Baptism... And the True Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter bibleapologist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CRW,

Let’s look at the quotes you cited…

Praise God, the whole family was saved! That verse does not prove anything for infant baptism. I assure you, if Paul baptized the whole household of Stephanas, there were no infants implicated.

Which words would be toward the effectually salvation of Peter, and subsequently his whole household (1 Corinthians 7:16). As is qualified by verse 16.

Apparently her whole family was saved. In fact, verse 40 refers to the household of Lydia as “brethren”, and Paul and Silas “comforted” them in Lydia’s house.

Yes, the jailer was baptized with his house… but in verse 30 he asked what shall I do to be saved. in verse 32 the gospel was shared with him… AND HIS HOUSE.

In verse 34 we see evidence that he and his whole house had believed the gospel that was preached to them…

I see no evidence for Infant Baptism in any of the quotes you cited… Dennis Kastens misinterpreted scripture I think.

Justin Martyr was absolutely right… Baptism IS the circumcision of the New Testament…

Would you like to discuss this relationship between circumcision and baptism further?

John
www.gideonsword.net
Who would be so blind as to limit this expression of God’s grace and mercy to adolescents and adults and to exclude infants and children?. If John the Baptizer could be filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb (Luke 1: 15), and if Jesus could say (Matt. 18: 6), “Whoever offends one of these little ones (Gk.“toddlers”) who believe in Me, it were better that he were drowned in the depth of the sea,” and if the Apostle Peter could say on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2: 39), "The promise is unto you and to your children," what mere mortal dare declare so gracious an invitation to be invalid for infants, or forbid the continuance of the Baptism of infants for coming generations? Quote my OP - link.
 
Isn’t there a very early manuscript that describes the baptism of a baby girl only a few months old that they found in a catacomb somewhere dating back around 110 or something? I’ve read it in another thread before, but I don’t remember where…
It would be a good source for infant baptism.

-P7
See my post 271 for the document written by Dennis Kastens.

The Witness of the Catacombs

The witness of the literary texts of the early church fathers, councils and apologists for the practice of infant Baptism in the first Christian centuries receives valuable confirmation from the catacombs and cemeteries of the Middle East, Africa and southern Europe. Below are epitaphs from the 200’s of small children who had been baptized. It is interesting to note that there are no Christian epitaphs in existence earlier than 200. As soon as the era of Christian inscriptions begins, we find evidence for infant Baptism. [editor’s note- the two referenced epitaphs are in the original document].

In that century there are attributes and symbols in tombstones inscriptions of little children which allows us to clearly infer we are dealing with baptized children. The following is as early as 200 or shortly thereafter: [editor’s note- the referenced epitaph is in the original document].

In the second last line is the phrase Dei Serv(u)s which means slave of God followed by the Chi Rho symbol for Christ. The last line is the Greek ichtheos familiar as the “fish symbol” - an anagram for Jesus Christ God’s Son Savior. These words and symbols mark the one-year, two months, and four-day-old child as a baptized Christian.

From the Lateran Museum, also from the 200’s, is a Greek inscription that gives information about the religious status of the parents. It reads, “I, Zosimus, a believer from believers, lie here having lived 2 years, 1 month, 25 days.”

Also from this era are headstones for children who received emergency baptism with ages ranging from 11 months to 12 years. Since the patristic sources of the third century, as those earlier, give us to understand that the children of Christian parents were baptized in infancy, we must conclude that these emergency baptisms were administered to children of non-Christians. The inscriptions themselves confirm this conclusion. In the Roman catacomb of Priscilla is reference to a private emergency baptism that was administered to the one-and-three-quarter-year-old Apronianus and enabled him to die as a believer. The inscription reads:

Dedicated to the departed.
Florentius made this inscription
for his worthy son Apronianus who
lived one year and nine months and five days.
As he was truly loved by his grandmother
and she knew that his death was imminent,
she asked the church that he might depart from the world as a believer.
 
No, the record I’m talking about predates 200AD. I tried looking for it but I forgot where I saw it. It involved a little girl who died early…oh man…I wish I remembered…
P7
 
Pryority7, you must be talking about this:
archeological discoveries in the Roman catacombs have long-ago proven that infant baptism was common in the primitive Roman Churches. Two clear examples, among dozens of similar inscriptions, are all that we really need to support this claim. A man with the resounding Roman/Latin name of Murtius Verinus placed on the tomb of his children the inscription: “Verina received Baptism at the age of ten months, Florina at the age of twelve months.” The date of this tomb has been firmly established by radio-carbon dating of the children’s bones as being 105 AD +/- 4 years. Another tomb, not far away from this one, has the inscription: “Here rests Achillia, a newly-baptized infant; she was one year and five months old, died February 23rd…” and then follows the year of the reigning emperor, which dates her death to 91 AD. [see W. Wall, “History of Infant Baptism”, 2 Vols., London, 1900. and other related articles in various archeological journals from early this century.]
I thought I’d posted it on this thread, but I can’t find it.

The web-site’s author answers his e-mails if you wish to get more infro from him.
 
YESSSS!!! THAT’S IT!!!
Thank you so much for finding it. Once again historical proof of infant baptism in the early church…very good…

P7

By the way, I know John will knock this down too…🙂
 
YESSSS!!! THAT’S IT!!!
Thank you so much for finding it. Once again historical proof of infant baptism in the early church…very good…

P7

By the way, I know John will knock this down too…🙂
Yes, he did when I posted it on #298!!!
 
That’s because he’s less interested in the truth than he is in supporting his man-made traditions.

Jeremy
To bad his man-made traditions aren’t supported by scripture or anything else beside his own belief.
 
To bad his man-made traditions aren’t supported by scripture or anything else beside his own belief.
A fact which becomes even clearer when you see how little he actually interacts with opposing arguments in this thread.

Jeremy
 
jemfinch,
You still don’t know what Fideism is, John. You still remain ignorant
OK jemfinch, I’ll try to explain it to you again… Here is the definition for fideism…
Fideism - reliance on faith for knowledge. The view that religious knowledge depends on faith and revelation.
When you make a statement like "Clearly Mary and Jesus were exceptions [to the rule of original sin]… and you leave the statement without any knowledgable or logical substantiation, we can only surmise that you have no substantiation but that you have “faith” that your statement is true without any substantiation.

When I asked you for substantiation, you said…
Are you really that imbecilic, John? I explained in the posts above that if you want to discuss this issue, Start a new thread. It’s not the topic of this thread.
Although that is not actually the topic of this thread, it is pertinent to the topic of this thread. Here’s why…

If tranferral of original sin was a legitimate rule, then Mary would have tranferred that same original sin to Jesus.

If I am right, and original sin is not a legitimate doctrine, then Catholics have no basis for baptizing infants to atone for original sin.

John
www.gideonsword.net
 
Priority7 and Notworthy,
Thank you so much for finding it. Once again historical proof of infant baptism in the early church…very good…
By the way, I know John will knock this down too…
I have knowledge of good Bible believing churches that in just a few years have all but totally lost their effectiveness as witnesses to the truth, and have gone into apostacy.

Here you have quoted a record of an incident that occurred several years after the death of the last Apostle. Besides, we have New Testament records (1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Rev. etc.) of churches who were mistaken about certain doctrines while the Apostles were yet alive and teaching!

Really, the only infallible concrete teaching we have concerning doctrine is the letters of the Apostles which we have in the English King James Version… which Eden claims was given to us by the Catholic Church.

Why would we relegate our ability to debate on proofs that verify that these practices were actually practiced, rather that attempting to prove whether or not they were right in what they practiced?

John
www.gideonsword.net
 
jemfinch, and Sean Boyle,
That’s because he’s less interested in the truth than he is in supporting his man-made traditions.

Jeremy

To bad his man-made traditions aren’t supported by scripture or anything else beside his own belief.

A fact which becomes even clearer when you see how little he actually interacts with opposing arguments in this thread.

Jeremy, shame on you. I have spent more time entertaining your disparaging comments toward me than I should have.

If you spent as much time presenting scriptural proofs for your arguments, as you do attempting to discredit me, we would be a lot further along in this discussion.

John
www.gideonsword.net
 
OK jemfinch, I’ll try to explain it to you again… Here is the definition for fideism…
You’re not listening to me, John. That’s not Fideism. I’ve given you links to Wikipedia (which isn’t authoritative, but still informative), the Catholic Encyclopedia (which I don’t expect you accept, per your standard conspiracy theories), and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (a well-known, authoritative, and peer-reviewed reference!) that show that you definition of Fideism is wrong.

Here’s your definition: “Fideism - reliance on faith for knowledge. The view that religious knowledge depends on faith and revelation.”

Here’s the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s definition:
“Fideism” is the name given to that school of thought—to which Tertullian himself is frequently said to have subscribed—which answers that faith is in some sense independent of—if not outright adversarial toward—reason. In contrast to the more rationalistic tradition of natural theology, with its arguments for the existence of God, fideism holds that reason is unnecessary and inappropriate for the exercise and justification of religious belief.
When you make a statement like "Clearly Mary and Jesus were exceptions [to the rule of original sin]… and you leave the statement without any knowledgable or logical substantiation, we can only surmise that you have no substantiation but that you have “faith” that your statement is true without any substantiation.
When you make a statement like this after I’ve explained things three times, I can only surmise that you cannot read, or that you refuse to in an attempt to annoy or anger me. In either case, it’s disingenuous of you to argue, but I’ve simply come to expect that from you.
Although that is not actually the topic of this thread, it is pertinent to the topic of this thread. Here’s why…
If tranferral of original sin was a legitimate rule, then Mary would have tranferred that same original sin to Jesus.
The transfer comes through the father, not the mother, very simply. In Adam, all die. Not in Eve.
If I am right, and original sin is not a legitimate doctrine, then Catholics have no basis for baptizing infants to atone for original sin.
Which just goes to show that it’s even more off-topic to be discussing it: even if Catholics are wrong about original sin (we’re not, of course, and haven’t been for 2,000 years), we would still baptize our infants to give them the gift of the Holy Spirit, which is received through baptism.

Jeremy
 
Jeremy, shame on you. I have spent more time entertaining your disparaging comments toward me than I should have.

If you spent as much time presenting scriptural proofs for your arguments, as you do attempting to discredit me, we would be a lot further along in this discussion.
I already have presented proofs. You have refused to interact with them. Read this thread and look at how many of my proofs and others’ proofs that you’ve ignored.

As long as you follow a rule of only responding to the arguments you think you have a satisfactory answer to, rather than all the arguments that are presented to you, this thread will never get any further along.

I don’t need to discredit you any more than your lack of response to valid arguments already has.

Jeremy
 
Priority7 and Notworthy,

I have knowledge of good Bible believing churches that in just a few years have all but totally lost their effectiveness as witnesses to the truth, and have gone into apostacy.

Here you have quoted a record of an incident that occurred several years after the death of the last Apostle. Besides, we have New Testament records (1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Rev. etc.) of churches who were mistaken about certain doctrines while the Apostles were yet alive and teaching!

Why would we relegate our ability to debate on proofs that verify that these practices were actually practiced, rather that attempting to prove whether or not they were right in what they practiced?
John, it’s like you’re knocking on the door, but you won’t come in. You are so close to the truth!!!

Yes, we have examples of early practices of infant Baptism - before the last Apostle John died, not after he died (I know this is not proof, I’m just being nit-picky).

We all agree that churches went into Apostasy, and you bring up a very good point. How do we know that they went wrong? We have documented proof!!! Both in the Scriptures and in early Church writings.

But we have no proof of anybody questioning the practice of infant baptism. The first questioning of any kind on infant baptism is how long you should wait, 8 days or not - and this was in the 2nd or 3rd century!
 
jemfinch,

I can see that you don’t want to see what I have pointed out about your arguments, so let’s drop the fideistic issue. I’m not wrong and I don’t believe the others here have missed the point like you have.
The transfer comes through the father, not the mother, very simply. In Adam, all die. Not in Eve.
Are you simply accepting that by faith, or do you have substantiation for that statement…

I oppose your position and present these logical proofs…
Rom 5:12 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:
This is not a proof for Original sin, but a proof that the state of “death” is passed to all men. Since ALL WOMEN, are also sinners, it stands to reason that this curse was also passed to women (the word men in Romans 5:12 means “mankind”).

Scientifically, it has been proven that when a child is conceived, their DNA contains information from both the Father and the Mother. The child is not exclusively an emulation of the Father’s DNA. It is a naive, and barbaric notion that the “seed” of men is exclusively what brings about new life.

Also, for Jesus to be the “God-man”, He had to be born of flesh. Although it was the “seed” of the Father that brought Jesus into the world… Jesus also took on the flesh of Mary.

If Jesus had not taken on flesh, the sacrifice of the cross would have been useless… he would not have been a man, and would not have been a propitiation for sinful men.

Jesus was 100% God (from eternity), and 100% man (from the seed of David through Mary). If original sin were truth, Jesus would have inherited that from Mary (as He was born of flesh).

John
www.gideonsword.net
 
Notworthy,
Yes, we have examples of early practices of infant Baptism - before the last Apostle John died, not after he died (I know this is not proof, I’m just being nit-picky).
Thank you for acknowledging that.
We all agree that churches went into Apostasy, and you bring up a very good point. How do we know that they went wrong? We have documented proof!!! Both in the Scriptures and in early Church writings.
But we have no proof of anybody questioning the practice of infant baptism. The first questioning of any kind on infant baptism is how long you should wait, 8 days or not - and this was in the 2nd or 3rd century!
I understand your point. And this leads me to reiterate what I said earlier.

The fact that no-one questioned the validity of infant baptism in the New Testament (or the next 100 years) doesn’t prove that infant baptism is valid.

My position is that infant baptism was never recognized by anyone as a valid means of grace during the time that the Apostles wrote their letters… and since it was not an issue, there is nothing recorded as oppositional to it.

The Apostle Paul never rebuked any of the churches for “snake handling” because it wasn’t an issue then… but that is not to say that it is OK to tempt God by allowing a snake to bite you.

John
www.gideonsword.net
 
The Apostle Paul never rebuked any of the churches for “snake handling” because it wasn’t an issue then… but that is not to say that it is OK to tempt God by allowing a snake to bite you.
The absence of admonitions against “snake handling” by St. Paul in no way proves that infant baptism was not a teaching of the Church from the 1st century. That’s a non sequitor.

If it were the case that infant baptisms were not taking place in the time of the Apostles and that is why we do not see opposition, then you should be able to provide evidence of later opposition when the Catholic Church was “invented” in 313 A.D.
 
My position is that infant baptism was never recognized by anyone as a valid means of grace during the time that the Apostles wrote their letters… and since it was not an issue, there is nothing recorded as oppositional to it.
St. Polycarp (Bishop of Smyrna) was a disciple of the Apostle John and he was baptized as an infant (circa 69 A.D.) That was 30+ years before John the Apostle’s death. If St. Polycarp’s infant baptism was in contradiction to the teachings of the apostles, wouldn’t John the Apostle have raised an objection?

“Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and Saviour?” *Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, 9 (A.D. 156). *

As Polycarp was 86 at his death, his statement was referring to his baptism as an infant.
 
My position is that infant baptism was never recognized by anyone as a valid means of grace during the time that the Apostles wrote their letters… and since it was not an issue, there is nothing recorded as oppositional to it.
You are close–except you have it backwards. Infant baptism was always recoginzed as valid. And since it was not an issue, there is nothing recorded as oppositional to it (except for about 1500 years later). :eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top