here, John as a “teknon” (infant) was circumcised. We see in Acts 21:21 that “teknon” is used for eight-day-old babies. So baptism is for infants as well as adults just as circumcision is for the Jews and proselytes. Concerning whether women should be allowed to receive Holy Communion, using the Last Supper for an argument against this practice can also be applicable to all men, except those who were the apostles and perhaps also the men whom they appointed to succeed them. After all, only the apostles ate the Seder meal with Jesus. Ironically, Protestants would then have to concede that there was and is Apostolic Succession. Anyway, Argumentum ex silentio or argument from silence is a logical fallacy where a conclusion is based upon (Biblical) silence or (Biblical) lack of evidence. This fallacy is also committed by Protestants who deny the Assumption of Mary.
The ridiculous claims of Protestants that everything that's not in the bible is not allowed. Please answer this question. It you or your parents are married, please show us where in the bible it says to be married in front of a pastor or priest in a church. Please explain if all those marriages are illegitimate or pagan??
@henrybayard6574 Another example of your argument is the Church of Christ. This church sings praises to God as do practically all churches. But according to this particular church, “…The New Testament does not instruct us to use mechanical instruments in worship and there are no examples in the New Testament of Christians using them in worship.” * So, no. It wasn’t in the Bible. Therefore, “we” don’t do that. My question is, isn’t this like any other extreme of the cherry-picking of scripture? * from the website of the Timberland Church of Christ, in an article posted by Harold Hancock.
There are passages about baptizing entire households. Acts 16:15 even writes of baptizing a woman with her household. You would have to deduce that these instances exclude babies and husbands because they are not mentioned? Or would you consider household would mean everyone … which could be every type given the wider definition of a home and its occupants. So I don’t find the argument that there is no mention of child baptism as being definitive as household members can easily include children and babies. Same for communion … when they talk of the body of the church they do not exclude women or children from it. The OT prelude to the bread of life seems to imply that families of Israelites were fed by mana from heaven. Even the New Testament prelude of the loaves and fish to feed 5000 does not exclude women and children even if they are not mentioned specifically. People who interpret the bible on just specific use of words when the economy of creating text back then would have used words sparingly to save costs … I wouldn’t find it conclusive. Especially with other ancient Christian writings in the first and second centuries that indicate the need for things like infant baptism and communion to be a part of the church.
I’m being the devils advocate over here : “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:” Romans 5:12 KJV wouldn’t this argument be applicable to this as well ?… so no death to women. Therefore in terms of interpretation it’s flawed.
Infants are also commanded to repent (!) (vs 37)and be baptized in that verse?? Saving themselves from that wicked generation? (Verse 40) Man is a word that is generally understood to include women and there are times where translations include men and women and are correct in doing so (although probably less of a word-for-word translation). Reading through romans i am sure that the word "man" is used over and over or "mankind" and no one reasonably thinks this is only referring to men. You can do better than that! These arguments are not going to hold up against a good baptist/protestant argument!
@@DouglasBeaumont You don't think the divine transcends logic? Even miracles defy logic. There's a fine line in trying to use logic alone to prove the divine or determining what is salivic by the fragmentary record that is known as the New Testament.
Well, we read in John 1 about how in the beginning was the Word (Logos in Greek), etc, as if to say the divine and logic are one in the same. Faith should not contradict reason, rather they both assist each other in the assent to truth. I’ve heard that when it comes to miracles, it’s not that they defy logic or violate the laws of the universe (which God wrote himself), but that they reveal something new about it, or those laws are suspended in some way. Due to the Fall, creation has been corrupted and disordered; perhaps miracles are God’s way of restoring the proper order in the world, because people were never meant to be blind, deaf, paralyzed, etc, but ultimately never meant to die, and this is the whole point of the resurrection from the dead.
Of course a Protestant has to argue FOR illogical ideas because Protestantism IS illogical. If it’s not in the Bible it’s not true. Bible does not list books that belong in Bible. Therefore the Bible must by definition be not true Prots go by Bible alone. They have no Bible. How do prots go by a collection of books that by their first principles CAN NOT be determined? Ergo: they have zero claim to Truth.
I'm a no expert but here is my argument against this. John Chapter 4 Jesus and the Woman of Samaria. Jesus asks the woman of Samaria for water (they are both by a water well). Jesus has a conversation with the woman and in the course of the conversation he says - "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, 'Give me a drink,'' you would have asked him and he would have given you living water." - John 4:10 Jesus further elaborates "Whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst; the water that I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." - John 4:14.
First, the video is showing the illogic of a fundamentalist anti-infant baptism argument, so it doesn't really need to be answered on those grounds. But, second, I don't get how this story relates - but I'd like to!
Doug, there is nothing in the argument that I find flawed. I agree with you, but I also would like to add in defence of babies being baptised. Baptism as we all know washes away original sin that we all have inherited, if Baptism is not permitted even to babies which protestant find abhorrent that babies should be baptised then how are they worthy of Heaven since sin is not permitted. Also, the Garden of Eden was and is regarded as Heaven on earth. After the fall of Adam and Eve they could not enter The Garden of Eden but neither could Cain and Abel when they were babies or young children prior to having the age of reason. Without the age of reason, then one has not committed any sin ie a child younger than 4, for instance, can not understand good and evil, and yet Cain and Abel were not permitted into the Garden. So if Cain and Abel as young children were not permitted into the Garden of Eden which certainly is not Heaven how can protestant believe that children at the age of 4 be permitted into Heaven where like the Garden sin was not permitted to dwell if the Garden of Eden was closed to unbaptized babies and children why would Heaven be open to unbaptized babies and children???
If you look at the Greek when it says in 1 Corinthians 11:27, "Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup." Isn't the word for man, ἄνθρωπος which refers to humanity as a whole rather than one gender over the other? And aren't all the other words like 'brethren' and 'him' similar? If so, then this argument is as ridiculous as it sounds at it's initial mention... though you may find an example that fits your argument - but this one doesn't seem to be it.. as if it's talking about humanity then it is reasonable to assume that Paul means humanity and not merely men, as he could've said men... if I'm not mistaken..
Correct. The goal of this video was to show what happens when the flawed principle behind an argument against infant baptism is applied to women's communion. Yes, women were included in communion even though the Bible doesn't specifically mention them outside of the generic "anthropos" - as is also the case with children and baptism. :)
And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” (Acts 16:31). Its one of many examples. If you See the Passing through the Red Sea as a type of Baptism, whole Families pass through the Red Sea.
Oh my goodness people!!! The title is what you could call 'click bait' to prove a point! It's tongue in cheek to prove a point. If you just read the title and comment without listening to the whole video, you are just trying to be a troll. Don't comment until you listen to the whole video and the paradox he is trying to show. Of course he doesn't really believe women can't take communion!!
Well the easiest route is to follow the Church's Tradition - but if it came to argument, I would say that because women are included in the New Covenant, they therefore should receive communion.
Also because Paul affirmed women as part of the covenant in Galatians 3:28 There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.
@@xaosgeist No, for Catholics authority relies on Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, & the Magisterium, or teaching authority of the Church. What is considered Sacred Scripture was listed by several writers throughout the 1st 300+ years, it was in the 1st Council of Constantinople in 381, & in several councils afterwards, that an authoritative list was officially made. The Sacred Scriptures were dogmatically closed at the Council of Trent 1545-1563 after Luther removed 7 books from his Bible, though the 7 were still kept within his version. It wasn’t until the 1800’s when a Bible Society, to lower the cost of printing, removed the so-called “Apocrypha” from the Protestant Bible altogether. So as you can see even the Sacred Scripture, the Bible, depended ultimately on Sacred Tradition(the multiple centuries of books/letters listed as belonging to Sacred Scripture) & the teaching authority to come into being in the form in which the majority of Christendom has it. Sadly, Protestants have a corrupted version of the Bible & miss many profound prophecies of Jesus & teachings in Judaism.
@@DouglasBeaumont So your principle is the same one that you reduced to absurdity. Women are only allowed to receive communion because it says so in the Bible.
Can you explain what you mean here please? The stance he critiques in this video is that if something isn't affirmed in scripture, it isn't allowed. In his response to your comment he doesn't use this principle. @@xaosgeist
Jn20:17 the risen Lord appears to the women first and commissions them to tell the apostles that he's risen. Of course the Apostles don't believe them, leading to Peter running to the tomb and the doubting Thomas story. In Rm16:1, Paul commends Phoebe, a deaconess from Centuria. When Patrick evangelised Ireland, Rome was unable to provide sufficient and timely numbers of male priests, so Patrick ordained women. These female deacons and priests performed baptisms and other sacraments. Though we don't have evidence, it's probably safe to assume that they administered communion.
The bible itself answers the question why the argument "If its not in the bible, therefore.." John 21:25. Those people pushing for that argument are in effect saying Jesus lied.
As in many ignorant societies women were not considered in most decisions, if not all of them. If the adult males in a household are able to receive Communion then the women can also receive.
To be clear, the point of this video is to show what happens when the flawed principle behind an argument against infant baptism is applied to women's communion. Yes, women were included in communion even though the Bible doesn't specifically mention them - as is also the case with children and baptism. :)
Your examples and interpretations of the Bible to support your argument are weak. “Brothers” are often used generically to apply to both men and women. This is well established by NT and Greek scholars. Many modern translations reflect this. The examples you quoted from Acts and Paul’s epistles certainly included women, unless you were to argue that the early church consisted solely of men.
Correct, but they are not "mine." The goal of this video was to show what happens when the flawed principle behind an argument against infant baptism is applied to women's communion. Yes, women were included in communion even though the Bible doesn't specifically mention them - as is also the case with children and baptism. :)
@@DouglasBeaumont But then your argument breaks down, since the second statement of your syllogism would be wrong assuming that the Bible does not refer to women participating in the Lord’s Supper when in fact it does. So the Baptist argument is not one from silence.
It would be interesting to list things that Protestants accept, but for which there is no clear example or command in the Bible. There are probably a lot of these when you start thinking. One example immediately came to mind: can you pray to the Holy Spirit? I quickly googled it for fun and was surprised to find both positive and negative answers. I'm a Protestant myself (a weird Lutheran-Reformed hybrid), but I've been on my way to Rome now, although I'm not quite there yet. Although I still have some things to think about, it is hard for me to see myself as a Protestant in the future. Thanks for the great videos, they've been helpful! God's blessing from Northern Europe, Finland. :)
I did that in my book, not to show off but to make the point you make. It is SO easy to miss stuff like that when you're in it. May your journey continue! God bless.
If possible please try to read, its available in the net: 1 - The Abomination Of Desolation Spoken Of By Daniel Will Soon Be Implemented By Islam’s Antichrist And This Caused Me (Walid Shoebat) To Become CATHOLIC 2 - The Keys to Unlock the Signs of the End - Walid Shoebat (Very lengthy articles, took me 6 months to read)
So you're talking about Protestants accepting things that aren't in the Bible, and your solution is to gravitate towards Roman Catholicism? I'm sorry, but the fact is, you're going to find at least as many non-Biblical and even anti-Biblical tenets and practices in the Roman church as where you came from.
@EyeLean5280 I think what he's saying is the non-biblical stuff accepted by Protestants made him realize that Christianity is not solo scriptura. And, realizing this, he came to Catholicism. Which is perfectly reasonable.
@@EyeLean5280 hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, of highly intellectual and deeply prayerful people have devoted their entire lifetimes over 2,000 years to making certain that Catholic theology and doctrine is aligned with Holy Scripture as perfectly as humanly possible. If there are errors, it would be helpful if you could be more specific.
What about 1 Corinthians 10:14-17? It is clear that ALL partake of the one bread. In context with the previous verses, it does mention fathers but in the ancestral sense. The next verses make it clear that all ate the manna and drank from the rock (of course men, women, and children partook of the manna and water). And Galatians 3:26-29 says we're all sons of God... there is no male or female... we are all one in Christ Jesus. "Brethren" therefore obviously covers all members of the church. I'm not sure what kind of "gotcha" you're trying to pull on us Protestants, but there are many Protestant denominations that approve of infant baptism. I'm personally a believer in credo-baptism (for reasons too difficult to spell out in a UA-cam comment), but please don't box us all together. It is both unfair and logically flawed. God bless.
I understand that not all Protestants argue this way and I was going after one particular argument. Further I did not attribute this argument to Protestants in general. My response was not illogical because that one argument was shown to be faulty because regardless of who else can be assumed to have been included in St. Paul's statement. That, in fact, is the Catholic argument. :)
@@DouglasBeaumont I agree that you did not address Protestants at all in your video. I apologize. I will admit to taking it personally based on other viewer comments. Comments like, how this shows stupid Prots how Sola Scriptura doesn't work. But it does work, and the early church fathers like Clement, Tertullian, and others adhered to it. Perhaps it is important to say at this point that a common understanding of Sola Scriptura reads more like Prima Scriptura. The bible is the primary authority. Bishops and elders may have words of wisdom and doctrine to share, but that point of view must align with the authority of scripture. At this point, some might say, "Well, who gave the bible the authority it has? The Roman Catholic church of course!" But that only rings true on the surface. The writings are authoritative because the books have provenance through history, the words, and authorship. Anyway, sorry for jumping in on your video. It just seemed an odd premise because I don't know of a denomination that doesn't allow women to take communion. So the argument seemed like a straw man that Catholics created to show how the Protestant view of Sola Scriptura doesn't work. God bless.
@@ToeTag1968 Thank you for the retraction. You are correct that this is not a video about sola scriptura per se, rather what it does is show that the Fundamentalist view (at least) of infant baptism doesn't work whether one holds to sola scriptura or not. As to your explanation of sola scriptura and the Church fathers, you might be interested in this: ua-cam.com/video/dGWjqxD5d7A/v-deo.html
@@DouglasBeaumont Thanks for the video link. I think we can agree that the holy scriptures are the primary authority when it comes to teaching and truth. I also think we can agree that some denominations can read scriptures in different ways based either on ignorance or their own agendas. This is where I think going back to the beginning can be extremely important. I believe you talked about, and I've read verses in the bible about accepting scriptures, letters, and tradition as truth and valuable for doctrine. I would agree with that - up to a point. That point being, those first century Christians had their letters published. The oral traditions handed down by the Savior, Jesus Christ, were taught in the early church and then converted into the texts that we have today. There ceased to be a need for any further scriptures or traditions to be added, as each accretion from that original understanding just takes us further and further away - like a 2000 year old game of telephone. Maybe we don't agree on that. But I think we can find some common ground again that some biblical interpretations perhaps don't matter much when it comes to our eternal salvation. All things being equal, will God love someone less if we fellowship on Friday evening instead of Sunday morning? If we use wafers and grape juice as the elements vs a loaf of bread and red wine? Where Catholics would probably want to correct some Protestants is on baptism. Perhaps you feel that some denominations are putting the lives of children in jeopardy by not baptizing infants. As for me, one of the most troubling aspects of Catholicsm is the elevation of Mary to a position of advocacy and mediator. This would seem to be an area where the bible puts her in no such position, but Catholic tradition and extreme mental gymnastic would. Unfortunately, those are topics that have kept us at odds for 15 centuries. It's not we will be able to fix any time soon. God bless you. I am thankful to our God Most High for the areas in which we can agree.
In the original language (is it Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic?), is brethren exclusively male? In latin languages, you use the male form to mean "all," or is that not the case?
Oh my brother. For the Love of all our mothers and sisters and daughters. Could the title of this video get changed to say "Should women take communion?". The declarative nature of the present title "Why woman should not recieve communion" feels a bit on the offensive. And though at the end of the video our lovley ladies perhaps could find some solance. Let's save them from needing this level of apptitude yes?
Once it's rocketing views slow down I'll consider it. :) Unfortunately it is thr nature of UA-cam that videos that do not get clicked do not get watched, and seeming clickbait like this gets clicked. After over 100 comments no ladies seem to have missed the point. :)
Here's another logical problem for non-catholic theologies. 1) Jesus did (paid) for it all on the Cross. 2) There is nothing you can do to earn or effect your salvation. Outside of Initial Justification (where most non-catholics can agree with us on these points); to say our Final Justification is not based on anytyhing we do leads to some logical problems. ------------------------------------------------------ 1) If a person is not saved in the end, is it because of something we did or didn't do, or something God did or didn't do? If it is something on our part; then that would be a works based theology. If it is something on God's part then it is His fault if we are not saved. 2) Even Catholics agree Works do not play a role in our Initial Justification. But if Works (specifically Good Works); don't play a role in our Final Justification then a Just God would either save everyone (Universal Salvation) or no one (Universal Damnation) as anything in between would be an Unjust God. 3) The Bible clearly states that God wills that everyone be saved; yet we know that by the words of Jesus, most are on the road to perdition. That would lead us to think that those who are not saved are damned by their own actions and not that of God. Thus something in our 'works' at least prevents us from being saved. That's just a few I can think of.
Very nice! I think a Protestant would attack premise 2 and say that one could apostatize (= lose / reject one's faith) and that would cover sub-points 1-3 without involving works. Different Prots would explain this in different ways, but it could happen that at time T1 a person expresses and even seems to live as a faithful Christian believer and yet at time T2 they express that they are not / no longer believers. In such a case a person lost their salvation yet salvation remains by "faith alone" because works had nothing to do with it at times T1 or T2. Thoughts?
If Catholic theology makes Catholics worry about whether they did enough good works then the Protestant one makes Protestants worry whether they have had enough faith. How do you know you have enough faith to be saved?
@@barborazajacova7633 "...How do you know you have enough faith to be saved?..." Exactly. Especially when non-caths invoke the 'you were never really saved' clause to explain away fallen brethren when they have their hearts set on OSAS to save them. I am 50+ and have been a practicing Catholic my whole life. In hindsight I have never really worried about doing enough good works. Jesus said whoever does the Will of my Father is my brother and sister. So my overarching concern has been 'am I doing the will of the Father at this moment for the right reason?'.
@39knights exactly. What I meant to say is, we Catholics often get accused of legalism, "works righteousness" and such things, while I have already seen a LOT of extremely scrupulous Protestants that worry about having sinned against the Holy Spirit, or worry about not having the Holy Spirit in them, feeling condemned all the time esp. if they sin, worst of all worrying they have never been saved in the first place... completely lost and hard to be comforted by their pastors who point them to the Scriptures. Without grounding in solid doctrine they could rely on (what is the right Protestant interpretation of the Bible? ) or the sacraments that provide tangible means of receiving God's mercy and grace, this must be almost unbearable at times.
Here’s another angle on the Faith alone argument. We all agree we must repent of our sins. They only think of sins that involve doing something we aren’t supposed to do like lie cheat or steal. Ok fine so far but here’s the problem. What about sins involving NOT doing things you SHOULD be doing? You didn’t pray or worship God before but now you MUST DO those things. You didn’t honor your father and mother but now you MUST DO that. You didn’t helped the poor but now you MUST DO that. You failed to confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord but now you MUST DO that. So the very act of repentance means you are going to start DOING things you MUST DO to be saved. Protestants can be slippery as a greased pig in their attempts to avoid Truth but I can’t wait to see what they say about this. 🤷🏼♂️🤓
Exorcist Fr Carlos Martins shares that the souls of anyone not baptised belong to Satan. Man, woman, child...I'd be getting baptised as early as possible.
When the NT uses anthropos vs aner/andros (or whatever the correct words are), the former being generic, does that broaden the scope of who can receive communion in 1 Corinthians 11? ESV has “let a person examine himself” in v28.
I'm glad that you mentioned that the argument from silence is not the only argument against infant baptism. As a non-Catholic, I would not use silence as my primary argument. Rather, I would argue that baptism in the New Testament post Resurrection is always done at the time of conversion, and only done by someone who is professing faith in Christ. It is a representation of the concept of being born again that Jesus spoke of in John 3. The purpose of baptism is to declare the person's faith and rebirth in Christ. It is not just that infant baptism is not seen in the New Testament, but that infant baptism runs contrary to the purpose of baptism. An infant has not made a profession of faith and does not even comprehend what that is. The infant therefore has no reason to undergo baptism.
That's better but I think a strong argument can be made from Acts where whole families were baptized because of one person's faith, St. Paul's connection of circumcision with baptism in Colossians, and the entirety of Church history up until the Anabaptist cult arose that infant baptism is valid.
@@DouglasBeaumont Regarding the families in Acts, I think that is more an indication that the whole household came to faith, not just the one person. Paul's connection to circumcision in Colossians is interesting, but consider that he is drawing parallels between the two Covenants. Jews entered into the covenant by virtue of the first birth, and infant circumcision was part of that. Those under the New Covenant enter into this Covenant at the moment of faith, at which point we are reborn. As with circumcision, baptism comes at the time of birth as a sign of the Covenant, but for the Christian this is the second birth of the Spirit, not the first birth of the flesh. From my understanding, the first clear evidence of infant baptism being commonplace is the third century. This is significant evidence in favor of infant baptism, but it's still over a century removed from the Apostles, allowing for many unbiblical practices to have crept in.
@@RumorHazi I looked it up just now, and from what I see the Sacrament of Confirmation has the following requirements: must have reached the age of discretion, which is defined as about the age of seven; profess the Catholic faith and desire to receive the sacrament; be in a state of grace; be ready to live as a witness to Jesus Christ. How does this apply to infant baptism?
@@StageWatcher It is the bridge to connect the two sides of the argument. Baptize the infants to wash them of original sin and Confirmation to allow them to affirm their individual faith once the age of reason has been reached. Quite brilliant really. But then, there’s lots of brilliance in Catholicism.
The following is a true story. God told me this story is important for atheists as well as believers to hear...here now is my personal testimony. I was doing my morning ocean swim in shallow water when I was attacked by a shark and I barely made it back to shore. A large part of my thigh was missing and I was losing so much blood...I knew I was a goner and would never be able to make it for help. But then out of nowhere a surfer showed up, he looked exactly like Jesus, the white version. On that day I witnessed a set of foot prints in the sand leading away from where I laid. I called out..."hey Jesus looking dude...are you just going to just leave me here"? And he said.."do you know how much you weigh...hell yeah". And then I died. But don't worry I came back three days later. Proof! How could I have written this if I didn't come back from the dead? The End.
1 Corinthians 11:27 therefore, " WHOEVER", therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. What is the meaning of the word whoever? whatever person no matter who. used in any grammatical relation except that of a possessive. sells to whoever has the money to buy.
John 6:60 King James Version 60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Notice at the Lords supper their were many disciples that followed Jesus ( it says many left, it did not say all left) to say the only ones their were the twelve is false biblical interpretation. “ True apostolic succession” has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church or any other denomination. It has to do with passing on correct information from one man to man, each man teaching other men what is true. (2tim.2:2):Rome has opposed the movement from A.D. 70 to the present. Nothing like a Bible to clear up a college education, and some people never learn.
Um.... First, John 6 isn't the Lord's Supper. Second read one more verse: "66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67 Then said Jesus unto the TWELVE..." This isn't false interpretation - it isn't even interpretation. It's just reading.
@@DouglasBeaumont So what you are saying only the twelve are allowed to receive Jesus. Acts 2:41-42 King James Version 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. 42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. ( Notice there is no support for “ Transubstantiation “ Hmm. ) “No interpretation required, Just reading the scriptures” Read John 20:23 Remit and Retain sins to the twelve Luke 24:33 ( Same event) Remit and Retain sins to the twelve and vs33 plus them that were with them. 2Cor. 2:6-10 Paul was not there when Jesus Breathes the Holy Ghost on them and he was also able to forgive Retain and Remit sins. ( There is no support that only the Catholic Pope , Priests are allowed to Retain and Remit sins)
Communion was instituted at a *Passover Sedar* and women *DID* participate in the sedar. Don't go by a Divinci painting for theology! Jesus' followers included women and they were at the Passover sedar with Him (including his Mother! who would have lit the candles to begin the sedar!)
for some who are related to quach, they may have a margarita or 2. In that country catholics are more evangelical and have rock and roll at 4pm mass.hoever you should be more cautious over there because they are more a little strict in county
This is an interesting argument for infant baptism but it falls short of proving the validity of the Pope. Many Protestant Churches baptize infants 😊. But, still an interesting video.
@@DouglasBeaumont: No I didn’t. I heard what *you’re* saying, but I don’t agree with you. Considering how Christianity is, what you put across as a ridiculous argument actually brings me to the conclusion that it should be more male-oriented.
Here's a different angle, The pattern of baptism in the New Testament was always after people believed & were saved. A baby is not yet accountable for its sin as it cannot yet, so has no need for baptism.
This isn't a different angle - it is the exact point I was making fun of. But let's go with it anyway. We do not know that. We have records of people being baptized but it says nothing of their having come to faith (Acts 16:14-15). Further the command about being baptized to be saved in Acts 2 is directed to whole fmailies not just adults. In any case - the Church taught infant baptism from the earliest times and without debate until after the Protestant Reformation (when only the cult of the Anabaptists taught against it).
Thanks, but I must be missing something here as I can see in Acts 16 where she would have come to faith as in "The Lord opened her heart to what Paul was saying" (came to faith from that) and then she was baptised (and her household) Acts 2 is not directed just at whole families, but more so at Men of Israel vs 22 Men and Brethren vs 29 Men of Judea vs 14 but I suppose there may have been others there, but when they asked "what must we do" Peter said '1 Repent & then 2 be baptised. So, we might just have a different interpretation of these passages. I suppose I just don't know why an infant would need to be baptised, anyway Thanks Douglas👍✌
@gregghumphreys5455 Peter says the promise is for them and their children right after he commands them to be baptized. The reason is similar to why Israel circumcised infants (see Col 2:11-12). Baptism is the way people enter the new covenant.
This is a red herring. The issue with infant baptism is the assertion that baptism saves. Scripture clearly points to repentance as leading to the forgiveness of sins, but this video makes no mention of repentance. How does an infant repent? Matt 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “REPENT, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Mark 1 14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, 15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; REPENT and believe in the gospel Mark 6:12 So they went out and proclaimed that people should REPENT Luke 5:32 I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to REPENTANCE Luke 13:3 3 No, I tell you; but unless you REPENT, you will all likewise perish Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “REPENT and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit Acts 13:19 19 REPENT therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out . . . Baptism is a public and intentional act of obedience whereby a person declares their belief in Jesus as their Savior and Lord which only comes with true repentance. Peter teaches us in Acts 11:46-47 that baptism comes after salvation. …Then Peter declared, 47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, WHO HAVE RECEIVED the Holy Spirit just as we have?
@@DouglasBeaumont So as church traditions change the understanding of scripture changes? Should scripture not lead to church traditions and not the other way round?
The reason why infant need to be baptized. When Adam sinned, physical and spiritual death entered man. Man inherited spiritual and physical death. There are two kinds of sin, Sin of Adam which we inherited and personal sin which we commit. After Adam sinned, heaven was closed and man can't enter heaven . God send his Son to suffer and die for our inherited sin and to reconcile us to God. By the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, heaven is open to man. Every child born is a sinner and if that child is not baptize with water and dies, that infant will go to a place called Limbo but not heaven. They do not suffer and have peace. Jesus did not come to die for our personal sins but for our inherited sins. Personal sins are intentional and requires repentance for forgiveness. Example King David's repentance (Psalm 51) Inherited sin of Adam does not require repentance because it is committed by our first parent and transmitted to generation to generation. Man Except the mother of Jesus is a sinner by birth. John3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Man means everyone including infants. Hope this help. God bless
You and your children- not you and your boy children. 1 Corinthians 12 is written to the church, not just men. The church includes women. So the “you” in verses 26 to 33 refers to all those of the church, not the males in the church the ekklesia. Those who were accepted as belonging to the church - baptized believers. Non-sequiurs in your argument.
Your assumption about who MIGHT be included in what the Scripture actually says does not create a non sequitur in my argument about what Scripture actually says. But even if it did, it would only prove my point against using this type of argument against infant baptism.
What about Ephesians? "There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism" does it mean the practise of a water baptism doesn't mean anything? For there is only baptism by fire of the Holy Spirit? Wonderful logic... First, if you think sprinkling water is Baptising, you don't know the meaning of the word itself. Second, a new testament baptism doesn't apply to infants, because they have no idea what's happening. So If I throw a bucket of water on someone and say: now you are baptised! Does that count? according to your logic it does now. I even think the practice means you have no thrust in the Lord! Isn't it written that children are sanctified by the faith of the parents?. It's a lack of trust and knowledge, uphold by flawed tradition. Veiling people, to see its true meaning. Study the 31 scriptures about baptism, and see if anything applies to you. Romans 10 is a fitting scripture to finish here I think.
Comparing an Old Testament Covenant between God and the people of Israel to a misinterpretation of scripture and useless practise doesn't make a strong argument. It simply doesn't really compare, don't you think? And another question what is in your understanding the "true" church of christ?@sharondavidson7412
The point of this video is to show what happens when the flawed principle behind an argument against infant baptism is applied to women's communion. Yes, women were included in communion even though the Bible doesn't specifically mention them - as is also the case with children and baptism. :)
This same flawed logic is applied in many "arguments" against same-sex marriage. Of course, people tend to be selective in which situations they will extend it.
Yeah I saw something on that during research for this. In fact it is practically the only thing that comes up on a search for women not receiving communion. I gotta say, that's one of the weirder things I've learned about EO.
@@DouglasBeaumont it’s a cultural thing. In North America it tends to be only Uber Orthodox and True Orthodox who will rail on about how we have abandoned Orthodoxy because we don’t tell women who aren’t clean to stay away from the table.
but the bible never says it is our only authority, or that we have to find a truth in the bible to say a statement is true. It also doesn't say Jesus was speaking symbolically in the bread of Life dissertation. In fact, the disciples that left Him say, "these TRUTHS are too hard: and then they left. And Jesus was sad. Where does that leave protestants, who say the breaking of the bread is just a symbol? Which camp are they in? I'm not saying they are bad, but it's confusing. t
I'm a lutheran and have recently been looking into some of the differences, especially Eucharist. I have never reflected upon the literal meaning of the bread and whine until recently. I did not even know that it was so much more "symbolical" in some forms of protestantism, it has never been merely symbolical to me. When I receive the Eucharist, I'm receiving Jesus as literal, divine food for my soul, that is the best way I can describe it. Luther writes in the Small Catechism: "How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things? Answer: It is not the eating and drinking, indeed, that does them, but the words which stand here, namely: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. Which words are, beside the bodily eating and drinking, as the chief thing in the Sacrament; and he that believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins." The meaning I get out of this is that eating and drinking alone is not enough. You also have to believe in what you are receiving. If you rely solely on the ritual alone, but do not truly believe in the sacrament you are not prepared, as Luther points out: "Who, then, receives such Sacrament worthily? Answer: Fasting and bodily preparation is, indeed, a fine outward training; but he is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. But he that does not believe these words, or doubts, is unworthy and unfit; for the words For you require altogether believing hearts." People who say is is just a symbol is implying that it is not necessarily needed, it's just a nice thing to do. But Jesus says he is the bread of life, and I believe it in that literal sense. Our body needs bread, and our soul needs Jesus.
@@DouglasBeaumont One difference between lutherans and catholicism is the bread. In Svenska Kyrkan, the bread is gluten free so that everyone can receive it. From my understanding, it must contain gluten in catholicism because of tradition and transubstantiation. What do you think about this?
It's linguistically possible but there are other ways to understand the verse you're probably referring to. In any case, she is never said to receive communion so it poses no problem for my argument.
And mankind only refers to men? And in many scriptures, God is referred to as he/him/father, therefore God is of male gender? Don’t take these words so literally. I have met God and she is Black. 😊
The goal of this video was to show what happens when the flawed principle behind an argument against infant baptism is applied to women's communion. Yes, women were included in communion even though the Bible doesn't specifically mention them - as is also the case with children and baptism. Thank you for making my point.
A men are mortal, Jesus is a man, therfore Jesus is mortal. Math 15 11 (it is) Not that which goeth into the mouth (that) defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. So only men can be defiled?
I am not sure you're following the thought here. To be clear, the point of this video is to show what happens when the flawed principle behind an argument against infant baptism is applied to women's communion. Yes, women were included in communion even though the Bible doesn't specifically mention them - as is also the case with children and baptism. :)
Was Christ’s body only broken for men? Was Christ’s blood only shed for men? What I’m wondering though, is why someone would get it in their head to pursue this waste of time? Aren’t there weightier matters in scripture that we could be studying and discussing?
The goal of this video was to show what happens when the flawed principle behind an argument against infant baptism is applied to women's communion. Yes, women were included in communion even though the Bible doesn't specifically mention them - as is also the case with children and baptism. :)
I think the principle of this argument is flawed (though I admit I don’t have hard proof). The seemingly male-gendered words in the communion passages are simply shorthand for "people" in Greek, just as they were in English till a couple of generations ago, and just as they still are in the grammatical constructions of many Indo-European languages. That is, when somebody says "mankind", nobody takes it to mean exclusively bodies with penises.
What's the point of baptism, to show what you believe so I don't see any point in baptizing a baby because a baby is incapable of believeing on Christ. It's a pointless ritual
@@DouglasBeaumont the circumcision acts as an outward physical sign of the eternal covenant between God and the Jewish people. Baptism is an outward confession that you have believed on the death, burial and resurrection, a baby can't believe the gospel so it's a pointless tradition. It can be a devastating tradition to those who think they are saved because they were baptized as a baby, that would be a scary place to be.
If you already understand basic logic and want to get right into the biblical arguments, feel free to skip to 2:45. :)
When making a video on a false claim, put the claim in quotations so that people will listen to you. I loved this video btw.
Glad you loved it!
This is why the Church is built on both Scripture and Tradition.
And reason which is the application of both to the current age. The Anglican 3 legged stool.
I am cautious on tradition. While it can give an explanation to scripture, it may not be the correct one. The pharisees taught traditions of men, and interpreted scripture through that lense.
@@truthtransistorradio6716 Tradition in this context is doctrine and the great creeds which alongside scripture shape our faith.
@@truthtransistorradio6716
Jesus established His church through tradition, which his disciples carried throughout the world.
In the fourth century, the construction of the Bible as we know it today (ot and nt) was finalized and joined church tradition.
Christian tradition was not established by anyone other than Jesus Christ.
@@patriciagouveia2616 The bible is my foundation for truth. When you talk about tradition, which one? Jesus rebuked the pharisees for teaching the traditions of men. I believe some things have crept in over the years that have become traditions. Even by the 3rd and 4th centuries, some Greek philosophy and Gnostic doctrines had come in.
Good thing we have the Holy Spirit working through his Church to solve things like this, so we don't have to rely on flawed human logic
Pity your church has produced so much scandal and clergy child abuse, eh?
Jesus promised to send the Paraclete to guide His Church in all truth. He never said that he would write and send a book from heaven. The NT books were written to be read to the laity on the Lord's Day during Mass or the "Breaking of Bread". This was the practice in the early Patristic period, and has been ever since. The Bible is like a loaded gun. It can be dangerous and even fatal if put in the wrong hands.
@@alexchristopher221 Amen! Brother
@@alexchristopher221 I agree, so the Bible should be in hands of all, so that they check if what is taught is actually what Jesus commanded.
@@johnzuma4688 The power to bind and loose was given to Peter and the apostles and their valid successors through the sacrament of Holy Orders (Apostolic Succession). The reason why Protestantism comprises tens of thousands of denominations of disparate persuasions is because a loaded gun has been placed in too many wrong hands of people who solely rely on the fallible principle of private judgment. John Salza explains what the terms binding and loosing mean in a Jewish context. “’Binding and loosing’ (Heb. asar ve-hittar) were common rabbinical terms used by the Jewish religious authorities of the day. These terms described their legislative and judicial authority to ‘forbid’ or ‘permit.’ This included rules of conduct (halakah) for God’s people, as well as issuing definitive interpretations of Scripture, oral tradition, and the whole of the Mosaic law. In short, the terms described the Pharisees’ authority over doctrinal and disciplinary matters.” I can assure you that Jesus, Mary, and Joseph didn't keep a copy of the Torah on their kitchen table. They had to go to their local synagogue to hear the written word of God by His appointed teaching authority.
Absolutely superb talk. This is a great tool to bring down the 'Bible Alone' fallacy.
Thank you.
And the faith alone fallacy.
Our Lord says (from 9/4/2007 message in 'god speaks will you listen'): "At Baptism (the Sacrament of Baptism), you receive My Divine Life (Sanctifying Grace) in your soul. The Holy Eucharist (the Sacrament Holy Eucharist) continues to nurture My Divine Life in your soul and promotes spiritual growth. Without My Presence in your life, your soul can die. How many plants survive without continual water? Does an infant survive without its mother’s food? Thus, your soul is no different. When you seek other means to satisfy your soul, you are telling Me in your pride, you know better than God. If you seek Myself in other religions or denominations who deny My Eucharistic Presence, you will not find Me and you will deny the food for your soul.
For truly, Satan will do everything to distract and prevent you from participating in the Holy Mass, because he knows the Truth. If you eat My Flesh and drink My Blood worthily, you shall have everlasting life (John 6:54). For I prophecy to you, when you deny My Eucharistic Presence, you are contributing to the abomination of desolation foretold by the prophet Daniel (Matt 24:15, Dan 12:11) in bringing about the reign of the man of sin (2 Thes 2:3-4). For the abomination of desolation, is a belief in the protestant doctrine of the Mass, as My Blessed Mother has explained through many messengers. You are either with Me or against Me (Matt 12:30, Luke 11:23). You either have faith in All My Words, or you have no faith at all."
I appreciate this video. It was explained very well. I also agree with the comments here about "bible alone" and "faith alone." The bible never said that "the bible alone" is the source of all truth. In fact, St. Paul says on 2 Thessalonians that the early Christians should hold the traditions that they have learned, whether by word or by epistle. If a tradition was taught by word, it likely would not have been written in the bible (epistle). Otherwise, there is no need to mention both "word" and "epistle."
The bible also never said that "faith alone" is necessary for salvation. Faith is necessary for salvation. But is not the only requirement. Our Lord Jesus said in Matthew 25 that those who will be saved are the ones who gave our Lord food when He was hungry, drink when He was thirsty, and so on. Our Lord also told the parable of the Good Samaritan to explain His response to the question regarding what must be done to have eternal life. That parable is not about faith but about loving our neighbor.
The Bible is not silent on infant baptism unless you actually believe "households" had no infants at all within them.
Acts 15:16 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.
Yup!
Historians demonstrante that it was not until at least the second century that babies were baptized. Inferring that "household" means that they baptized babies is an argument from silence. Silence which lasted for centuries
Love to see support for this claim. @@ike991963
@@ike991963second century begins in year 100, so silence lasted 1 century, but more accurate to say roughly 70 years since the church doesn’t start until 33-34 AD.
I'm not trying to be overly picky, but the description of Lydia's conversion that you mention is Acts 16:14
Thanks Doug, an academic lesson and also theological! What a blessing to have found your channel. It’s like RCIA 2.0!! Blessings to you always 🤟🏻
Welcome!
someone is going to watch this and start restricting communion somewhere injust know it
LOL! You know, the thought occurred to me - but I figure any church that would do that is already so messed up it probably won't matter. :)
Also, this is why the Church was built with Authority.
Glad to see a new video!
Glad you watched it! :)
Doug, I wish you had been around 40 years ago to lay this argument on my fundamentalist EX-Catholic EX-fiance (unfortunately I've had to emphasize the "EX"). It would have been incredible to see the expression on her face. Keep doing the Lord's work, bro'. G*d bless ya!
Thanks for sharing, sorry about the EX!
Always glad to find new Catholic apologist to listen to. Thank you, and keep up the great work brother. God bless you.
Thanks!
I was baptized when I was 7. I certainly was not a biblical scholar then, nor did I realize how much the world would hate the Christian lifestyle. Saying that a person should be make a conscience decision to be baptized is silly. I think most people have no idea what they're getting into when they're baptized. This is definitely only the beginning - the initiation - of being a Christian. Welcome to the journey no matter your age.
Well said!
Knowing Jesus and knowing everything about following Jesus are not the same. Likewise, Abraham believed God and "went" but it was decades later that God asked him to sacrifice his son. One need not be a biblical scholar to know Jesus and to start to trust Him.
There are good reasons as to why infant baptism became an accepted practice. Up until the second half of the last century infant mortality was high and babies were baptised at the first opportunity to ensure their salvation should they die in childhood. Not to do so could have serious consequences for the child after death. Those who reject infant baptism are looking at it and interpreting scripture through 21st century eyes and ignoring the historical background to the practice. Many parents want their child doing and a naming or dedication ceremony is just seen as their child missing out on something important.
@@philipdouglas5911 Why would a child who dies without being baptized face serious consequences? What kind of God do you serve?
@@jeffreypaulross9767 You have to understand the doctrine of original sin to see why this is the case. We all bear the guilt of Adam and are undeserving of God's love and his salvation. This fuelled the teachings of the ancient and medieval about sin and judgement where an unbaptised baby did not go to heaven and did not receive the benefits of the resurrection. Because infant mortality was high in the ancient and medieval world there was some urgency to baptise babies so that they received the Holy Spirit and were given a new beginning. Part of the ceremony is exorcism to cast out sin which is not so easy to see but in the ancient rites was more prominent and salt was used. You have to put aside your 21st century eyes and look at God as taught in the Middle Ages who was seen as a judge rather than someone who loves. Most could not read so had to accept what the church taught. It was common in many churches to have a large wall painting of the last judgement to keep them in line.
I love this!! When you started I was thinking where is he going with this then wow you delivered!!! Thanks for making this video! I also love the websites you referenced, when I left the Catholic Church and was looking for the true church I visited these sites looking for answers. Thanks be to God for people like you to show me that I had left it and helping me to get back to the true church that Christ established!
You are so welcome!
Viva Cristo Rey!
As you said about infant baptisms then Communion also applies. However the Bible also says that whole families were baptized. So the logic holds up for Catholics too.
The issue of men is often addressed by saying then men was a poetic verbiage to mean proactive people.
You got it!
Lidia and all her household were baptized.
They usually deny it on a principle that is contradicted within the Bible: how can the parents will be credited to their child? This also goes along with that most protestants don't believe in the external transmission of grace through the sacraments
Right, that's a different argument that requires a different response.
1 Corinthians 7:14
Well done, Doug. I enjoy your course in principled reasoning after a big gathering of Catholic entrepreneurs in Berlin. Grateful to be your brethren!
Many thanks!
Great video! I am a new subscriber to your channel. God bless!
thank you very much Douglas! you help clarified why the scripture alone is wrong by giving the best argument about it. if the principle is wrong (scripture alone), any claim based on it will give wrong conclusion. A giant help in my efforts to counter protestant beliefs. God bless you all the more!
Premise1 In order to participate in a religious practice with God's approval, we must find New Testament teaching authorizing that practice. False
Premise 2 If a practice is not included in God's word it must not be a good work. False
Conclusion Babies should be baptized only if we can find statements in the New Testament that show that God want us to practice this. False
Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura are both false. I would first ask how is a man able to quote the Holy Scriptures to begin with. This goes back to the issue of authority and proper exegesis.
Having a website goes beyond the sacred page, having a worship band goes beyond the sacred page. What constitutes true biblical liturgy?
Man refers to mankind. Both men and women have a share in the covenant. This would be true for both the old and new covenants. Matthew 26:28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Wouldn't proof texting also be unbiblical?
It's easy for people to shift semantics to make the words say what they want often if all else fails
Well said!
So do you think the Catholic Church is authorized to instruct using words and ideas not explicitly mentioned in the Bible? Or, whose liturgy do you trust?
Hello, I'm a catholic but was wondering if brethren is just a general term for men and women? In spanish ellos can mean a group of men and women but is a maculine form word.
In the New Testament, the word "brethren" describes a community of men and women who chose another way of living: the way of Jesus.
Yes it is - in fact in the Greek, "brother" can mean practically any kind of familial (or even non-familial) relationship. The point of my using that as an argument was to show how bad of an argument it is. ;)
Should’ve put the title in quotations. I loved this video btw.
Thank you. :)
"
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Col 2:8
OK, this is clever. I'm going to change my tongue in cheek argument when they ask me "Where do you find infant baptism in the Scripture" from "I also have a question for you, and if you answer it I will tell you where I find it. 'The age of accountability...'" to communion of women. This is much, much better and forces them to lay the groundwork for infant baptism.
It also gave me a way to troll my wife. "Honey, I have a video that argues women cannot receive communion..."
Mission accomplished. :)
Luke 18:15-16
15 People *were also bringing **_babies_** to Jesus* for him to place his hands on them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. *“Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."*
Also:
Acts 2:38-39
38 Peter replied, “Repent and *be baptized, **_every one of you,_* in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is *for you and **_your children_* and for all who are far off-for all whom the Lord our God will call.
Take note: be baptized EVERY ONE...
...for you AND YOUR CHILDREN!
Amen and God bless
@@c.Ichthys Who got baptized?
@@kazager11 You know the answer. I provided the scripture verses.
@@c.IchthysJesus didn't baptize them
45,000 or more Protestant denominations. Says it all
Any more than 1 is a problem, but that number is highly inaccurate. Unfortunately, this urban legend continues to be cited even by Catholic apologists. The source is the World Christian Encyclopedia which says, "World Christianity consists of 6 major ecclesiastico-cultural blocs, divided into 300 major ecclesiastical traditions, composed of over 33,000 distinct denominations." So first, this huge number does not just include Protestants. Second, to get to this number, the Catholic Church is said to have 242 "denominations"!
@@DouglasBeaumont sounds good but no true. The one true Catholic apostolic Church has not changed in 2000 years
@@paulcapaccio9905 Sure it has - a lot. but the question is not about change, it is about legitimate development vs. illegitimate distortion. Read Newman.
@@DouglasBeaumont the core dogmas have never changed.
If you apply the same logic then, do the scriptures say women “cannot” take communion, meaning, is their a law specifically against women taking communion.
It simply does not mention women specifically, however when “mankind” is used this word includes male and female.
When Jews and Gentiles is used it includes both male and female.
Right! The goal of this video was to show what happens when the flawed principle behind an argument against infant baptism is applied to women's communion. Yes, women were included in communion even though the Bible doesn't specifically mention them - as is also the case with children and baptism. :)
The apostle Paul wrote " When I am baptized I am buried with Christ " That is why we baptize our children. It means the life of Christ enters into us in baptism and Jesus told the disciples you must be baptized by water and spirit so there.
Infant baptism is wrong
Argument on infant baptism. Acts 16:25-34. Paul and Silas were imprisoned. At midnight a great earthquake freed all the prisoners from their chains and opened up all the doors. The jailer fearing punishment for losing the prisoners attempted to kill himself. Paul stopped him telling him we are all still here. The jailer asked how he could be saved. "He was baptized at once, with all this family." - Acts 16:33. In the same vein Acts 16:11-15 - Lydia and all her household were baptized. Examples of whole households being baptized. No qualifiers about infants or examination of each household member. Paul didn't challenge the authority of Lydia or the jailer in having their whole household baptized based on their own belief. There is an echo of this in Genesis 17. Abraham makes a covenant with God. Based on that covenant every male member of Abraham's household is circumcised. Abraham uses his authority as head of household to make the decision. Just as Lydia and the Jailer use their authority to make the decision on baptism for their households. Furthermore there is Luke 18:15-16 under the heading Jesus Blesses the Children - "Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it; they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God." Jesus didn't say get those children away from me for they know not what they do.
Very good.
All that and not one word that actually demonstrates a non-believing individual was baptized. If anything, bringing up circumcision is evidence that it is not necessary to baptize children. Girls aren't circumcised, their entrance to the covenant comes through who? 1 Corinthians 7:14 - because of a believing spouse "they are holy"
Interesting point, but Paul had Junia and Lydia, meaning when he was addressing all Christians, he didn't always mean men, despite favoring the use of "brothers" for fellow practitioners. Therefore, when Paul's vision of Jesus is saying "you" to Paul & Christians, he doesn't only mean men. And for further context, I think Paul is saying that the prayer and drink meal isn't being done right because he's referring to the Kiddush, the Jewish daily prayer practice (esp. Shabbat), which would be done with the whole household even if the patriarch leads the prayer, thanking god and blessing the wine, then everybody drinks, including the wife and children. Paul took this Jewish service about God and made it about Jesus, while mixing in some of his Greek influence with the Orphic religions based on Dionysus and Zagreus, which became popular in the Mediterranean starting in the 500s BCE. This seems to be where Paul gets the idea of drinking deity blood, whereas in Judaism drinking blood is expressly forbidden (even though the communion isn't with real blood). And in those Orphic rituals, the sacraments are taken by everyone. As I understand it, Paul's new Kiddush is one of those things that made Pauline Christianity seem especially Hellenized to most Jews at the time (and probably part of why Paul, as he admits, had much more success preaching to gentiles).
The point of this video is to show what happens when the flawed principle behind an argument against infant baptism is applied to women's communion. Yes, women were included in communion even though the Bible doesn't specifically mention them - as is also the case with children and baptism. :)
@@DouglasBeaumont I do understand that, though I think you understand that if you make a remotely convincing argument for what the Bible sees as the orthodox position, people will earnestly take that up. There are plenty of modern dude-bro Christians who say women shouldn't be allowed to be ordained or speak in church or be leaders, based on only a verse or two. I think you're responding to that mentality, but inadvertently fueling it.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
- Galatians 3:28
OK yeah but... ;) I agree, of course.
Mr. Beaumont knows that if he put an accurate description of this video rather than one he used, he knows few would have clicked on it.
Hate the game not the playa. :)
Until the 1960s 'men', 'mankind', 'he', 'his', included the feminine depending on the usage. e.g. "To each his own".
And "household" until 1960s 😂 and even until today always refers all people in a family included children and babies (Acts 16,15 / 1 Cor 1,16) 😅😅
^^ Gets it.^^
Hey if you want to trade what the Bible says for manmade traditions.... ;)
Same with the ambiguous "he did x" could mean a woman did it.
I expect some Protestants would try to bring in another perhaps overarching principle like "there is no male or female in Christ Jesus." But Paul's context and application of that principle is actually quite specific, and a broad application would conflict with how Paul views hierarchy in the family and Church.
Sure, but I'm just dealing with the simple fact that no woman is said to receive communion in scripture. If they can then it must be argued on a different principle, which is fine.
3:13 "If a practice is not included in God's word, it must not be a good work."
Well, creating a website is also not included in the New Testament, so...
Good video, by the way!
Hee hee! Thanks!
If they have eyes to see, here is infant baptism mentioned in the NT, unless so foolish you defend there are no infants in households. Acts 16: 33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized.
What does verse 32 say?
Wow, this "if it's not in the bible EXPLICITLY..." is so ridiculous, especially when bible alone-ist (made up word I know) are reading in ENGLISH, far removed from the original Hebrew and Greek (and St Jerome used the literal translation for Latin, so as not to inject "personal interpretation". So 'abortion' is not mentioned, explicitly, in English, so it's allowed. In fact, while the real and hard-coded Catholic doctrine condemns homosexuality (the act, not the individual whose soul can only be judged by God), there are rebel laity and clergy who use this exact same argument - Jesus did not explicitly mention homosexuality, and thus all OT references were "cultural" and "patriarchal". Extend this logic further, and transgender surgery is not condemned, neither is stem cell research using aborted babies. This is why we need a teaching authority - "whatsover you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatsover you loosen on earth will be loosed in heaven". Because, the bible was never written as a car repair manual with index.
On infant baptism, while it doesn't say it explicitly, read Acts - the WHOLE family is baptised. Catholic theologians (the good ones) always say, you cannot understand the NT without the OT, because it is not a clean break, it is a continuation. Jesus says I came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. And in Judaism, the whole family is Jewish, the boys are circumcised as infants. You don't say "I'll wait till they reach 15, and decide for themselves whether to accept Yahweh and the Prophets or not, before circumcision. So Catholic teaching merely continues. Plus, if baptism saves (Jesus said to Nicodemus, and St Paul repeats - baptism now saves you), would you want your precious children to be saved, or not? What if there's a car accident, a plane crash, a plague, a 9/11, before they can "make up their own minds"? Crazy thinking....
Women did not have to be present. Since women are perfectly received at the Catholic Mass..they too..receive communion. It is for men and women alike. No difference..period.
True but doesn't affect the point of this video. :)
Oh..it does.@@DouglasBeaumont
The strongest argument i can find for infant Baptism is Luke2:21. The circumcision of Jesus. Jesus is welcomed into the covenant of Moses on the eight day. It is a small step to welcome Christian children into the new covenant as infants by Baptism.
Exodus 12 and 13. Where it speaks of consecration of the firstborn and then explaining the faith later when they ask. Seems like infants didn't have a choice in the old covenant.
My question to protestants is if God wanted infants in His old covenant and Paul said the new covenant is built on better promises than the old then why does God not want infants in His new covenant now?
Throw in some Colossians 2:11-12 and it's a pretty solid case!
In Acts 2:38, Peter says, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” The Greek translation literally says, “If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”). This actually proves that babies are baptized based on their parents’ faith and were in the New Covenant church in the apostolic time. Further, Peter specifically points out in the following verse that baptism is given to children as well as adults: “Those far off” refers to those who were at their “homes” (primarily infants and children). The word “children” that Peter uses comes from the Greek word teknon (τέκνον). Teknon in Greek means a young person from birth to adolescence and is glossed as ‘child’ or ‘children’ in the plural. The word does not refer to future adult posterity. In fact, Luke 1:59 proves that teknon includes infants. Here, John as a “teknon” (infant) was circumcised. We see in Acts 21:21 that “teknon” is used for eight-day-old babies. So baptism is for infants as well as adults just as circumcision is for the Jews and proselytes.
Concerning whether women should be allowed to receive Holy Communion, using the Last Supper for an argument against this practice can also be applicable to all men, except those who were the apostles and perhaps also the men whom they appointed to succeed them. After all, only the apostles ate the Seder meal with Jesus. Ironically, Protestants would then have to concede that there was and is Apostolic Succession. Anyway, Argumentum ex silentio or argument from silence is a logical fallacy where a conclusion is based upon (Biblical) silence or (Biblical) lack of evidence. This fallacy is also committed by Protestants who deny the Assumption of Mary.
Yup. :)
The ridiculous claims of Protestants that everything that's not in the bible is not allowed. Please answer this question. It you or your parents are married, please show us where in the bible it says to be married in front of a pastor or priest in a church. Please explain if all those marriages are illegitimate or pagan??
To be fair it's mostly Fundamentalists making this kind of argument but yeah.... :)
@henrybayard6574 Another example of your argument is the Church of Christ. This church sings praises to God as do practically all churches. But according to this particular church, “…The New Testament does not instruct us to use mechanical instruments in worship and there are no examples in the New Testament of Christians using them in worship.” *
So, no. It wasn’t in the Bible. Therefore, “we” don’t do that. My question is, isn’t this like any other extreme of the cherry-picking of scripture?
* from the website of the Timberland Church of Christ, in an article posted by Harold Hancock.
Probably not that might make too much noise. Women are to remain SILENT!
Lol!
Why do you make a distinction between humans and infants???
Swollen ego is the problem here. The sin of pride is difficult to overcome.
Why do *I*???
There are passages about baptizing entire households.
Acts 16:15 even writes of baptizing a woman with her household. You would have to deduce that these instances exclude babies and husbands because they are not mentioned? Or would you consider household would mean everyone … which could be every type given the wider definition of a home and its occupants.
So I don’t find the argument that there is no mention of child baptism as being definitive as household members can easily include children and babies.
Same for communion … when they talk of the body of the church they do not exclude women or children from it. The OT prelude to the bread of life seems to imply that families of Israelites were fed by mana from heaven. Even the New Testament prelude of the loaves and fish to feed 5000 does not exclude women and children even if they are not mentioned specifically.
People who interpret the bible on just specific use of words when the economy of creating text back then would have used words sparingly to save costs … I wouldn’t find it conclusive. Especially with other ancient Christian writings in the first and second centuries that indicate the need for things like infant baptism and communion to be a part of the church.
I see you got the point! :)
I’m being the devils advocate over here :
“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”
Romans 5:12 KJV
wouldn’t this argument be applicable to this as well ?… so no death to women.
Therefore in terms of interpretation it’s flawed.
That would work as a counter-example if women never sinnned in the Bible. ;)
Infants are also commanded to repent (!) (vs 37)and be baptized in that verse?? Saving themselves from that wicked generation? (Verse 40)
Man is a word that is generally understood to include women and there are times where translations include men and women and are correct in doing so (although probably less of a word-for-word translation). Reading through romans i am sure that the word "man" is used over and over or "mankind" and no one reasonably thinks this is only referring to men.
You can do better than that! These arguments are not going to hold up against a good baptist/protestant argument!
Yes but since the principle works for both they lose if they win. ;)
Since circumcision is just for men as well, you may actually be more correct than you think.
Haha, right!
This question alone is wrong by itself! it's crazy that some people think like that...
If it's salivic, then logic does not nullify or transcend the divine. It's the divine that defies logic for the purposes of salvation.
I am not aware of anything illogical in any divine act.
@@DouglasBeaumont You don't think the divine transcends logic? Even miracles defy logic. There's a fine line in trying to use logic alone to prove the divine or determining what is salivic by the fragmentary record that is known as the New Testament.
Well, we read in John 1 about how in the beginning was the Word (Logos in Greek), etc, as if to say the divine and logic are one in the same. Faith should not contradict reason, rather they both assist each other in the assent to truth.
I’ve heard that when it comes to miracles, it’s not that they defy logic or violate the laws of the universe (which God wrote himself), but that they reveal something new about it, or those laws are suspended in some way. Due to the Fall, creation has been corrupted and disordered; perhaps miracles are God’s way of restoring the proper order in the world, because people were never meant to be blind, deaf, paralyzed, etc, but ultimately never meant to die, and this is the whole point of the resurrection from the dead.
Of course a Protestant has to argue FOR illogical ideas because Protestantism IS illogical.
If it’s not in the Bible it’s not true.
Bible does not list books that belong in Bible.
Therefore the Bible must by definition be not true
Prots go by Bible alone.
They have no Bible.
How do prots go by a collection of books that by their first principles CAN NOT be determined?
Ergo: they have zero claim to Truth.
I'm a no expert but here is my argument against this. John Chapter 4 Jesus and the Woman of Samaria. Jesus asks the woman of Samaria for water (they are both by a water well). Jesus has a conversation with the woman and in the course of the conversation he says - "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, 'Give me a drink,'' you would have asked him and he would have given you living water." - John 4:10 Jesus further elaborates "Whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst; the water that I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." - John 4:14.
First, the video is showing the illogic of a fundamentalist anti-infant baptism argument, so it doesn't really need to be answered on those grounds. But, second, I don't get how this story relates - but I'd like to!
@@DouglasBeaumont This is a response to the argument at around the 4:40 mark about women receiving communion not mentioned in the scripture.
Doug, there is nothing in the argument that I find flawed. I agree with you, but I also would like to add in defence of babies being baptised. Baptism as we all know washes away original sin that we all have inherited, if Baptism is not permitted even to babies which protestant find abhorrent that babies should be baptised then how are they worthy of Heaven since sin is not permitted. Also, the Garden of Eden was and is regarded as Heaven on earth. After the fall of Adam and Eve they could not enter The Garden of Eden but neither could Cain and Abel when they were babies or young children prior to having the age of reason. Without the age of reason, then one has not committed any sin ie a child younger than 4, for instance, can not understand good and evil, and yet Cain and Abel were not permitted into the Garden. So if Cain and Abel as young children were not permitted into the Garden of Eden which certainly is not Heaven how can protestant believe that children at the age of 4 be permitted into Heaven where like the Garden sin was not permitted to dwell if the Garden of Eden was closed to unbaptized babies and children why would Heaven be open to unbaptized babies and children???
If you look at the Greek when it says in 1 Corinthians 11:27, "Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup." Isn't the word for man, ἄνθρωπος which refers to humanity as a whole rather than one gender over the other? And aren't all the other words like 'brethren' and 'him' similar?
If so, then this argument is as ridiculous as it sounds at it's initial mention... though you may find an example that fits your argument - but this one doesn't seem to be it.. as if it's talking about humanity then it is reasonable to assume that Paul means humanity and not merely men, as he could've said men... if I'm not mistaken..
Correct. The goal of this video was to show what happens when the flawed principle behind an argument against infant baptism is applied to women's communion. Yes, women were included in communion even though the Bible doesn't specifically mention them outside of the generic "anthropos" - as is also the case with children and baptism. :)
And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” (Acts 16:31). Its one of many examples. If you See the Passing through the Red Sea as a type of Baptism, whole Families pass through the Red Sea.
Yup!
Oh my goodness people!!! The title is what you could call 'click bait' to prove a point! It's tongue in cheek to prove a point. If you just read the title and comment without listening to the whole video, you are just trying to be a troll. Don't comment until you listen to the whole video and the paradox he is trying to show. Of course he doesn't really believe women can't take communion!!
Good points were made here. But please tell me, why do you think women can also receive communion. What principle underlies your argumentation for it?
Well the easiest route is to follow the Church's Tradition - but if it came to argument, I would say that because women are included in the New Covenant, they therefore should receive communion.
Also because Paul affirmed women as part of the covenant in Galatians 3:28 There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.
@@xaosgeist No, for Catholics authority relies on Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, & the Magisterium, or teaching authority of the Church. What is considered Sacred Scripture was listed by several writers throughout the 1st 300+ years, it was in the 1st Council of Constantinople in 381, & in several councils afterwards, that an authoritative list was officially made. The Sacred Scriptures were dogmatically closed at the Council of Trent 1545-1563 after Luther removed 7 books from his Bible, though the 7 were still kept within his version. It wasn’t until the 1800’s when a Bible Society, to lower the cost of printing, removed the so-called “Apocrypha” from the Protestant Bible altogether.
So as you can see even the Sacred Scripture, the Bible, depended ultimately on Sacred Tradition(the multiple centuries of books/letters listed as belonging to Sacred Scripture) & the teaching authority to come into being in the form in which the majority of Christendom has it. Sadly, Protestants have a corrupted version of the Bible & miss many profound prophecies of Jesus & teachings in Judaism.
@@DouglasBeaumont So your principle is the same one that you reduced to absurdity. Women are only allowed to receive communion because it says so in the Bible.
Can you explain what you mean here please? The stance he critiques in this video is that if something isn't affirmed in scripture, it isn't allowed. In his response to your comment he doesn't use this principle. @@xaosgeist
I forgot to mention Feeby she had a leadership poision
Also doesn't threaten my argument even if true. ;)
Really good video!
Glad you think so!
Jn20:17 the risen Lord appears to the women first and commissions them to tell the apostles that he's risen. Of course the Apostles don't believe them, leading to Peter running to the tomb and the doubting Thomas story. In Rm16:1, Paul commends Phoebe, a deaconess from Centuria. When Patrick evangelised Ireland, Rome was unable to provide sufficient and timely numbers of male priests, so Patrick ordained women. These female deacons and priests performed baptisms and other sacraments. Though we don't have evidence, it's probably safe to assume that they administered communion.
Yes but that proves my point. ;)
The bible itself answers the question why the argument "If its not in the bible, therefore.."
John 21:25.
Those people pushing for that argument are in effect saying Jesus lied.
Well it would be John who lied, but your point is made. :)
As in many ignorant societies women were not considered in most decisions, if not all of them. If the adult males in a household are able to receive Communion then the women can also receive.
To be clear, the point of this video is to show what happens when the flawed principle behind an argument against infant baptism is applied to women's communion. Yes, women were included in communion even though the Bible doesn't specifically mention them - as is also the case with children and baptism. :)
Your examples and interpretations of the Bible to support your argument are weak. “Brothers” are often used generically to apply to both men and women. This is well established by NT and Greek scholars. Many modern translations reflect this. The examples you quoted from Acts and Paul’s epistles certainly included women, unless you were to argue that the early church consisted solely of men.
Correct, but they are not "mine." The goal of this video was to show what happens when the flawed principle behind an argument against infant baptism is applied to women's communion. Yes, women were included in communion even though the Bible doesn't specifically mention them - as is also the case with children and baptism. :)
@@DouglasBeaumont But then your argument breaks down, since the second statement of your syllogism would be wrong assuming that the Bible does not refer to women participating in the Lord’s Supper when in fact it does. So the Baptist argument is not one from silence.
It would be interesting to list things that Protestants accept, but for which there is no clear example or command in the Bible. There are probably a lot of these when you start thinking. One example immediately came to mind: can you pray to the Holy Spirit? I quickly googled it for fun and was surprised to find both positive and negative answers.
I'm a Protestant myself (a weird Lutheran-Reformed hybrid), but I've been on my way to Rome now, although I'm not quite there yet. Although I still have some things to think about, it is hard for me to see myself as a Protestant in the future.
Thanks for the great videos, they've been helpful! God's blessing from Northern Europe, Finland. :)
I did that in my book, not to show off but to make the point you make. It is SO easy to miss stuff like that when you're in it. May your journey continue! God bless.
If possible please try to read, its available in the net:
1 - The Abomination Of Desolation Spoken Of By Daniel Will Soon Be Implemented By Islam’s Antichrist And This Caused Me (Walid Shoebat) To Become CATHOLIC
2 - The Keys to Unlock the Signs of the End - Walid Shoebat (Very lengthy articles, took me 6 months to read)
So you're talking about Protestants accepting things that aren't in the Bible, and your solution is to gravitate towards Roman Catholicism? I'm sorry, but the fact is, you're going to find at least as many non-Biblical and even anti-Biblical tenets and practices in the Roman church as where you came from.
@EyeLean5280 I think what he's saying is the non-biblical stuff accepted by Protestants made him realize that Christianity is not solo scriptura. And, realizing this, he came to Catholicism. Which is perfectly reasonable.
@@EyeLean5280 hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, of highly intellectual and deeply prayerful people have devoted their entire lifetimes over 2,000 years to making certain that Catholic theology and doctrine is aligned with Holy Scripture as perfectly as humanly possible. If there are errors, it would be helpful if you could be more specific.
What about 1 Corinthians 10:14-17? It is clear that ALL partake of the one bread. In context with the previous verses, it does mention fathers but in the ancestral sense. The next verses make it clear that all ate the manna and drank from the rock (of course men, women, and children partook of the manna and water). And Galatians 3:26-29 says we're all sons of God... there is no male or female... we are all one in Christ Jesus. "Brethren" therefore obviously covers all members of the church.
I'm not sure what kind of "gotcha" you're trying to pull on us Protestants, but there are many Protestant denominations that approve of infant baptism. I'm personally a believer in credo-baptism (for reasons too difficult to spell out in a UA-cam comment), but please don't box us all together. It is both unfair and logically flawed. God bless.
I understand that not all Protestants argue this way and I was going after one particular argument. Further I did not attribute this argument to Protestants in general.
My response was not illogical because that one argument was shown to be faulty because regardless of who else can be assumed to have been included in St. Paul's statement. That, in fact, is the Catholic argument. :)
@@DouglasBeaumont I agree that you did not address Protestants at all in your video. I apologize. I will admit to taking it personally based on other viewer comments. Comments like, how this shows stupid Prots how Sola Scriptura doesn't work. But it does work, and the early church fathers like Clement, Tertullian, and others adhered to it. Perhaps it is important to say at this point that a common understanding of Sola Scriptura reads more like Prima Scriptura. The bible is the primary authority. Bishops and elders may have words of wisdom and doctrine to share, but that point of view must align with the authority of scripture.
At this point, some might say, "Well, who gave the bible the authority it has? The Roman Catholic church of course!" But that only rings true on the surface. The writings are authoritative because the books have provenance through history, the words, and authorship. Anyway, sorry for jumping in on your video. It just seemed an odd premise because I don't know of a denomination that doesn't allow women to take communion. So the argument seemed like a straw man that Catholics created to show how the Protestant view of Sola Scriptura doesn't work. God bless.
@@ToeTag1968 Thank you for the retraction. You are correct that this is not a video about sola scriptura per se, rather what it does is show that the Fundamentalist view (at least) of infant baptism doesn't work whether one holds to sola scriptura or not.
As to your explanation of sola scriptura and the Church fathers, you might be interested in this: ua-cam.com/video/dGWjqxD5d7A/v-deo.html
@@DouglasBeaumont Thanks for the video link. I think we can agree that the holy scriptures are the primary authority when it comes to teaching and truth. I also think we can agree that some denominations can read scriptures in different ways based either on ignorance or their own agendas. This is where I think going back to the beginning can be extremely important. I believe you talked about, and I've read verses in the bible about accepting scriptures, letters, and tradition as truth and valuable for doctrine. I would agree with that - up to a point. That point being, those first century Christians had their letters published. The oral traditions handed down by the Savior, Jesus Christ, were taught in the early church and then converted into the texts that we have today.
There ceased to be a need for any further scriptures or traditions to be added, as each accretion from that original understanding just takes us further and further away - like a 2000 year old game of telephone.
Maybe we don't agree on that. But I think we can find some common ground again that some biblical interpretations perhaps don't matter much when it comes to our eternal salvation. All things being equal, will God love someone less if we fellowship on Friday evening instead of Sunday morning? If we use wafers and grape juice as the elements vs a loaf of bread and red wine?
Where Catholics would probably want to correct some Protestants is on baptism. Perhaps you feel that some denominations are putting the lives of children in jeopardy by not baptizing infants. As for me, one of the most troubling aspects of Catholicsm is the elevation of Mary to a position of advocacy and mediator. This would seem to be an area where the bible puts her in no such position, but Catholic tradition and extreme mental gymnastic would. Unfortunately, those are topics that have kept us at odds for 15 centuries. It's not we will be able to fix any time soon. God bless you. I am thankful to our God Most High for the areas in which we can agree.
In the original language (is it Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic?), is brethren exclusively male? In latin languages, you use the male form to mean "all," or is that not the case?
That is correct - just like in English. But that's not REALLY the point of the video. ;)
Oh my brother. For the Love of all our mothers and sisters and daughters. Could the title of this video get changed to say "Should women take communion?".
The declarative nature of the present title "Why woman should not recieve communion" feels a bit on the offensive. And though at the end of the video our lovley ladies perhaps could find some solance. Let's save them from needing this level of apptitude yes?
Once it's rocketing views slow down I'll consider it. :) Unfortunately it is thr nature of UA-cam that videos that do not get clicked do not get watched, and seeming clickbait like this gets clicked. After over 100 comments no ladies seem to have missed the point. :)
@@DouglasBeaumont Well since it has already passed by the scrutiny of 100 Ladies. I'll retract the request.
Here's another logical problem for non-catholic theologies.
1) Jesus did (paid) for it all on the Cross.
2) There is nothing you can do to earn or effect your salvation.
Outside of Initial Justification (where most non-catholics can agree with us on these points); to say our Final Justification is not based on anytyhing we do leads to some logical problems.
------------------------------------------------------
1) If a person is not saved in the end, is it because of something we did or didn't do, or something God did or didn't do? If it is something on our part; then that would be a works based theology. If it is something on God's part then it is His fault if we are not saved.
2) Even Catholics agree Works do not play a role in our Initial Justification. But if Works (specifically Good Works); don't play a role in our Final Justification then a Just God would either save everyone (Universal Salvation) or no one (Universal Damnation) as anything in between would be an Unjust God.
3) The Bible clearly states that God wills that everyone be saved; yet we know that by the words of Jesus, most are on the road to perdition. That would lead us to think that those who are not saved are damned by their own actions and not that of God. Thus something in our 'works' at least prevents us from being saved.
That's just a few I can think of.
Very nice!
I think a Protestant would attack premise 2 and say that one could apostatize (= lose / reject one's faith) and that would cover sub-points 1-3 without involving works. Different Prots would explain this in different ways, but it could happen that at time T1 a person expresses and even seems to live as a faithful Christian believer and yet at time T2 they express that they are not / no longer believers. In such a case a person lost their salvation yet salvation remains by "faith alone" because works had nothing to do with it at times T1 or T2.
Thoughts?
If Catholic theology makes Catholics worry about whether they did enough good works then the Protestant one makes Protestants worry whether they have had enough faith. How do you know you have enough faith to be saved?
@@barborazajacova7633 "...How do you know you have enough faith to be saved?..." Exactly. Especially when non-caths invoke the 'you were never really saved' clause to explain away fallen brethren when they have their hearts set on OSAS to save them.
I am 50+ and have been a practicing Catholic my whole life. In hindsight I have never really worried about doing enough good works. Jesus said whoever does the Will of my Father is my brother and sister. So my overarching concern has been 'am I doing the will of the Father at this moment for the right reason?'.
@39knights exactly. What I meant to say is, we Catholics often get accused of legalism, "works righteousness" and such things, while I have already seen a LOT of extremely scrupulous Protestants that worry about having sinned against the Holy Spirit, or worry about not having the Holy Spirit in them, feeling condemned all the time esp. if they sin, worst of all worrying they have never been saved in the first place... completely lost and hard to be comforted by their pastors who point them to the Scriptures. Without grounding in solid doctrine they could rely on (what is the right Protestant interpretation of the Bible? ) or the sacraments that provide tangible means of receiving God's mercy and grace, this must be almost unbearable at times.
Here’s another angle on the Faith alone argument.
We all agree we must repent of our sins.
They only think of sins that involve doing something we aren’t supposed to do like lie cheat or steal. Ok fine so far but here’s the problem. What about sins involving NOT doing things you SHOULD be doing?
You didn’t pray or worship God before but now you MUST DO those things.
You didn’t honor your father and mother but now you MUST DO that.
You didn’t helped the poor but now you MUST DO that.
You failed to confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord but now you MUST DO that.
So the very act of repentance means you are going to start DOING things you MUST DO to be saved.
Protestants can be slippery as a greased pig in their attempts to avoid Truth but I can’t wait to see what they say about this. 🤷🏼♂️🤓
Exorcist Fr Carlos Martins shares that the souls of anyone not baptised belong to Satan. Man, woman, child...I'd be getting baptised as early as possible.
Definitely best practice!
When the NT uses anthropos vs aner/andros (or whatever the correct words are), the former being generic, does that broaden the scope of who can receive communion in 1 Corinthians 11? ESV has “let a person examine himself” in v28.
Yes, but that would weaken my awesome-and-completely-legitimate argument - so let's keep it our little secret. ;)
@@DouglasBeaumont haha, you got it.
I'm glad that you mentioned that the argument from silence is not the only argument against infant baptism. As a non-Catholic, I would not use silence as my primary argument. Rather, I would argue that baptism in the New Testament post Resurrection is always done at the time of conversion, and only done by someone who is professing faith in Christ. It is a representation of the concept of being born again that Jesus spoke of in John 3. The purpose of baptism is to declare the person's faith and rebirth in Christ.
It is not just that infant baptism is not seen in the New Testament, but that infant baptism runs contrary to the purpose of baptism. An infant has not made a profession of faith and does not even comprehend what that is. The infant therefore has no reason to undergo baptism.
That's better but I think a strong argument can be made from Acts where whole families were baptized because of one person's faith, St. Paul's connection of circumcision with baptism in Colossians, and the entirety of Church history up until the Anabaptist cult arose that infant baptism is valid.
@@DouglasBeaumont Regarding the families in Acts, I think that is more an indication that the whole household came to faith, not just the one person. Paul's connection to circumcision in Colossians is interesting, but consider that he is drawing parallels between the two Covenants. Jews entered into the covenant by virtue of the first birth, and infant circumcision was part of that. Those under the New Covenant enter into this Covenant at the moment of faith, at which point we are reborn. As with circumcision, baptism comes at the time of birth as a sign of the Covenant, but for the Christian this is the second birth of the Spirit, not the first birth of the flesh. From my understanding, the first clear evidence of infant baptism being commonplace is the third century. This is significant evidence in favor of infant baptism, but it's still over a century removed from the Apostles, allowing for many unbiblical practices to have crept in.
@@StageWatcherAre you familiar with the Catholic Sacrament of Confirmation? It solves the question.
@@RumorHazi I looked it up just now, and from what I see the Sacrament of Confirmation has the following requirements:
must have reached the age of discretion, which is defined as about the age of seven;
profess the Catholic faith and desire to receive the sacrament;
be in a state of grace;
be ready to live as a witness to Jesus Christ.
How does this apply to infant baptism?
@@StageWatcher It is the bridge to connect the two sides of the argument. Baptize the infants to wash them of original sin and Confirmation to allow them to affirm their individual faith once the age of reason has been reached. Quite brilliant really. But then, there’s lots of brilliance in Catholicism.
The following is a true story. God told me this story is important for atheists as well as believers to hear...here now is my personal testimony. I was doing my morning ocean swim in shallow water when I was attacked by a shark and I barely made it back to shore. A large part of my thigh was missing and I was losing so much blood...I knew I was a goner and would never be able to make it for help. But then out of nowhere a surfer showed up, he looked exactly like Jesus, the white version. On that day I witnessed a set of foot prints in the sand leading away from where I laid. I called out..."hey Jesus looking dude...are you just going to just leave me here"? And he said.."do you know how much you weigh...hell yeah". And then I died. But don't worry I came back three days later. Proof! How could I have written this if I didn't come back from the dead? The End.
The real question is how much LESS did you weight with part of your thigh missing.
1 Corinthians 11:27
therefore, " WHOEVER", therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
What is the meaning of the word whoever?
whatever person no matter who. used in any grammatical relation except that of a possessive. sells to whoever has the money to buy.
The context and "therefore" makes it clear that "whoever" refers to the men....? ;) (Watch the whole video and see if we really disagree. )
John 6:60
King James Version
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
Notice at the Lords supper their were many disciples that followed Jesus ( it says many left, it did not say all left) to say the only ones their were the twelve is false biblical interpretation.
“ True apostolic succession” has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church or any other denomination. It has to do with passing on correct information from one man to man, each man teaching other men what is true. (2tim.2:2):Rome has opposed the movement from A.D. 70 to the present.
Nothing like a Bible to clear up a college education, and some people never learn.
Um.... First, John 6 isn't the Lord's Supper.
Second read one more verse: "66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67 Then said Jesus unto the TWELVE..."
This isn't false interpretation - it isn't even interpretation. It's just reading.
@@DouglasBeaumont So what you are saying only the twelve are allowed to receive Jesus.
Acts 2:41-42
King James Version
41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
( Notice there is no support for “ Transubstantiation “ Hmm. ) “No interpretation required, Just reading the scriptures”
Read John 20:23 Remit and Retain sins to the twelve Luke 24:33 ( Same event) Remit and Retain sins to the twelve and vs33 plus them that were with them. 2Cor. 2:6-10 Paul was not there when Jesus Breathes the Holy Ghost on them and he was also able to forgive Retain and Remit sins. ( There is no support that only the Catholic Pope , Priests are allowed to Retain and Remit sins)
@@johnp.6043 No that is not what I am saying as was clear in the video when I brought other passages into the discussion.
Interesting video Douglas, thanks again for reaching out to me when I had a difficult time :D
Thanks and you bet!
It seems the New testament is not the only social of religious true God can reveal other things to his people at any time of his choosing
OK
Communion was instituted at a *Passover Sedar* and women *DID* participate in the sedar. Don't go by a Divinci painting for theology! Jesus' followers included women and they were at the Passover sedar with Him (including his Mother! who would have lit the candles to begin the sedar!)
for some who are related to quach, they may have a margarita or 2. In that country catholics are more evangelical and have rock and roll at 4pm mass.hoever you should be more cautious over there because they are more a little strict in county
Noted.
This is an interesting argument for infant baptism but it falls short of proving the validity of the Pope. Many Protestant Churches baptize infants 😊. But, still an interesting video.
I'm sure it falls short of doing most of the things it wasn't meant to do. :)
This is basic. Whole households were baptized.
Babies are part of the house hold.
By your logic woman are not human.
Not by MY logic, by the logic of those arguing against infant baptism.
Idk…considering Christianity is a male-dominant religion, it makes perfect sense to me…actually, it clarifies a lot. It lines up perfectly.
Then you missed the point.
@@DouglasBeaumont:
No I didn’t. I heard what *you’re* saying, but I don’t agree with you. Considering how Christianity is, what you put across as a ridiculous argument actually brings me to the conclusion that it should be more male-oriented.
That's unfortunate. @@TheTrueOnyxRose
Here's a different angle, The pattern of baptism in the New Testament was always after people believed & were saved. A baby is not yet accountable for its sin as it cannot yet, so has no need for baptism.
This isn't a different angle - it is the exact point I was making fun of. But let's go with it anyway. We do not know that. We have records of people being baptized but it says nothing of their having come to faith (Acts 16:14-15). Further the command about being baptized to be saved in Acts 2 is directed to whole fmailies not just adults. In any case - the Church taught infant baptism from the earliest times and without debate until after the Protestant Reformation (when only the cult of the Anabaptists taught against it).
Thanks, but I must be missing something here as I can see in Acts 16 where she would have come to faith as in "The Lord opened her heart to what Paul was saying" (came to faith from that) and then she was baptised (and her household) Acts 2 is not directed just at whole families, but more so at Men of Israel vs 22 Men and Brethren vs 29 Men of Judea vs 14 but I suppose there may have been others there, but when they asked "what must we do" Peter said '1 Repent & then 2 be baptised. So, we might just have a different interpretation of these passages. I suppose I just don't know why an infant would need to be baptised, anyway Thanks Douglas👍✌
@gregghumphreys5455 Peter says the promise is for them and their children right after he commands them to be baptized. The reason is similar to why Israel circumcised infants (see Col 2:11-12). Baptism is the way people enter the new covenant.
Brilliant! wow!
Are you saying that in the bible when it mentioned that entire families were baptized, there were no infants? Please explain.
No, *I* am not saying that - but I did imply that in the video because that is the anti-infant-baptism position (which I am debunking). :)
I understand what you are saying, but would you agree or disagree that infants were probably baptized along with the family?@@DouglasBeaumont
This is a red herring. The issue with infant baptism is the assertion that baptism saves. Scripture clearly points to repentance as leading to the forgiveness of sins, but this video makes no mention of repentance.
How does an infant repent?
Matt 4:17
From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “REPENT, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
Mark 1
14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, 15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; REPENT and believe in the gospel
Mark 6:12
So they went out and proclaimed that people should REPENT
Luke 5:32
I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to REPENTANCE
Luke 13:3
3 No, I tell you; but unless you REPENT, you will all likewise perish
Acts 2:38
And Peter said to them, “REPENT and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit
Acts 13:19
19 REPENT therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out . . .
Baptism is a public and intentional act of obedience whereby a person declares their belief in Jesus as their Savior and Lord which only comes with true repentance.
Peter teaches us in Acts 11:46-47 that baptism comes after salvation.
…Then Peter declared, 47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, WHO HAVE RECEIVED the Holy Spirit just as we have?
Not a red herring when it is answering a popular argument which I proved it is.
So on what basis do you say that communion is allowed for women?
Scripture as understood by Church tradition.
@@DouglasBeaumont So as church traditions change the understanding of scripture changes? Should scripture not lead to church traditions and not the other way round?
The reason why infant need to be baptized. When Adam sinned, physical and spiritual death entered man. Man inherited spiritual and physical death. There are two kinds of sin, Sin of Adam which we inherited and personal sin which we commit. After Adam sinned, heaven was closed and man can't enter heaven . God send his Son to suffer and die for our inherited sin and to reconcile us to God. By the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, heaven is open to man. Every child born is a sinner and if that child is not baptize with water and dies, that infant will go to a place called Limbo but not heaven. They do not suffer and have peace. Jesus did not come to die for our personal sins but for our inherited sins. Personal sins are intentional and requires repentance for forgiveness. Example King David's repentance (Psalm 51) Inherited sin of Adam does not require repentance because it is committed by our first parent and transmitted to generation to generation. Man Except the mother of Jesus is a sinner by birth.
John3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Man means everyone including infants.
Hope this help. God bless
Kind of missing the point but FYI "Limbo" is a theological opinion, not a doctrine of the Church.
😅😂 o😅as a woman, I fully agree with this video
As a male I am glad to hear it! ;)
You and your children- not you and your boy children.
1 Corinthians 12 is written to the church, not just men. The church includes women. So the “you” in verses 26 to 33 refers to all those of the church, not the males in the church the ekklesia. Those who were accepted as belonging to the church - baptized believers. Non-sequiurs in your argument.
Your assumption about who MIGHT be included in what the Scripture actually says does not create a non sequitur in my argument about what Scripture actually says.
But even if it did, it would only prove my point against using this type of argument against infant baptism.
The whole household was baptized.
What about Ephesians? "There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism" does it mean the practise of a water baptism doesn't mean anything? For there is only baptism by fire of the Holy Spirit? Wonderful logic... First, if you think sprinkling water is Baptising, you don't know the meaning of the word itself. Second, a new testament baptism doesn't apply to infants, because they have no idea what's happening. So If I throw a bucket of water on someone and say: now you are baptised! Does that count? according to your logic it does now. I even think the practice means you have no thrust in the Lord! Isn't it written that children are sanctified by the faith of the parents?. It's a lack of trust and knowledge, uphold by flawed tradition. Veiling people, to see its true meaning. Study the 31 scriptures about baptism, and see if anything applies to you. Romans 10 is a fitting scripture to finish here I think.
Did babies understand circumcision?
Comparing an Old Testament Covenant between God and the people of Israel to a misinterpretation of scripture and useless practise doesn't make a strong argument. It simply doesn't really compare, don't you think? And another question what is in your understanding the "true" church of christ?@sharondavidson7412
The point of this video is to show what happens when the flawed principle behind an argument against infant baptism is applied to women's communion. Yes, women were included in communion even though the Bible doesn't specifically mention them - as is also the case with children and baptism. :)
This same flawed logic is applied in many "arguments" against same-sex marriage. Of course, people tend to be selective in which situations they will extend it.
This is all burning a straw man.
I am a reformed baptist and we never say Infant baptism be not allowed.
Then I wasn't arguing against you and it could not be a strawman.
I’m Orthodox, women may not commune when ritually unclean.
Yeah I saw something on that during research for this. In fact it is practically the only thing that comes up on a search for women not receiving communion. I gotta say, that's one of the weirder things I've learned about EO.
@@DouglasBeaumont it’s a cultural thing. In North America it tends to be only Uber Orthodox and True Orthodox who will rail on about how we have abandoned Orthodoxy because we don’t tell women who aren’t clean to stay away from the table.
but the bible never says it is our only authority, or that we have to find a truth in the bible to say a statement is true. It also doesn't say Jesus was speaking symbolically in the
bread of Life dissertation. In fact, the disciples that left Him say, "these TRUTHS are too hard: and then they left. And Jesus was sad. Where does that leave protestants, who say the breaking of the bread is just a symbol? Which camp are they in? I'm not saying they are bad, but it's confusing.
t
Good questions and yes, Protestantism is very confusing.
I'm a lutheran and have recently been looking into some of the differences, especially Eucharist. I have never reflected upon the literal meaning of the bread and whine until recently. I did not even know that it was so much more "symbolical" in some forms of protestantism, it has never been merely symbolical to me. When I receive the Eucharist, I'm receiving Jesus as literal, divine food for my soul, that is the best way I can describe it.
Luther writes in the Small Catechism:
"How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things?
Answer: It is not the eating and drinking, indeed, that does them, but the words which stand here, namely: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. Which words are, beside the bodily eating and drinking, as the chief thing in the Sacrament; and he that believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins."
The meaning I get out of this is that eating and drinking alone is not enough. You also have to believe in what you are receiving. If you rely solely on the ritual alone, but do not truly believe in the sacrament you are not prepared, as Luther points out:
"Who, then, receives such Sacrament worthily?
Answer: Fasting and bodily preparation is, indeed, a fine outward training; but he is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. But he that does not believe these words, or doubts, is unworthy and unfit; for the words For you require altogether believing hearts."
People who say is is just a symbol is implying that it is not necessarily needed, it's just a nice thing to do. But Jesus says he is the bread of life, and I believe it in that literal sense. Our body needs bread, and our soul needs Jesus.
@@DouglasBeaumont One difference between lutherans and catholicism is the bread. In Svenska Kyrkan, the bread is gluten free so that everyone can receive it. From my understanding, it must contain gluten in catholicism because of tradition and transubstantiation. What do you think about this?
The problem with your argument is there was according to Paul women apostles
It's linguistically possible but there are other ways to understand the verse you're probably referring to. In any case, she is never said to receive communion so it poses no problem for my argument.
And mankind only refers to men?
And in many scriptures, God is referred to as he/him/father, therefore God is of male gender?
Don’t take these words so literally.
I have met God and she is Black. 😊
The goal of this video was to show what happens when the flawed principle behind an argument against infant baptism is applied to women's communion. Yes, women were included in communion even though the Bible doesn't specifically mention them - as is also the case with children and baptism. Thank you for making my point.
A men are mortal, Jesus is a man, therfore Jesus is mortal. Math 15 11 (it is) Not that which goeth into the mouth (that) defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. So only men can be defiled?
I am not sure you're following the thought here. To be clear, the point of this video is to show what happens when the flawed principle behind an argument against infant baptism is applied to women's communion. Yes, women were included in communion even though the Bible doesn't specifically mention them - as is also the case with children and baptism. :)
Of course.......why not???
Maybe watch the video. :)
Was Christ’s body only broken for men?
Was Christ’s blood only shed for men?
What I’m wondering though, is why someone would get it in their head to pursue this waste of time? Aren’t there weightier matters in scripture that we could be studying and discussing?
The goal of this video was to show what happens when the flawed principle behind an argument against infant baptism is applied to women's communion. Yes, women were included in communion even though the Bible doesn't specifically mention them - as is also the case with children and baptism. :)
@@DouglasBeaumont 💡 Oops how embarrassing! I had no idea. I’ll watch out for you next time.
@@po18guy 😂 Well...I didn’t watch all of it!
I think the principle of this argument is flawed (though I admit I don’t have hard proof). The seemingly male-gendered words in the communion passages are simply shorthand for "people" in Greek, just as they were in English till a couple of generations ago, and just as they still are in the grammatical constructions of many Indo-European languages. That is, when somebody says "mankind", nobody takes it to mean exclusively bodies with penises.
I 100% agree with the linguistic counter-argument, l but the problem is the same can be used to defend infant baptism. Either way my point is made. ;)
Let’s go
What's the point of baptism, to show what you believe so I don't see any point in baptizing a baby because a baby is incapable of believeing on Christ. It's a pointless ritual
Like circumcision was?
@@DouglasBeaumont the circumcision acts as an outward physical sign of the eternal covenant between God and the Jewish people. Baptism is an outward confession that you have believed on the death, burial and resurrection, a baby can't believe the gospel so it's a pointless tradition. It can be a devastating tradition to those who think they are saved because they were baptized as a baby, that would be a scary place to be.
By what logic then do we argue that only men of Genetic Jewish stock should be allowed to take communion?
I doubt that would work since St. Paul was writing to Gentiles in 1 Corinthians. :)