Baptism

[Pax]

Brian C in Christ,

As an assist to your research into infant baptism throughout the ages let me suggest the following link:

bibleprobe.com/baptism-infants.htm

God bless.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Brian C in Christ,

As an assist to your research into infant baptism throughout the ages let me suggest the following link:

bibleprobe.com/baptism-infants.htm

God bless.

As I skimmed through the reference you suggested, I couldn’t help but shake my head when I read that Tertullian was the bishop of Carthage. It’s debatable whether he was even a presbyter let alone a bishop. Where did the author get that?

Fortunately my research does not include reading other people’s poorly researched and extremely biased opinions. Take a look at how dishonestly Kastens characterizes Tertullian by stripping the context out of an unrelated work in order to persuade his readers to his opinion.

Here is what Kastens wrote:

“It was his view that sinfulness begins at the “puberty, of the soul,” that is “about the fourteenth year of life” and “it drives man out of the paradise of innocence” (De Anima 38:2). This rules out the belief in original sin.” (Kastens)

Now here is what Tertullian said in context.

"Now we have already laid down the principle, that all the natural properties of the soul which relate to sense and intelligence are inherent in its very substance, and spring from its native constitution, but that they advance by a gradual growth through the stages of life and develope themselves in different ways by accidental circumstances, according to men’s means and arts, their manners and customs their local situations, and the influences of the Supreme Powers; but in pursuance of that aspect of the association of body and soul which we have now to consider, we maintain that the **puberty of the soul **coincides with that of the body, and that they attain both together to this full growth at about the fourteenth year of life, speaking generally,—the former by the suggestion of the senses, and the latter by the growth of the bodily members; and (we fix on this age) not because, as Asclepiades supposes, reflection then begins, nor because the civil laws date the commencement of the real business of life from this period, but because this was the appointed order from the very first. For as Adam and Eve felt that they must cover their nakedness after their knowledge of good and evil so we profess to have the same discernment of good and evil from the time that we experience the same sensation of shame. Now from the before-mentioned age (of fourteen years) sex is suffused and clothed with an especial sensibility, and concupiscence employs the ministry of the eye, and communicates its pleasure to another, and understands the natural relations between male and female, and wears the fig-tree apron to cover the shame which it still excites, and **drives man out of the paradise of innocence **and chastity, and in its wild pruriency falls upon sins and unnatural incentives to delinquency.” (De Anima 38)

And Tertullian absolutely did believe in “original sin.”

“There is, then, besides the evil which supervenes on the soul from the intervention of the evil spirit, an antecedent, and in a certain sense natural, evil which arises from its corrupt origin. For, as we have said before, the corruption of our nature is another nature having a god and father of its own, namely the author of (that) corruption.” (ibid 41)

And in his treatise on baptism he did not say or even come close to implying that one should reach the age of fourteen before they are baptized. He said this:

“The Lord does indeed say, “Forbid them not to come unto me. Let them “come,” then, while they are growing up; let them “come” while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the “remission of sins?””

You have provided an excellent example of why we should conduct or own research. I do appreciate you intensions though.

As far as your earlier posts, could you summarize what you were saying there?

 

[Pax]

Brian C in Christ,

You doth protest too much. I agree that Tertullian may not have been a presbyter let alone a bishop. The jury is out on the former(although Jerome called him a presbyter), and the latter is most unlikely. Kasten did say that Tertullian was a bishop, but Kasten isn’t the only one.

I am not here to argue that point and I gave you the link for other reasons. Kasten is not really off the mark on his points concerning Tertullian and infant baptism. Tertullian believed in original sin, but Kasten makes an interesting observation in that Tertullian’s views are not perfectly consistent. Kasten’s comment is one that points out that inconsistency with an off the cuff remark. I don’t think that is a big deal.

The comments on Tertullian are of no importance to me. I gave you the link because of all of the other pointers in early Christian history listed by Kasten. I gave you this as a starting point for research and not an end point.

Try to relax and take things as given and without the tendency to simply blow it all off without further adieu.

By the way…I’m still waiting for you to respond to my posts #75 and 76.

God bless.

 

[panevino]

Searched long and hard did you? Maybe you should search this thread because this will be the third time I mention Tertullian, and I am sure it will be the third time someone tells me he was a heretic.

…

i think cyprian was a succesor to tertullian in Carthage and he seems to of been pro infant baptism . Do u agree?

I note that tertullian seems to also interpret john3:3-5 as water baptism do u agree?

 

[panevino]

Originally Posted by Brian Culliton View Post
…

Infant baptism was certainly practiced in the third century, but I have found nothing explicit prior to then. Irenaeus’ comment, “all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men,” is not explicit at all. Do you believe Jesus was baptized at age thirty and crucified sometime in His forties? Don’t loose the context by your zeal to protect your adopted beliefs.

irenaeus interprets John 3:3-5 ie “born again” / water&spirit " to refer to water baptism.
This has implications to his reference to infants in the quote you listed above.

1. So Irenaeus around 180AD writes “For He came to save all through means of Himself - all, I say, who through him are born again to God: infants, and children…” Against Heresies Book 2 ch 4
2. he also interprets ‘Born again’ / “born of water & spirit” in john 3 as water baptism
3. then Hippolytus, who was taught by Irenaeus writes the following

• “And they shall Baptize the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family.” (Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 c. AD 215).*

points 2 & 3 do suggest that Ireneus was refering to infant baptism in point 1.

 

[pneuma07]

Searched long and hard did you? Maybe you should search this thread because this will be the third time I mention Tertullian, and I am sure it will be the third time someone tells me he was a heretic.

Infant baptism was certainly practiced in the third century, but I have found nothing explicit prior to then. Irenaeus’ comment, “all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men,” is not explicit at all. Do you believe Jesus was baptized at age thirty and crucified sometime in His forties? Don’t loose the context by your zeal to protect your adopted beliefs.

Hi Brian,

compliments for your  essential and  charitable contribution to the thread. :thumbsup:

We do see Tertullian advocating to pospone baptism of children.

What we cannot see IMHO is that he would think baptizing infants was an absurd idea. “A is better than B” does not condemn B.
Given Tertullian’s general manner, if he had really condemned baptizing infants, he’d have done so with violent invective, not moderation ! Don’t you think so ?

And we are not told by him that infant baptism is invalid.

What he rather appears to tell us, implicitly, is IMHO that:

• infant baptism is valid, albeit not to be recommended
• it was practiced in the period when Tertullian would write
• for sure, not just from 200 AD, otherwise it would be quite an obvious case for Tertullian
  to note that in the previous generations this usage was unheard of.
• therefore we have … Tertullian himself who witnesses to infant baptism being practiced before the III century.
• moreover, had he supposed the practice was not respectful of apostolic tradition, and contrary to Scriptures, that would have been the best way for a KO blow against a practice he would not like.

I hope this can help
In Christ
P7​

 

[bona_fides_1]

What I’d like for someone who is teaching that infant baptism is wrong to do is please show a verse where it is prohibited. If they can’t do that then tell us proactively how else one “brings the children to [Jesus]” per Luke 18:15–16. There is no other mechanism other than baptism mentioned in the bible that comes close . If there is I want a chapter and verse since I can’t find it.

Is a person who is against infant baptism so sure that they are correct that they are willing to go to hell if they are wrong in place of the infant who dies after birth if God does not grant it Mercy? Gamble with your own souls people - the evidence is all in favor of what the Catholic Church teaches - baptised your infants!

I see NO exceptions in this bible verse:
"Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.* For the promise is to you and to your children**" (Acts 2:38–39). *

The above verse is a slam dunk telling us to baptise children. One would be out of their mind or purposely complicit in false doctrine to not baptise an infant after reading the above verse since there is no other verse that denies it.

Further the early church did it as recorded by many of the Early Church Fathers.

The first explicit evidence of children of believing households being baptized comes from the early Church—where infant baptism was uniformly upheld and regarded as apostolic. The only reported controversy on the subject was a third-century debate whether or not to delay baptism until the eighth day after birth, like its Old Testament equivalent, circumcision! (See quotation from Cyprian, below; compare Leviticus 12:2–3.)
Cyprian of Carthage
“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

“If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” (ibid., 64:5).
*

Here are other ECF quotes that prove the early Church baptised infants:
*
Irenaeus
“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]” (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

Hippolytus
“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen
“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).
Can anyone show any contravening evidence from scripture that proves that infant baptism was discouraged or ever prohibited in the early Church?

This OP has about run its course I think…

BF

 

[Brian_Culliton]

1. So Irenaeus around 180AD writes “For He came to save all through means of Himself - all, I say, who through him are born again to God: infants, and children…” Against Heresies Book 2 ch 4
2. he also interprets ‘Born again’ / “born of water & spirit” in john 3 as water baptism
3. then Hippolytus, who was taught by Irenaeus writes the following

• “And they shall Baptize the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family.” (Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 c. AD 215).*

points 2 & 3 do suggest that Ireneus was refering to infant baptism in point 1.

The work you cited called, Apostolic Tradition, is attributed to Hippolytus of Rome, but no one really knows for sure if it is his work. However, I think we can say that the work is from Hippolytus’ time period. The work is quite detailed about the practice of baptism in the third century. And in a work that literally spells out the procedure of the ordinance, one should expect much more information regarding the baptism of infants if such a practice was being followed.

The only thing you can pull out of the work is a statement that says, “If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves…” An infant could not have accomplished the strict procedure one had to follow in order to be baptized. And if it was common to baptize infants, why do we find only one possibly implicit phrase in the entire work? What was the procedure for baptizing infants if infants were commonly baptized? And why is the procedure not in this work?

I think the answer is in the writing. Notice that in the following quote the symbols of the Eucharist, the promise and baptism represent a spiritual reality. This was the procedure that took place immediately after baptism. The newly baptized would partake of the blessed bread, wine and water. This was the oblation that was firmly attached to the ordnance of baptism, and symbolized the spiritual reality of a Christian life.

“Then the deacons shall immediately bring the oblation. The bishop shall bless the bread, which is the symbol of the Body of Christ; and the **bowl of mixed wine, which is the symbol of the Blood **which has been shed for all who believe in him; and the milk and honey mixed together, in fulfillment of the promise made to the fathers, in which he said, “a land flowing with milk and honey,” which Christ indeed gave, his Flesh, through which those who believe are nourished like little children, by the sweetness of his Word, softening the bitter heart; and water also for an oblation, as a sign of the baptism, so that the inner person, which is psychic, may also receive the same as the body. The bishop shall give an explanation of all these things to those who are receiving.” (21:27-30)

Notice that there is no alternate ordinance for infants. If a child could not speak for his or her self, he or she must have certainly been able to participate in the oblation. The rest of the procedure is also not conducive to infants, yet there is no mention of how the parents of an infant should proceed through the ordinance and oblation.

And if Hippolytus is supposed to emulate the beliefs of Irenaeus, he must not have therefore believed infants were born bearing Adam’s sin, since Irenaeus didn’t believe Adams sin was passed down. According to Irenaeus, only the curse God placed on Adam was passed down.

“He pronounced no curse against Adam personally, but against the ground, in reference to his works, as a certain person among the ancients has observed: God did indeed transfer the curse to the earth, that it might not remain in man. [Gen 3:16] But man received, as the punishment of his transgression, the toilsome task of tilling the earth, and to eat bread in the sweat of his face, and to return to the dust from whence he was taken.” (Against Heresies, 3:23)

“He [Adam], however, adopted a dress conformable to his disobedience, being awed by the fear of God; and resisting the erring, the lustful propensity of his flesh (since he had lost his natural disposition and child-like mind, and had come to the knowledge of evil things)…For God detested him who had led man astray, but by degrees, and little by little, He showed compassion to him who had been beguiled.” (ibid)

 

[Pax]

Brian in Christ,

With all due respect, I think that you are grasping at straws vis-a-vis the evidence.

When I speak to my non-Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ, I always begin with scripture. I’m still waiting for you to respond to my posts #75 & 76 which are the scriptural support for infant baptism. That scriptural record tied to the writings of the ECF’s and the constant practice of the Church throughout the ages is overwhelming evidence that you have not yet even begun to overcome. It is the combination of this evidence that confirms the Catholic position.

God bless.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Brian in Christ,

With all due respect, I think that you are grasping at straws vis-a-vis the evidence.

When I speak to my non-Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ, I always begin with scripture. I’m still waiting for you to respond to my posts #75 & 76 which are the scriptural support for infant baptism. That scriptural record tied to the writings of the ECF’s and the constant practice of the Church throughout the ages is overwhelming evidence that you have not yet even begun to overcome. It is the combination of this evidence that confirms the Catholic position.

God bless.

The Scriptural evidence is certainly against the notion that an infant is guilty of sin and thus in need of baptism. The fact that Catholics and others say they hope God will have mercy on an infant that dies, defies the central message of the Gospel of Christ.

Let’s take a look at this partial verse that keeps coming up: “For the promise is to you and to your children.” Peter, speaking to Jews, was referring to the promise God made to Abraham that was to him and his seed. Peter continued, “…and to all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” He indicated that the promise is fulfilled in Christ, Abraham’s seed, and is to them, their descendants and even to gentiles.

Later, Paul, after he was converted to the faith, preached in Antioch concerning this.

“And we declare to you glad tidings–that promise which was made to the fathers. God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm [2:7]: 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. And that He raised Him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, He has spoken thus: ‘I will give you the sure mercies of David [Isa. 55:3]’…Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.” (Acts 13)

The promise was made to Abraham because of his faith and before he received the sign of the promise. The sign, which was circumcision, was given to his descendants and declared them heirs to the promise because of Abram’s faith. But as soon as they broke the Law their circumcision became, in effect, un-circumcision. The works of the Law could not justify them and they could not be circumcised a second time. But if they were to have faith in God, as their father Abraham did, they would by circumcised inwardly in the heart, and by their faith they would be saved through the sacrifice of Christ, the antitype of the works of the Law.

The promise was made to them, their children, and all, who like Abraham believe God, and their faith is accounted to them as righteousness because of the cross. The initiation into the New Covenant is accomplished by baptism, and it is bestowed on those who have been circumcised inwardly and are already justified by faith. Just as circumcision did not make one a Jew, baptism does not make one a Christian.

 

[Pax]

The Scriptural evidence is certainly against the notion that an infant is guilty of sin and thus in need of baptism. The fact that Catholics and others say they hope God will have mercy on an infant that dies, defies the central message of the Gospel of Christ.

Let’s take a look at this partial verse that keeps coming up: “For the promise is to you and to your children.” Peter, speaking to Jews, was referring to the promise God made to Abraham that was to him and his seed. Peter continued, “…and to all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” He indicated that the promise is fulfilled in Christ, Abraham’s seed, and is to them, their descendants and even to gentiles.

Later, Paul, after he was converted to the faith, preached in Antioch concerning this.

“And we declare to you glad tidings–that promise which was made to the fathers. God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm [2:7]: 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. And that He raised Him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, He has spoken thus: ‘I will give you the sure mercies of David [Isa. 55:3]’…Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.” (Acts 13)

The promise was made to Abraham because of his faith and before he received the sign of the promise. The sign, which was circumcision, was given to his descendants and declared them heirs to the promise because of Abram’s faith. But as soon as they broke the Law their circumcision became, in effect, un-circumcision. The works of the Law could not justify them and they could not be circumcised a second time. But if they were to have faith in God, as their father Abraham did, they would by circumcised inwardly in the heart, and by their faith they would be saved through the sacrifice of Christ, the antitype of the works of the Law.

The promise was made to them, their children, and all, who like Abraham believe God, and their faith is accounted to them as righteousness because of the cross. The initiation into the New Covenant is accomplished by baptism, and it is bestowed on those who have been circumcised inwardly and are already justified by faith. Just as circumcision did not make one a Jew, baptism does not make one a Christian.

Brian C in Christ,

This post in no way even begins to address my posts #75 and 76. It was pointed out by others that infants need baptism for two reasons. The remission of original sin and for the reception of the Holy Spirit. Likewise, these two things thus predispose the infant to faith and the parents guidance and teaching builds upon the predisposition. I was baptized as an infant, and cannot remember when I did not believe. As far as my memory is concerned, I have always believed. No one here contends that an infant has committed personal sin. Your point on this is misplaced.

God bless.

 

[panevino]

Originally Posted by panevino View Post

1. So Irenaeus around 180AD writes “For He came to save all through means of Himself - all, I say, who through him are born again to God: infants, and children…” Against Heresies Book 2 ch 4
2. he also interprets ‘Born again’ / “born of water & spirit” in john 3 as water baptism

1. then Hippolytus, who was taught by Irenaeus writes the following

“And they shall Baptize the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family.” (Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 c. AD 215).

points 2 & 3 do suggest that Ireneus was refering to infant baptism in point 1.

The work you cited called, Apostolic Tradition, is attributed to Hippolytus of Rome, but no one really knows for sure if it is his work. However, I think we can say that the work is from Hippolytus’ time period. The work is quite detailed about the practice of baptism in the third century. And in a work that literally spells out the procedure of the ordinance, one should expect much more information regarding the baptism of infants if such a practice was being followed.

The only thing you can pull out of the work is a statement that says, “If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves…”

you forgot the some of the other words.ie .“little” children & also **But if they cannot , let their parents answer **

what “little children” cant answer for themselves?

• infants, or children under 5yo, the mute, mentally handicapped, or shy children…

.An infant could not have accomplished the strict procedure one had to follow in order to be baptized.

thats why he says to let the parents answer

And if it was common to baptize infants, why do we find only one possibly implicit phrase in the entire work?

i find it a little more than implicit, though i know you dont

What was the procedure for baptizing infants if infants were commonly baptized? And why is the procedure not in this work?

I think the answer is in the writing. Notice that in the following quote the symbols of the Eucharist, the promise and baptism represent a spiritual reality. This was the procedure that took place immediately after baptism. The newly baptized would partake of the blessed bread, wine and water. This was the oblation that was firmly attached to the ordnance of baptism, and symbolized the spiritual reality of a Christian life.

“Then the deacons shall immediately bring the oblation. The bishop shall bless the bread, which is the symbol of the Body of Christ; and the **bowl of mixed wine, which is the symbol of the Blood **which has been shed for all who believe in him; and the milk and honey mixed together, in fulfillment of the promise made to the fathers, in which he said, “a land flowing with milk and honey,” which Christ indeed gave, his Flesh, through which those who believe are nourished like little children, by the sweetness of his Word, softening the bitter heart; and water also for an oblation, as a sign of the baptism, so that the inner person, which is psychic, may also receive the same as the body. The bishop shall give an explanation of all these things to those who are receiving.” (21:27-30)

Notice that there is no alternate ordinance for infants. If a child could not speak for his or her self, he or she must have certainly been able to participate in the oblation. The rest of the procedure is also not conducive to infants, yet there is no mention of how the parents of an infant should proceed through the ordinance and oblation.

“…let their parents answer”

And if Hippolytus is supposed to emulate the beliefs of Irenaeus, he must not have therefore believed infants were born bearing Adam’s sin, since Irenaeus didn’t believe Adams sin was passed down. According to Irenaeus, only the curse God placed on Adam was passed down.

“He pronounced no curse against Adam personally, but against the ground, in reference to his works, as a certain person among the ancients has observed: God did indeed transfer the curse to the earth, that it might not remain in man. [Gen 3:16] But man received, as the punishment of his transgression, the toilsome task of tilling the earth, and to eat bread in the sweat of his face, and to return to the dust from whence he was taken.” (Against Heresies, 3:23)

“He [Adam], however, adopted a dress conformable to his disobedience, being awed by the fear of God; and resisting the erring, the lustful propensity of his flesh (since he had lost his natural disposition and child-like mind, and had come to the knowledge of evil things)…For God detested him who had led man astray, but by degrees, and little by little, He showed compassion to him who had been beguiled.” (ibid)

I appreciate the time you take to respond.
over the last few months I have been reading through Irenaeus.

I note that he quite comfotably desicribes “us/we” with the Adams sin.

“But inasmuch as it was by these things that we disobeyed God, and di not give cvredit to His word…whom indeed **we **had offended in the first Adam…”
AHCh16.3

 

[panevino]

Brian,

original sin.

my understanding in as follows - Infant is not baptised due to guilt of sin of Adam and Eve.
Rather given theier disobedience SIN entered the world Rom5:12. And mankind was enslaved to the “law of sin and death” rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

And as SIN entering the world mankind was condemned.
Rom 5:18
18 Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life.

In baptism we are burried/die with Christ and raised to new life.Rom6:3 & rom6:6-9
We are freed from SIN in baptism freed from the "law of sin & death"rom8:2

so baptism is for remission of personal sins(acts 2:38), but also to free us from Sin.

Infants are baptised not for personal sin, but due the enslavement of Sin, which entered the world through Adam.(rom 5;12)

I think that’s right. Others alot more knowledgeable than me may correct me hopefully.

Rom8:1 * [There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.* 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

 

[steve_b]

The Apostle John said we do not become the children of God by the will of man, but by the will of God. Since Catholics believe we become the children of God through baptism (correct me if I am wrong) I would like to present a little scenario.

Let’s take to married couples for example, couple A and couple B. Let’s say both couples have a baby. Couple A decides to have their baby baptized and couple B decides not to have their baby baptized. By whose will was their baby baptized or not baptized: the parent’s or God’s?

I’m not sure if anyone has answered you on this yet.

Yes the Divine will and the human will are at work here. Is your question, whose will should prevail?

Baptism is normative for salvation. That’s the faith passed on by the apostles and the Catholic Church. That is the will of God. That is what is to be taught to all of mankind. Catholics have been baptizing infants for 2000 years. For one who is instructed of this truth they are no longer ignorant of this truth. If they ignore or will NOT baptise according to the teaching, they are in effect saying to God, my will be done not yours.

 

[Church_Militant]

Why, because he said, “Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me any injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and my Savior”?

Is that what you consider explicit proof for infant baptism?

Since he was 86 years old at the time and there is some evidence that suggests that he was baptized by St. John himself, yes.

 

[bona_fides_1]

Since he was 86 years old at the time and there is some evidence that suggests that he was baptized by St. John himself, yes.

And I might add for those who can’t read between the lines - that implies that Polycarp had to have been baptised as an infant since Christianity was barley older than Polycarp in age.

BF

 

[panevino]

…
And if Hippolytus is supposed to emulate the beliefs of Irenaeus, he must not have therefore believed infants were born bearing Adam’s sin, since Irenaeus didn’t believe Adams sin was passed down. According to Irenaeus, only the curse God placed on Adam was passed down.

“He pronounced no curse against Adam personally, but against the ground, in reference to his works, as a certain person among the ancients has observed: God did indeed transfer the curse to the earth, that it might not remain in man. [Gen 3:16] But man received, as the punishment of his transgression, the toilsome task of tilling the earth, and to eat bread in the sweat of his face, and to return to the dust from whence he was taken.” (Against Heresies, 3:23)

“He [Adam], however, adopted a dress conformable to his disobedience, being awed by the fear of God; and resisting the erring, the lustful propensity of his flesh (since he had lost his natural disposition and child-like mind, and had come to the knowledge of evil things)…For God detested him who had led man astray, but by degrees, and little by little, He showed compassion to him who had been beguiled.” (ibid)

hey Brian,
been reading through irenaeus on this topic a bit further.
I note in the passages you listed , when reading the whole text he is trying to illustrate that Adam was not cursed to the fires of hell but that the serpent was.
And irenaeus is trying to disprove a teaching that adam was sent to hell. And describes Adams acts of repentance and fear of god. So adam I assume irenaeus is saying Adam is in the prison that Jesus descended to for the OT righteous.

Irenaeus says the following things that suugest to me that he did see a
condemnation on man and enslavement to sin that is only broken by

1. Physical Death in the OT (AH book3 ch23:6)
2. Death in Christ/baptism in the NT(AH book4 ch22:1)

“…by means of a tree we were made debtors to god, so also by means of a tree we may also obtain the remission of our debt.”. AH book5ch17:2