SOLA

You can simply tell from his portrait that he was an insufferable cunt.

...

Apparently not, because he managed to sway a large amount of people to his cause, and changed the world for the better. Pope-fags and other wannabe totalitarians who oppose self-determination tend to disagree, however, hence your post and its weakest of ad hominems, he look like a autist.

>Apparently not, because he managed to sway a large amount of people to his cause

I remember another german who did that.

Well, Hussites, unlike protestants didn't go all "HEY, IF YOU JOIN US, YOU CAN STEAL FROM EVERY CHURCH AND MONASTERY THAT YOU FIND! ALSO, NUNS ARE FOR SEXUAL!"

Also:
>Heretic
>Saint

SANCTA CATHOLICA ET APOSTOLICA ECCLESIA

>"If it aint in the Bible, get it the fuck out, sola scriptura!"
>infant baptism has no Biblical backing

>"L-let's have t-tradition, j-just in this one case"

Fuck him. He helped get rid of some of the excesses of Catholicism but his theology was just as broken as theirs

Luther did, if my memory serve me right, condemn such actions.
Of course Catholics don't value truth whenever he did it or not.

Hussites were also nearly unbeatable in war and they had multiple crusades called on them.

Yes.
E' proprio na Sola.

No. He fostered it when it was pragmatic to due so, then disowned it.

>infant baptism has no Biblical backing
"At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and ALL HIS HOUSEHOLD were baptized."

You know what really aren't in scripture? Sola Scriptura.

What a Jew.
What was that general called? Żiżek? Truly, he was great leader.

There's nothing in that passage that passage that implies his family was baptized without hearing and believing the Gospel. As a matter of fact, given the rest of the New Testament's descriptions of baptism, it should be understood that his family DID believe.

2/10, try harder filthy paedobaptist scum

kek

>Catholics are STILL butthurt
>Catholics will NEVER recover

Absolutely based

>Catholics will still rationalize it to be about one single man rather than inherent corruption within the Church

Household. People living in house. Lots of people if you consider slaves. With shittone of children becouse it was circa 40 AD and if you didn't have shitone of children your days of old would be fucking bad. And we have record for children baptism from early centuries. (Not to mention that old covenant was for children so why would wider, new one won't be for them)

Also there is more pedophiles among pastors than catholic clergy so stop useing jewish memes.
Lutherans are the most cucked denomination, they don't even exists in meaningful manner and all of thier nations turned into massive cucks. Thank you Luther for you was the one, that took all the degenerates with you.
>What is pornocracy
>Who is Francis of Assisi
>Resistance "corruption" and "reformers"

>Burn several reformers at the stake
>Don't do anything till Europe is basically a ticking bomb of reformations vs catholics when you start the council of trent
Past virtues don't mean shit

>HEY, IF YOU JOIN US, YOU CAN STEAL FROM EVERY CHURCH AND MONASTERY THAT YOU FIND!
Strange, I remember the actually quote being "Kill the peasants, they're lower than dogs"
>ALSO, NUNS ARE FOR SEXUAL!
Oaths are of men, marriage is from God

>>infant baptism has no Biblical backing
Yes it does

How can a little baby hear and believe the gospel?

>Extorting nearly 10% of the wealth in Europe through tithe
>Possessing somewhere in the neighborhood of a quarter of all European lands

papistfags will defend this

edgelord

>grandstanding faggot over a genius

everyone forgot about him for a reason, all flash no substance

pope = god on earth
t. pius x

No household baptism story in any passage of the new testament makes mention of any "little babies" being baptized. That's an assumption on the part of paedobaptists.

>Household. People living in house. Lots of people if you consider slaves. With shittone of children becouse it was circa 40 AD and if you didn't have shitone of children your days of old would be fucking bad.
Hearing an awful lot of assumptions on your part. Seems like you're trying to force an exact definition, particularly one that fits a later narrative of infant baptism, of "household" on the text.

>And we have record for children baptism from early centuries.
The earliest record of infant baptisms was from the 3rd century AD, at least. That's far removed from the early church during the period the scriptures describe.

>(Not to mention that old covenant was for children so why would wider, new one won't be for them)
Maybe because the New Covenant was meant to be BETTER in every conceivable way, including in the sign of the Covenant? Have you read the book of Hebrews? Have you not read anything Jesus said in the Gospels?

It's obviously teaching paedobaptism, you're struggling against the word

>Burn several reformers at the stake
I wish
>Don't do anything till Europe is basically a ticking bomb of reformations vs catholics when you start the council of trent
Church thought that it's harmless heresy that will be over in decade. But then Luther and Co. siad to HRE princes "Hey, Church is literally Devil, steal shit from them and you will be saved by faith!"
>Oaths are of men, marriage is from God
>Holy Orders
>Tradition older than Church itself rooting back into Biblical times, advocated by Paul and Apostolic Father as a ultimate devotion for God without being a martyr
>Oath for men
Not an argument
It's Bible backed, read first five books again :^)
>No household baptism story in any passage of the new testament makes mention of any "little babies" being baptized.
And no trinitarian passage mentions "God is one, in three persons". Yet we believe in Trinity because it's there, only not named. You see that "It's not literally here ergo there isn't it all" logic is stupid?
>Hearing an awful lot of assumptions on your part. Seems like you're trying to force an exact definition, particularly one that fits a later narrative of infant baptism, of "household" on the text.
Having basic knowledge of Greek nomenclature and realia isn't assumptions.
>The earliest record of infant baptisms was from the 3rd century AD, at least.
Wrong. In second century, around 180 AD (mearly 100 years after Gospel of John), St Irenaeus, disciple of St Polycarp who was beloved disciple of John Evangelists himself, worte ""For He came to save all through means of Himself—all, I say, who through Him are born again to God—infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men."
"Against Hereses" is good book btw, you should read it.

>>Holy Orders
Where is that in the bible again?
>I wish
Being a papist should be a hangable offense
>steal shit from them
The church had no right to own land just to fatten the popes purse
>For He came to save all through means of Himself—all, I say, who through Him are born again to God—infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men
That's got nothing to do with baptism, that's about the new birth

I'm not hearing an argument, just a insinuation.

>St Irenaeus, disciple of St Polycarp who was beloved disciple of John Evangelists himself, worte ""For He came to save all through means of Himself—all, I say, who through Him are born again to God—infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men."
>"Against Hereses" is good book btw, you should read it.

It's on my Amazon wishlist actually, along with "On The Apostolic Preaching".

Now, on to objections: that quote says nothing of the accepted practice of baptism at that time and also says nothing of the proper recipients of baptism. But let's assume he is discussing baptism. I seriously, seriously doubt that an early Church father was advocating a sort of sacramentalism later endorsed by Rome or even a covenantal family bloodline-type infant baptism. The quote clearly speaks of those who through Christ are "born again to God." He's talking about believers. If an infant can somehow profess faith in Christ, then go ahead and baptize him.

>If an infant can somehow profess faith in Christ, then go ahead and baptize him.
>"lmao you're not Christian until you tell me"
>"I converted to Christianity, even though I was raised a Baptist!"
Soul competency is retarded

>Soul competency is retarded

It's not "soul competency", its the pattern of belief followed by baptism established throughout Acts and the Epistles. Reformed Protestant theology, taken to its biblical conclusions and burning away the dross of Rome, eventually leads one to hold to believer's baptism.

>Maybe because the New Covenant was meant to be BETTER in every conceivable way, including in the sign of the Covenant?
Then why it would be worse than old one? Infants were part in old one so why should they stop being part of new?
>Have you read the book of Hebrews?
Yes. It mention baptism as a essential teaching that they don;t have to remind. Teaching that John gave to Polycarp and Polycarp to Irenaeus. Infant baptism.
> Have you not read anything Jesus said in the Gospels?
"Let the children come to me"?
"Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven"?
>Where is that in the bible again?
Matthew 19:21 And Consecrated life is better term.
>Being a papist should be a hangable offense
Being a heretic is offensive against God
>The church had no right to own land just to fatten the popes purse
>Legitimising stealing
>Ever
Who are you, nigger without morals? Plus Church have this land as a eternal gift from secular rulers. And use that money for charity and education. Selfspending was and is minimal.
Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of WATER and the Spirit."
Water. Baptism. You are not very smart aren't you?
>Now, on to objections: that quote says nothing of the accepted practice of baptism at that time and also says nothing of the proper recipients of baptism
I quote only the most important part. Character limit ate context.
> But let's assume he is discussing baptism. I seriously, seriously doubt that an early Church father was advocating a sort of sacramentalism later endorsed by Rome or even a covenantal family bloodline-type infant baptism
Irenaeus was sacramentalists and huge Popeboo tho.
>The quote clearly speaks of those who through Christ are "born again to God." He's talking about believers. If an infant can somehow profess faith in Christ, then go ahead and baptize him.
One must be born again from WATER.

Last part is for (you)

No it's unbiblical tradition of radicals. Consistent Reformed theology leads one to understand infant baptism

>Matthew 19:21
I don't see any "holy" orders here
>Being a heretic is offensive against God
Yes it is, so I suggest you abandon Roman heresy
>stealing
That implies it belonged to the pope, but the only thing that rightly belongs to the pope is a rope
>Water. Baptism
I don't see the word baptism in that verse, maybe because it has nothing to do with baptism
>You are not very smart aren't you?
1 John 5:1 says regeneration precedes faith, baptism follows faith.
>Irenaeus was sacramentalist
No.
>huge Popeboo
There was no pope until 607
>One must be born again from WATER.
No. One is born again from the Spirit, not of man.

>>Maybe because the New Covenant was meant to be BETTER in every conceivable way, including in the sign of the Covenant?
>Then why it would be worse than old one? Infants were part in old one so why should they stop being part of new?

This is the guiding crux of the argument. The New Covenant is better because it's open to all who believe. Only boys received the sign of circumcision; now all who believe can receive the sign of baptism. The old covenant was full of earthly promises and exposed the faults of its bearers, the Jews. The New Covenant is full of spiritual promises and not only exposes the faults of his bearers, but provides the Holy Spirit to strengthen and enable its bearers to live lives in honor of the Covenant. This is why Jesus is in his priestly role is better than the human priests of the old covenant. He actually, permanently absolves sin.

Depends on your definition of radicals, but I doubt that Reformed theologians would want to cast out of their family men like Tombes, Bunyan, Carey, Fuller, Spurgeon, and the like. And to counter, your "consistency" leads one to cobble together a covenantal theology for infant baptism, only after realizing that believer's baptism holds scriptural support and all infant baptism has is Roman tradition. A covenantal theology of baptism which is so full of holes that the second one reads Hebrews they realize is full of crap.

>after realizing that believer's baptism holds scriptural support
Where in the bible does it say someone must profess faith before baptism again?
>all infant baptism has is Roman tradition
Acts 2:39 is not Roman tradition

>I don't see any "holy" orders here
I said that "consecration" is better term. Those vows that Jesus called to take "to be perfect" is what concentration is.
>Yes it is, so I suggest you abandon Roman heresy
>Said Satan 666 time since yesterday
>That implies it belonged to the pope
It implies that it belonged to Church. And it did. They had all ownership rights to it and built wonders pro ora et labora.It was theirs. Thinking otherwise is niggersim or worse - marxism.
>I don't see the word baptism in that verse, maybe because it has nothing to do with baptism
I already told you that this kind of logic is stupid. And if you think that "Born again from water" is not very definition of baptism then I don't think that you have mental capabilities to further discussion.
>1 John 5:1 says regeneration precedes faith, baptism follows faith.
I suggest to read whole chapter.
>No.
Did you read him at all?
>There was no pope until 607
And now you're just baiting
>No. One is born again from the Spirit
Water and Spirit. One is not enough. To be born again we need two.
> not of man.
>Sacraments
>Ex opere operantis
>Implying
>This is the guiding crux of the argument. The New Covenant is better because it's open to all who believe. Only boys received the sign of circumcision
You forget that in Old Covenant Wives and Daughters were part of covenant through circumcision of Husbands and Fathers. And with that, whole argument is not valid for you make New Covenant lesser than old one.

>I said that "consecration" is better term. Those vows that Jesus called to take "to be perfect" is what concentration is.
There is no Christian priesthood
>It implies that it belonged to Church
The pope is the church
>And it did
It belonged to the lords who protected it
>They had all ownership rights
The Roman Pagan Church has no rights
>I already told you that this kind of logic is stupid
What, the logic of not forcing things on scripture?
>And if you think that "Born again from water" is not very definition of baptism then I don't think that you have mental capabilities to further discussion
All it says is water. It is equally valid to interpret that as meaning to drink the koolaid as it is to interpret as baptism. Really it was reffering to repentance and holiness, because that is what "water" symbolized in Pharisaic thought.
>I suggest to read whole chapter
Why? I have, but why?
>Did you read him at all?
Enough to know he denied any form of real presence, which rules out ex opere operato Sacramentalism
>And now you're just baiting
The first bishop of Rome to claim to be head of the church was when Boniface III claimed it in 607
>Water and Spirit. One is not enough. To be born again we need two.
Is that what it says? Or maybe they're referring to the same thing, the new birth worked in the Christian soul by the Spirit?

>There is no Christian priesthood
>Priesthood!=Consecration
>The pope is the church
You are sound like retard, you know that?
>It belonged to the lords who protected it
HRE ain't USRR sunshine
>The Roman Pagan Church has no rights
>Being that much of a nigger
>What, the logic of not forcing things on scripture?
No, logic that say "word "Trinity" is not in bible therafore trinity doesn't exists"
>All it says is water. It is equally valid to interpret that as meaning to drink the koolaid as it is to interpret as baptism. Really it was reffering to repentance and holiness, because that is what "water" symbolized in Pharisaic thought.
>What is all of fucking church history bible included
I take that back you ARE retard.
>Why? I have, but why?
And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the WATER, and the blood: and these three are one.
>Enough to know he denied any form of real presence, which rules out ex opere operato Sacramentalism
And now I now that you are lier as well. Against Heresies 4:33–32 and 5:2
>The first bishop of Rome to claim to be head of the church was when Boniface III claimed it in 607
LEO THE GREAT, SERMON LXXXII, ON THE FEAST OF THE APOSTLES PETER AND PAUL (5th century): "III. On the dispersing of the Twelve, St. Peter was sent to Rome. For when the twelve Apostles, after receiving through the Holy Ghost the power of speaking with all tongues, had distributed the world into parts among themselves, and undertaken to instruct it in the Gospel, the most blessed Peter, chief of the Apostolic band, was appointed to the citadel of the Roman empire, that the light of Truth which was being displayed for the salvation of all the nations, might spread itself more effectively throughout the body of the world from the head itself.
>Is that what it says? Or maybe they're referring to the same thing, the new birth worked in the Christian soul by the Spirit?
>Spirit is Water

I have no intend to continue this mental masochism.

...

>Where in the bible does it say someone must profess faith before baptism again?
Colossians 2:11-12, Galatians 3:26-27, and Romans 6:1-4 all connect baptism with the new birth and with belief in Christ. A baptized person who wasn't a believer would have been an enigma to the Apostles.
>Acts 2:39 is not Roman tradition
Except that the promise in verse 29 is specifically tied in verse 28 to the response to the Gospel in repentance. There is nowhere in scripture where baptism is NOT tied to repentance and belief. It's only implied in the household baptisms in Acts that some of the household didn't believe. Given what the Epistles teach about the connection between belief, the new birth, and baptism, the only way one could come to the household baptism passages and suggest that some of the household were not believers, is that a pattern of unbelievers being baptized was forced upon the text. This is Roman tradition. However noble it might be to try and create a biblical case for infant baptism, it doesn't make the practice biblical.

>You forget that in Old Covenant Wives and Daughters were part of covenant through circumcision of Husbands and Fathers. And with that, whole argument is not valid for you make New Covenant lesser than old one.
But they did not receive the sign. That's the difference. Of course they were symbolically under their husband/father, but they were not given the sign. In the New Covenant all receive the sign. I'm not sure how you can say I'm making the New Covenant "lesser" when the Baptistic understanding of the sign of the new Covenant actually applies to MORE people than the sign of the Old. By definition, that makes it greater.

Err, what? The Hussites burned down most monasteries dozens of monasteries and razed whole towns to the ground. The lutherans were comparably tame when dealing with the church.

>You are sound like retard
Not an argument
>No, logic that say "word "Trinity" is not in bible therafore trinity doesn't exists"
Not an argument
>>Being that much of a nigger
Not an argument
>>What is all of fucking church history bible included
Not an argument
>I take that back you ARE retard.
Not an argument
>the spirit, and the WATER, and the blood
It's talking about the water that came out when Jesus was stabbed
>And now I now that you are lier as well
Nope
"For when the Greeks, having arrested the slaves of Christian catechumens, then used force against them, in order to learn from them some secret thing [practised] among Christians, these slaves, having nothing to say that would meet the wishes of their tormentors, except that they had heard from their masters that the divine communion was the body and blood of Christ, and imagining that it was actually flesh and blood, gave their inquisitors answer to that effect." (Fragment 13)
Irenaeus says real presence was the result of ignorance
>On the dispersing of the Twelve, St. Peter was sent to Rome. For when the twelve Apostles, after receiving through the Holy Ghost the power of speaking with all tongues, had distributed the world into parts among themselves, and undertaken to instruct it in the Gospel, the most blessed Peter, chief of the Apostolic band, was appointed to the citadel of the Roman empire, that the light of Truth which was being displayed for the salvation of all the nations, might spread itself more effectively throughout the body of the world from the head itself.
This says that Rome was head of the world, not that Peter was head of the church. Nice try though

>Colossians 2:11-12
Says one must be born again first, which is only known through outward proofs one of which is being the child of a believer
>Galatians 3:26-27
Talking about baptism of the Holy Spirit, not water baptism.
>Romans 6:1-4
About how baptism is a symbol of regeneration. Has nothing to do with who should be baptized.
>A baptized person who wasn't a believer would have been an enigma to the Apostles
No, a baptized person who wasn't a Christian would be an enigma to the apostles.
>Except that the promise in verse 29 is specifically tied in verse 28 to the response to the Gospel in repentance. There is nowhere in scripture where baptism is NOT tied to repentance and belief.
Yes. What is relevant is that the verse places children of believers in the category of those the Lord has called to Himself. They are in the covenant of grace, they ought to recieve the signs of the covenant.
>is that a pattern of unbelievers being baptized was forced upon the text.
Assuming the household includes small children it is right in the text. Also, children are not unbelievers, that implies rejection of the gospel but children are neither accepting nor rejecting.

For clarification, what are you? Catholic? Lutheran? Presbyterian? I'm a Baptist, obviously. I just want to know who I'm talking to here.

>Says one must be born again first, which is only known through outward proofs one of which is being the child of a believer
>one of which is being the child of a believer
Can you point me to a New Testament passage that says a proof of being a believer is being the child of a believer? Because that seems to make the preaching of the Gospel irrelevant. That's salvation through bloodline.

>Talking about baptism of the Holy Spirit, not water baptism.
>About how baptism is a symbol of regeneration. Has nothing to do with who should be baptized.
The New Testament writers and all translators seem to think all of these passages DO connect with water baptism, because they use the same words for spirit baptism and water baptism. Why would they use the word "baptizo" to refer to both? Unless there was a connection between the two? Why would Peter connect water baptism with repentance, belief, and receiving the Holy Spirit in Acts 2? Why would Paul refer to water baptism (by use of the word "baptizo" in speaking of spirit baptism in Galatians 3? Why would there be all these connections between water baptism and spirit baptism (which is inseparable from repentance and belief) unless water baptism was somehow associated with and connected to belief?

>Assuming the household includes small children it is right in the text.
Forgot to address this point. Can you provide a passage that explicitly says small children or infant were baptized? Because otherwise its hard to see how it's not as assumption to say there were infants or small children in the household. Who's to say the jailer did not have teenage children? Or no children at all?

>Presbyterian
This
>Can you point me to a New Testament passage that says a proof of being a believer is being the child of a believer?
Matthew 19:14
>That's salvation through bloodline.
No it's not, if i'm born to a Christian family i'm more likely to be saved than if i'm born a Jew
>Unless there was a connection between the two?
There is a connection. Why do you think it's impossible for an infant to be born again?
>Can you provide a passage that explicitly says small children or infant were baptized?
What kind of household do you think a jailer would have? Not exactly the wealthiest position in the empire. I can't imagine him owning slaves, and they're not going to baptize his unbelieving wife.
>Who's to say the jailer did not have teenage children?
The term household implies they belonged to him, teens were grown adults. Remember not to project modern culture concerning age back onto the text.
>Or no children at all?
Do Baptists baptize inanimate objects or pets? Because unless the poor jailer has slaves or children...

...

>Matthew 19:14
This is a very poor example, and a stereotypical one at that. First, Christ never mentions baptism in the entirety of Matthew 19. Second, in that passage Christ speaks metaphorically to the humility and childlike faith necessary in order to be born again. If we take this statement here literally, then Christ would be seen as saying only children could be saved.
>if i'm born to a Christian family i'm more likely to be saved than if i'm born a Jew
This is true, and very covenantal, but that statistical advantage alone does not make you a believer. Belief makes you a believer.
>Why do you think it's impossible for an infant to be born again?
I don't. The Westminster Confession AND the 1689 Baptist Confession both proclaim that infants who die are regenerated by the Holy Spirit as they pass from this world. BUT I do believe it is highly improbable, nigh impossible, for an infant to believe the Gospel and repent of their sin. Therefore, without the infant being able to show fruits of salvation, baptism is withheld from them until such a time as they can profess their belief in Christ.

1/2

>What kind of household do you think a jailer would have? Not exactly the wealthiest position in the empire. I can't imagine him owning slaves, and they're not going to baptize his unbelieving wife.
I would hope and assume that the Apostles wouldn't forcibly baptize an adult unbelieving wife. And I can't help but notice you didn't provide a passage that explicitly shows or commands infants to be baptized?
>The term household implies they belonged to him, teens were grown adults. Remember not to project modern culture concerning age back onto the text.
You implying that "teens were grown adults" is EXACTLY the type of modern culture that YOU are projecting onto the text. If I were a 18 year old female living in my fathers' house in the Apostolic era, I would belong to my parents until I was wed. The same could be said, to a lesser degree, of unwed sons, despite their age, if they lived in the father's house.
>Do Baptists baptize inanimate objects or pets? Because unless the poor jailer has slaves or children...
We're missing the point here. The passage says his household was baptized. No argument there. If baptism, as the Apostles taught it, was connected to belief and repentance, then there is nothing in that passage that implies the entire household didn't repent and believe, either before or simultaneously with their baptism. In fact, in Acts 16:31-32 it says that Paul preached the Gospel to his household. Why would his household rejoice with him in verse 34 if they had not believed as well?

2/2