T
TriuneUnity
Guest
You accused me of “not knowing God” and yet I’m supposed to worry about sarcasm?
A question for some non-catholic,,,The Catholic Church Baptizes infants.
- Status
F
falungong
Guest
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGG
“Sarcasm: weed of deceit!” - Dr. Leopold, The Bloodwaters of Dr. Z
D
Dokimas
Guest
Makes me think of the children of Israel after the exodus. They wanted a golden god. Aaron made it for them (This took place as Moses was getting the Commandments). Then as God lead Israel to the Promised Land, the CofI continually complained. God made them wander in the wilderness for an extra 40 yrs or so undil all the adults (except Caleb and Joshua) were dead. Only the children of those that wanted the golden god made were able to go through the Jordan River into the Promised Land.
God passed His promise down to the children inspite of the disobedience of the parents. God’s promise of salvation is for infants, no matter what the parents do. The children must respond to Jesus after they understand, just as the CofI had to keep the Commandments for themselves after they were old enough to understand. They failed over and over again, just like many of us.
NT church: all believers (true disciples) in Jesus the Messiah (God in Human form, the King of Judah and the Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world).
D
Dokimas
Guest
I think you’re incorrect. I believe the God of the NT and OT is far bigger than our mistakes or misunderstandings. That’s why I don’t think relationship with Him is based upon ritual. While many use wonderful faith in their rituals, many more ‘go through the motions’ with no real faith involved. Other don’t go through the rituals but have faith in Jesus. Jesus sees the heart (remember young David) not the ritual actions, and as usual, IMO.
L
LionHeart777
Guest
Greetings Dokimas. Agreed that God is far bigger than our mistakes or misunderstandings. Re: relationship with God based on ritual; Admittedly, I don’t like the sound of that but Jesus did say that, “…Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5) The Early Church interpreted this verse to be referring to the regeneration that occurs at Christian Baptism. Jesus also said that, “…Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” (John 6:53) So, 1st, if someone is ignorant of the neccessity of these things through no fault of their own, I believe they can still be in a relationship with God if they are invincably ignorant. Having said that, if one knew of the necessity of these things and refused to meet God on His terms, could such a one still be saved?
Remember the man that was born blind in John’s Gospel? Jesus healed him of his blindness miraculously by the power of the Holy Spirit. He also, “…spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man’s eyes. 7’Go,’ he told him, ‘wash in the Pool of Siloam’ (this word means Sent). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing.” (John 9:6)
Now, did Jesus, being God, need to do this external thing in order to heal the man? I personally don’t believe so. But as I think one Catholic Apologist (Scott Hahn?) has brilliantly pointed out, Jesus used the physical to work through in order to heal the man. So it is with Baptism and the Eucharist. God chose to work through the physical elements in bringing Grace to His people.
Re: “Going through the motions.” I believe that the Catholic Church teaches that the recipient of “the rituals” has to be properly disposed for them to have any effect. The Sacraments are not some form of magic. They are God’s way of bringing Grace via the physical elements. They are not just outward form. I believe that the outward form portrays the Spiritual reality.
I agree 100% that God is after the heart of man. I don’t believe that truth is in conflict with Catholic Theology. On the other hand, the sacraments are not merely symbolic either.
peace
D
Dokimas
Guest
To those that do not believe in infant baptism because its not in the Bible, the following has been addressed time and time again but there has been no response. If you were living at the time of these Early Fathers, what bible would you be using to point to them and prove them wrong in their writings? There were letters passed around written by the Apostles of Jesus. I’d point them to these. ** How would you come against these ECF’s. I wouldn’t ‘come against’ them; they’re not heretics; at worst they were mistaken. ** Were these ECF’s ignorant of what teaching was passed on down to them by the Apostles? Funny how easy misunderstandings creep in. It started early in the history of the church. And who taught the Apostles? Jesus then the Holy Spirit.
Are you saying that the Early Fathers who then canonized the Bible, had no idea what they were doing when they compiled the Bible NOPE and that it wasn’t until the 1500’s that the true interpreters of the Bible realized that those ignorant ECF’s had it all wrong? ** According to your questions, you seem to be one who would throw the baby out with the bathwater**. **The ECF’s made GREAT contributions. **
Please address these ECF’s regarding infant baptism They don’t need addressing; they already know for SURE…/
D
Dokimas
Guest
Was that water baptism or the baptism of the Holy Spirit? Peter said it wasn’t the kind that had anything to do with cleaning dirt. Seems he was speaking of water. Water doesn’t clean what we need cleaning. Jesus said we are dirty within; the dirt from without is of little concern to Him. He said what enters a person does not defile; what exits does. It’s the Spirit that cleanses from within, not water.
I love the spirit of your post. You share knowledge and understanding in meekness. It’s refeshing. Thank you.
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
This is a rather pointless thread. Those who embrace Believer’s Baptism simply don’t grasp the concept of baptism as a sacrament. That’s not a statement of worth, just an observation.
Baptism as a sacrament sees God, not us, as the principal actor at baptism. Remembering it has nothing to do with regeneration or new birth. I don’t remember the day of my birth, but that doesn’t negate my birth. So it is with baptism, infant or otherwise, as a sacrament. God does something to us - we are passive.
If one does not see baptism as a sacrament, of course they see infant baptism as “being asleep” for their baptism. So this argument is really pointless.
Baptists attack Methodists for baptizing infants too. An argument Is a waste of breath.
O+
Baptism as a sacrament sees God, not us, as the principal actor at baptism. Remembering it has nothing to do with regeneration or new birth. I don’t remember the day of my birth, but that doesn’t negate my birth. So it is with baptism, infant or otherwise, as a sacrament. God does something to us - we are passive.
If one does not see baptism as a sacrament, of course they see infant baptism as “being asleep” for their baptism. So this argument is really pointless.
Baptists attack Methodists for baptizing infants too. An argument Is a waste of breath.
O+
D
Dokimas
Guest
Good thing you held your breath as you typed this.
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
Spoken like a good Eastern Christian!
It is a VERY good point. There are certainly accounts of the Early Church Fathers favoring infant communion - chiefly, Augustine.
If you offer the initiating sacrament, it is tantamount to intentionally starving someone to deny them the sustaining sacrament.
Excellent post, Hesychios!
L
LionHeart777
Guest
I came across this on the net:
"Infant communion certainly cannot be traced back as far as infant baptism. The first definite reference to infant baptism is in Irenaeus, about 180 A.D., who speaks of ‘all who through Christ are born again to God, infants and children and boys and young men and old men’ (Against Heresies 2:22:4, or 2:33:2), ‘born again to God’ being a technical phrase meaning baptism, well attested in other parts of Irenaeus’s writings…
The earliest definite reference to infant or child communion, on the other hand, is in Cyprian (On the Lapsed 9, 25) about the year 251, after the voluminous writings of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, and Origen had appeared, without any reference to such a practice…"
(angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.beckwithantiquity.html) (accessed 4/4/10)
Does anyone have any earlier reference for infant communion?
"Infant communion certainly cannot be traced back as far as infant baptism. The first definite reference to infant baptism is in Irenaeus, about 180 A.D., who speaks of ‘all who through Christ are born again to God, infants and children and boys and young men and old men’ (Against Heresies 2:22:4, or 2:33:2), ‘born again to God’ being a technical phrase meaning baptism, well attested in other parts of Irenaeus’s writings…
The earliest definite reference to infant or child communion, on the other hand, is in Cyprian (On the Lapsed 9, 25) about the year 251, after the voluminous writings of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, and Origen had appeared, without any reference to such a practice…"
(angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.beckwithantiquity.html) (accessed 4/4/10)
Does anyone have any earlier reference for infant communion?
L
LionHeart777
Guest
Thanks for the kind words Dokimas.
I believe John 3:5 is speaking about water baptism and as J. Akin pointed out to J. White on the Bible Answer Man show, there is not one ECF he is aware of (and he’s looked for one) who approached that verse differently. I used to hold the Baptist view myself.
1 Peter 3:20-22:
"…when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:" (biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%203&version=KJV) (Accessed 4/ 4/ 10)
I don’t think anything I’ve said is out of step with St. Peter here. I agree that water baptism doesn’t have anything to do with washing away dirt; rather it washes away sin(s). Now, sins cannot be washed away by water ordinarily but I believe God has set it up this way. The water cleanses the soul by the power of the Holy Spirit and the person is “born again.” Like me at Easter Vigil tonight, God willing.
Here is St. Justin Martyr on Christian Baptism in his time:
“As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ John 3:5 Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: ‘Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, says the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if you refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord has spoken it.’ Isaiah 1:16-20” (1st Apology, Ch. 61) (newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm) (Accessed 4/4/10)
peace
L
Loboto-Me
Guest
Dear LionHeart,
I will dedicate a chaplet for you today toward your blessed journey home!
I will dedicate a chaplet for you today toward your blessed journey home!
L
LionHeart777
Guest
Thank you!
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
I don’t think you will find any written before Augustine or the Apostolic Constitutions. It was not officially addressed in the Latin Church until Trent, when First Communion was instituted. The Eastern Church has continued the practice up to present, as has the Oriental and Eastern/Byzantine Catholic Churches.
Some good dialogue on this issue can be found here in both the article and the comments.
L
LionHeart777
Guest
Thanks O.S. Luke
T
TobyLue
Guest
Dokimas
Some things were written others were taught by word of mouth. Why do you think that Origen wrote
"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants.” ?
How many of the Apostles wrote down what was taught by Jesus. Do you think these Early Fathers didn’t know about those letters? Remember “ So brethren, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that were taught by us either by word of mouth or by letter…" 2Thess2:15
Some things were written others were taught by word of mouth. Why do you think that Origen wrote
"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants.” ?
Code:
of course you wouldn’t, because you couldn’t. You probably would have been labeled a heretic. Now if the ECF’s were mistaken what proof do you have that they were not mistaken when agreed the 2Thes2:15 belonged in the Bible? Can you show us proof, other than your opinion, that the Early Church ever came against Origen, Hypollitus, St. John Chrysostoms, and the many, many ECF"s that wrote FOR infant baptism?Here you are grasping at straws. Simply stating something without proof does not make it true. OK, show us proof that the Early Church was against infant baptism and that a misunderstanding crept in? You say it started early in the history of the church. We have shown you at the Early Church was baptizing infants because it was handed to them by the Apostles who were taught by Jesus. Now you proof to us that the Apostles were telling people NOT to baptize infants. Are you going to tell me that the disciples of the Apostles who were the earliest of the early church got it all wrong? Please show us some of those early church writings. And yes, Jesus told his apostles that His Holy Spirit would guide them and the gates of hell would not prevail. So you are saying that for 2000 years the Bride of Christ has been mistaken and Jesus has let His Church continue to be mistaken and then out of the blue, here comes the Holy Spirit to enlighten men in the true teachings of Jesus and the Holy Spirit telling these men that the Early Church (who with the guidance of the Holy Spirit compiled the Book Protestants like to bash the Catholic’s over the head with) was mistaken, and not a shred of evidence has ever been produced that the real Christians of that time were teaching NOT to baptize infants.
On the contrary, that is what the non-believers of infant baptism have done.
Yes and the **Early Church KNEW FOR SURE** that infants were to be baptized.
E
elvisman
Guest
It doesn’t HAVE to be proven from the Gospel - that’s my poiint.
**You are *still *under the false notion that the Bible fell from the sky before the Church was established. The Church and Apostolic traditions came before the NT was fully written and assembled. **
Remember that it is the Church that is called the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15) - NOT Scripture.
**Read the Didache (Teachings of the Apostles), 70 A.D., my friend and see the traditions that were taught by the Apostles - which are in perfect harmony with Scripture.
**That being said - the case for infant baptism HAS been made using Scripture and logic by myself and others. **
You have offered nothing but semantic games and denial.
It’s hard NOT to be a Protestant and not be anti-Catholic.
Think about it - the only other kind of Protestant would be one that is deeply immersed in the waters of relativistic thinking, wherein ALL faiths and ALL paths to God are equal and okay. Jesus taught that there is only ONE way - ONE gate, and it is narrow (Matt. 7:13-14).
I could respect an anti-Catholic far easier than a relativist. So if I call you an anti-Catholic - it’s almost a compliment to your convictions.
E
elvisman
Guest
More of your denials - but no substance.
Give me a clear and comprehensive response to what the Fathers taught about infant Baptism and how they not only supported it but practiced it.
I issue this challenge to ALL Protestants who deny infant Baptism.
- Status