H
- Status
L
losh14
Guest
Begging the question, how many of the Apostles were baptized in the NT?
Only Paul’s is mentioned. Surely others were, consistent with our understanding of baptism as a requirement of salvation, but if Scripture is silent do we take that in the negative?
Likewise how many women were baptized?
If we are consistent in applying this rubric, that where Scripture is silent something is disallowed or was not practiced, we conclude curiously that the Apostles generally were not baptized, and neither were women with the exception of a handful. I would therefore reject that rubric.
It is likewise difficult to satisfy a demand of proof in the form of a specific statement in Scripture. For example there is no passage in which the Lord Jesus Christ says “I am God, worship me” and yet we indeed worship Him.
Let’s go instead with what we know.
We have it documented in Irenaeus, Origen and Hippolytus that children were baptised - perhaps as infants, perhaps as toddlers - and parents were exhorted to do so. These wrote from mid-2nd to mid-3rd century, so we can surmise that the practice was at least prevalent, if not universally accepted, by the mid 2nd century if bishops were commending it.
We do not see controversy over Baptism in the early writings until Tertullian (mid 2nd century), who fell into the heresy of Montanism, decried infant baptism because, under Montanism, one who sinned after baptism could not be forgiven and hence baptism was preferable late in life. This may explain Origen’s and Hippolytus’ sudden interest in exhorting baptism. Tertullian’s decrying of infant baptism indicates that it was common, and the letters of bishops opposing the Montanist position identifies it as a separate and distinct entity from that practicing orthodox belief.
So even if it was not practiced by the Apostles, infant baptism began to be practiced during the second century and was well-accepted rapidly.
I do not take the Didache to indicate opposition to infant baptism, because:
- It is neither exhorted nor proscribed and we cannot determine the disposition of the Didache to it
- The Didache does not give an explanation as to the reason, purpose or understanding of Baptism - we have no context other than fasting for performing it
- As Christianity borrows its tradition of fasting from Judaism, we can also assume we borrowed the exemption for infants from all fasts
- The Didache may have been written towards a community that had no children - either a monastic community, or one isolated or otherwise comprised of older adults without small children. Given the prevalence of ascetic Jewish communities living remotely at the time (for example the Essenes) it would not be a surprise if the Apostles had visited one of these and converted them.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Some might say I obliterated your obliteration on the other thread. I wouldn’t be so foolish to make the statement myself.I already obliterated this argument when you brought it up in another thread on Baptizing Infants with the following:
2 Samuel 6:23 tells us: “Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.”
Are we to assume that Michal had children after she died?
Let’s also examine Acts 2:34-35 (also see Psalm 110:1, Matt 22:44): “For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.”’
**Are we to surmise that Jesus will cease **being at the Father’s right hand *AFTER *his enemies are made his footstool?
Mary isn’t mentioned ONE, single, solitary time as having given birth to another child - yet YOU believe this to be true.
The simple fact is that children of ALL ages belong to households - and when households are baptized (like Corneluis and Stephanas) - it INCLUDES them. You can deny this all day long but it doesn’t make you right . . .
See you there.
N
Nicea325
Guest
**What is it with you? I did not start this thread but you seem to love to comment on what I say. What is your problem? **
On the contrary,what is your major malfunction with infant baptism? That is the first thing you targeted on and enough has been said. Just as you claim we have no concrete proof,well neither do you that it was restricted only to adults.
As I said…let go. None of us agree with you and vice versa. So what is the point to continue with the matter?
On the contrary,what is your major malfunction with infant baptism? That is the first thing you targeted on and enough has been said. Just as you claim we have no concrete proof,well neither do you that it was restricted only to adults.
As I said…let go. None of us agree with you and vice versa. So what is the point to continue with the matter?
D
Dokimas
Guest
I’ve not seen where Jesus spoke on homosexuality. If He did not speak about it, does that mean He approves of it, according to your point above?
D
Dokimas
Guest
Looking at this early document and can’t find logical reasons to believe in infant baptism.
N
Nicea325
Guest
If the Apostles did not teach it,then by WHOM was it given? Jesus? Mary? John the Baptist?
D
Dokimas
Guest
I don’t understand your question.
D
Dokimas
Guest
I saw your posts. What did you want me to say? I have no doubt that those quotes were fine. They don’t prove that God intended infants to be baptized.For those who want an understanding of the history of Baptism; a definition, and understanding on how it became a sacrament please refer to posts 15 and 16. The info comes from ‘catholic.com’. It is a trusted explanation according to the earliest christians known as CATHOLICS; not to mention that the other ancient christian faiths also practiced ‘infant baptism’.
With all the scriptural explanations on baptism and the historical documents from the Early Fathers it is a wonder that non-believers don’t get it? I am truly disappointed with humanity and its capacity to keep confounding itself when the truth is plain and there is proof to back it up.
I realize that the posts #15 and #16 are lengthy, it is for this reason in which I have underlined and highlighted certain phrases to get an overview; however I would recommend that one reads it over carefully and prays to understand.
God Bless
N
Nicea325
Guest
Wrong! Illogical reasoning on your part.
And when one reads it in the proper context one realizes it is not about age requirements or intellect capablities,but the types of methods.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Read below:
*Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Just like the 12 never taught an adult-only or capable of reasoning for baptism.*
Dokimas: Didn’t have to; it was a given
My question: If not the Apostles did not teach adult-only baptisms,then who GAVE it?
B
BrianH
Guest
Okay this whole thread is crazy. The Didache supports adult baptism. We know that. What the argument usually given is that it reflects a specific part of the church where diversity existed concerning this question. But of course it supports adult baptism. This is just unreal…come on I support infant baptism as well but get real people
A good book on the topic
The Origins of Infant Baptism: A Further Study in Reply to Kurt Aland by Joachim Jeremias
A good book on the topic
The Origins of Infant Baptism: A Further Study in Reply to Kurt Aland by Joachim Jeremias
H
humble_maid
Guest
Excuse me? How are we to know what God intended except through what the HS reveals and what history and scripture reveal. So far you have presented neither historical or scriptural works that proves otherwise other than using an extraction from the Didache; furthermore, you insult those who were ‘chosen’ by the apostles to succeed them by failing to accept their authority in handing down God’s Word.
If you can prove to me that you have apostolic authority then maybe I would believe you, until then all you have are your human, confounded thoughts.
God bless
H
humble_maid
Guest
The Old Testament Symbols of Salvation and Baptism Include Infants:
1.**Circumcision, the sign of God’s covenant between the people of Abraham and Himself, was performed on every male child who was eight days old (Genesis 17:12). **Many see a direct parallel between circumcision and Christian baptism in Scriptural passages such as **Colossians 2:11, 12: “And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism…” ****If baptism is the “New Testament circumcision,” there can definitely be no objection to “sealing” the infant of a consecrated Christian family in Christ’s New Covenant. **
2.Moses’ leading his people through the Red Sea is seen as an Old Testament foreshadowing of Christian baptism. The following New Testament passage clearly points to this: “For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them, and that rock was Christ.” (1 Corinthians 10:1-4) It is worthwhile to note that “all were baptized” through Moses’ leadership in crossing over the Red Sea. He did not leave the infants or children on the shores of Egypt to become prey to the angry armies of Pharaoh because they were not old enough to believe in the promise of the Old Covenant. Rather, entrusted to the arms of their parents’ faith, they were carried through the “baptism of Moses.”
3.The saving of Noah’s entire family by the ark can also be seen as a prefigurement of a baptism which includes infants. All that needs to be said, as in the case of Moses’ passing through the Red Sea, is that **the entire family was on board the ark. Why should we leave infants out of the ark of baptism? **
goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7067
1.**Circumcision, the sign of God’s covenant between the people of Abraham and Himself, was performed on every male child who was eight days old (Genesis 17:12). **Many see a direct parallel between circumcision and Christian baptism in Scriptural passages such as **Colossians 2:11, 12: “And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism…” ****If baptism is the “New Testament circumcision,” there can definitely be no objection to “sealing” the infant of a consecrated Christian family in Christ’s New Covenant. **
2.Moses’ leading his people through the Red Sea is seen as an Old Testament foreshadowing of Christian baptism. The following New Testament passage clearly points to this: “For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them, and that rock was Christ.” (1 Corinthians 10:1-4) It is worthwhile to note that “all were baptized” through Moses’ leadership in crossing over the Red Sea. He did not leave the infants or children on the shores of Egypt to become prey to the angry armies of Pharaoh because they were not old enough to believe in the promise of the Old Covenant. Rather, entrusted to the arms of their parents’ faith, they were carried through the “baptism of Moses.”
3.The saving of Noah’s entire family by the ark can also be seen as a prefigurement of a baptism which includes infants. All that needs to be said, as in the case of Moses’ passing through the Red Sea, is that **the entire family was on board the ark. Why should we leave infants out of the ark of baptism? **
goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7067
H
humble_maid
Guest
How is it crazy? If you can please tell me what it is about this book specifically that you find is relevant to this thread? By the way did you read the link I sent you regarding the Assumption?
God Bless
J
JJHIII
Guest
It never fails…amd this thread proves it…whenever Protestants can’t find an answer and are “backed into a corner,” they resort to saying “it just can’t be that way.”
Discussions with my Protestant family always result in either a “that’s not what God meant,” or “it cant be that way,” or “that just doesnt work.” When, amazingly enough, most of the Early Christians supported it. I’ve heard numerous times my former Protestant Minister quote Early Church Fathers when it suits his ideas. But on the Eucharist or Infant Baptism they ECF’s are “obviously mistaken”
When will they open their eyes? and look with an open mind like they say Catholics dont?
Just pointing out what i see-
JJ
Discussions with my Protestant family always result in either a “that’s not what God meant,” or “it cant be that way,” or “that just doesnt work.” When, amazingly enough, most of the Early Christians supported it. I’ve heard numerous times my former Protestant Minister quote Early Church Fathers when it suits his ideas. But on the Eucharist or Infant Baptism they ECF’s are “obviously mistaken”
When will they open their eyes? and look with an open mind like they say Catholics dont?
Just pointing out what i see-
JJ
E
elvisman
Guest
Hmmm . . . looks like you never read my latest response.Some might say I obliterated your obliteration on the other thread. I wouldn’t be so foolish to make the statement myself.
I smashed your “until” arguments regarding Matt. 1:25.
Here is yet another reference to the word, “until”:
Deut. 34:6 tells us that that nobody knew the location of Moses’ his grave “until this present day”.**
Does that mean they found it?
NOPE!
D
Darian
Guest
Likewise how many women were baptized?
Act 5:14 And the multitude of men and women who believed in the Lord was more increased:
Interesting that children are left out here, especially when multitudes are being referenced.
And just a question:
On what basis are we to assume that the Didache is an accurate portrayal of true doctrine? It is not considered scripture. Sure, perhaps it is accurate about what the community the author was a part of was doing, but that doesn’t make it an authority about what the apostles taught. Thoughts?
Act 5:14 And the multitude of men and women who believed in the Lord was more increased:
Interesting that children are left out here, especially when multitudes are being referenced.
And just a question:
On what basis are we to assume that the Didache is an accurate portrayal of true doctrine? It is not considered scripture. Sure, perhaps it is accurate about what the community the author was a part of was doing, but that doesn’t make it an authority about what the apostles taught. Thoughts?
T
T_More
Guest
S
Steven_John
Guest
Hello,
my opinion is of no authority but some of you may like to pray about it.
I dont see that baptising infants does any harm. On could argue it is not valid as the infant does not have reasoning to accept it.
When the infant becomes old enough they will have reasoning to accept or reject it.
If one says they can accept it all they like but it is not valid i would argue they are against Yeshua (pbwh) who accepted the “good” thief who at best made a baptism of desire.
I love and am blessed by sacraments and practices but i urge you to consider the heart first. I dont believe sacraments can overcome, The Spirit does in the heart of even tiny genuine desire.
Given the debate between brothers that is repetitive it may be better to accept there is difference but embrace each others heart desiring to do right for each other and G-d, trusting He will make all pure intentions right through the sacrifice He gave us in him.
I thank and praise Our Father for His goodness in your posts, i have learned some.
“I will be what i will be”, you have free will so choose who you see
my opinion is of no authority but some of you may like to pray about it.
I dont see that baptising infants does any harm. On could argue it is not valid as the infant does not have reasoning to accept it.
When the infant becomes old enough they will have reasoning to accept or reject it.
If one says they can accept it all they like but it is not valid i would argue they are against Yeshua (pbwh) who accepted the “good” thief who at best made a baptism of desire.
I love and am blessed by sacraments and practices but i urge you to consider the heart first. I dont believe sacraments can overcome, The Spirit does in the heart of even tiny genuine desire.
Given the debate between brothers that is repetitive it may be better to accept there is difference but embrace each others heart desiring to do right for each other and G-d, trusting He will make all pure intentions right through the sacrifice He gave us in him.
I thank and praise Our Father for His goodness in your posts, i have learned some.
“I will be what i will be”, you have free will so choose who you see
- Status