Help with defending infant baptism

[bogeydogg]

why is everyone changing topic slightly and saying some are arrogantly against children coming to Christ, being baptized ? The topic is infants.The topic is infants as in 7,8 days old.not someone 5 or 10 years old.

No one is changing the subject the at all. We are all saying that God can and does convert infants. You by saying that infants are not converted because they cannot ask for it was answered quite well. I will repeat it…

Should we then not feed or clean infants since they cannot give expression tot his need through words?

I believe sincerely God converts infants and does so through baptism.

Once again I dare not suggest the Lord who created Heaven and Earth cannot convert the least of His own.

God Bless

 

[bogeydogg]

You have only assumptions that newborns were baptized by John the baptist ,or by the apostles.The best you have is "children/descendants and households being baptized. The preponderance of scripture about whom ,and why and when baptism should occur rules out newborns. That it is a practice by some ,now and even by Tertullian’s time proves nothing. What we are discussing now was not written about by the apostles or fathers of first one hundred and fifty years. Furthermore church architecture/design reflects the gradual growth of the practice thru the centuries.

You’re wrong.

Luther thought so

Calvin thought so

Zwingli thought so

So did Augustine, Thomas, and the vast, Vast, VAST majority of every writer in Church history.

Peter clearly says your children. The word he uses means both infants and small children.

To argue against this is obscurantism and a reading of the history from the conclusion.

There is not one sober reading of Church history that would argue the way you have. Not one.

Those who did read it differently (beginning with the Anabaptists) did so because they already were re-baptizing people into their churches. A practice condemned by Rome, Augsberg and Westminster. They came to this country (Plymouth Rock anyone?) to escape those who argued against them because they wanted to continue this practice which was universally condemned in Europe.

So of course in America we think “Believer’s Baptism” is sacrosanct. But it’s not and it never was.

You are just wrong about this.

However you have made my point from the first reply of this thread, “Those who believe in re-baptism will never be swayed by something so trivial as facts and history.”

I do hope you come to see your error, and may God bless you truly in this.

 

[pocohombre]

No one is changing the subject the at all. We are all saying that God can and does convert infants. You by saying that infants are not converted because they cannot ask for it was answered quite well. I will repeat it…

Should we then not feed or clean infants since they cannot give expression tot his need through words?

I believe sincerely God converts infants and does so through baptism.

Once again I dare not suggest the Lord who created Heaven and Earth cannot convert the least of His own.

God Bless

Well thank you but they were back then when saying protetstnats are against children coming to Christ .But thanks for the real meat of it,quite timely on your part .I was telling myself that indeed some infants were baptized (as Origen and Iraneus state).I asked nyself was it widespread as it became centuries later? More importantly, what did the infant baptism mean? Was it exactly as for adults ? But you state it nicely, for conversion,to begin the new birth.That is I suppose the real reason why Evangelicals(some) are against it.It is the fundamental difference we have, not on infant baptism, but on baptism itself. I also imagine that just as we have differences today you had it back then,Over time the differences clash ,but it just may have been up to the individual or particular city region that detemined it’s importance.I am not sure when baptism in water was or became spirit generating ?Also early on you were converted and immediately baptized so the two were almost like one.The idea of catechumen was non-existent in first churches.Remember Paul says there are baptisms, differing kinds but only one baptism into Christ(I don’t think he was reffereing to water) else he would not say I came not to baptize(with water) but to preach Christ.(Spirit baptism). Anyways I ramble.I will have to think about automatic regeneration by baptismal rite apart from will,or because of someone else or thru someone else.God can convert from the womb,whom he chooses,even predestines as John the baptist.I say it is still in His hands and we can not convert one from ritual/rite.Anyways what does convert mean anyway It may be different for /between us.

 

[pocohombre]

Just a little history. The ‘anabaptists’ were big on baptizing people before they died. They also denied infant baptism. So that possibly where some of your protestant friends get their belief from.

Actually postponing batism came very early on in the church .It was thought as the final cleansing ,sure fire,before death and avoided a tougher confessional .That is if you were baptized early ,then you had to rely on confession to clean you .It was quite a muddled affair .Not very pretty.So before you go a pickin on them poor old baptists .On the other hand they claim they have been around since the beginning so maybe you have a point.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Actually postponing batism came very early on in the church .It was thought as the final cleansing ,sure fire,before death and avoided a tougher confessional .That is if you were baptized early ,then you had to rely on confession to clean you .It was quite a muddled affair .Not very pretty.So before you go a pickin on them poor old baptists .On the other hand they claim they have been around since the beginning so maybe you have a point.

Confession is not equivalent to baptism. It is not a substitute. From Confession you are absolved from sin, but you are not cleansed from the stain of sin. There are issues such as temporal justice. In the words of Abp Sheen; when you sin it is like putting a nail in the cross, confession is like taking a nail out of the cross, but you still are left with a hole. That is where penance comes in. It is an attempt to fill in that hole. You cannot go on sinning and following that up with confession and think your garment is white, like that of baptism. You may still be fortunate to have a wedding garment, but it is likely sullied.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Actually postponing batism came very early on in the church .It was thought as the final cleansing ,sure fire,before death and avoided a tougher confessional .That is if you were baptized early ,then you had to rely on confession to clean you .It was quite a muddled affair .Not very pretty.So before you go a pickin on them poor old baptists .On the other hand they claim they have been around since the beginning so maybe you have a point.

To say people waited is to say you know their heart and thoughts. To say people like Constantine postponed baptism is to say he truly believed and was ready to live his life according to Catholic principles but instead decided to wait. Nobody can know the heart of people like Constantine. He may have never been ready, and instead waited until his deathbed or he may have done it out of piety, or he may have done it for politics, or he may have been forced… you can’t know unless he wrote his thoughts down. Which there is not historical evidence for.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

To say people waited is to say you know their heart and thoughts. To say people like Constantine postponed baptism is to say he truly believed and was ready to live his life according to Catholic principles but instead decided to wait. Nobody can know the heart of people like Constantine. He may have never been ready, and instead waited until his deathbed or he may have done it out of piety, or he may have done it for politics, or he may have been forced… you can’t know unless he wrote his thoughts down. Which there is not historical evidence for.

I know man… at this point, poco’s posts are demagoguery…

BTW, thanks for your sig link!

God Bless.

 

[pocohombre]

I know man… at this point, poco’s posts are demagoguery…

BTW, thanks for your sig link!

God Bless.

I’ll take the uncharitable remark, but remember it was not me who began the remark against baptists of postponing baptism. I may not know thoughts and intents, nor claim to, only go by what historians of all sorts say about this postponing by some.It was not just Constantine.Not sure if it is being denied here,that some postponed, enough to be noted. I know they sometimes built two churches, if not, designed churches with two separate groups in mind in 4-6 century.One for catechumens and one for baptized. Again,in bible times, you got saved, repented and were baptized immediately,Jew and Gentile.Something changed, then changed again to what we have today.Churches eventually were made for one body, all together.There are varied reasons for this but it has been suggested that some is due to the more widespread infant baptism (no postponing).

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I’ll take the uncharitable remark,

It’s not uncharitable poco, you are leaving me no choice. And by the way I said your posts were demagoguery, not you as a person. We provide you with sources and you jump into word play.

Then you attack a person about being wrong on something (without the specifics) and then suggesting that because that person was wrong on this unknown subject, then the person must be wrong on any other subject… not only demagoguery but ad-hominem.

Then you go off on a group of people and refer to them as “poor old”, why would you want to use this adjective if for no other reason than to appeal to the sentiments of someone attacking unjustly an innocent group? - This again is demagogue in principle.

There is no reason to defend a practice until that practice is attacked. All you have done is express an opinion without any backing.

You are the one saying that the practice is wrong. You are the accuser. What you have presented has been refuted. If you have no evidence then please hold your peace.

 

[just_came_back]

I’ll take the uncharitable remark, but remember it was not me who began the remark against baptists of postponing baptism. I may not know thoughts and intents, nor claim to, only go by what historians of all sorts say about this postponing by some.It was not just Constantine.Not sure if it is being denied here,that some postponed, enough to be noted. I know they sometimes built two churches, if not, designed churches with two separate groups in mind in 4-6 century.One for catechumens and one for baptized. **Again,in bible times, you got saved, repented and were baptized immediately,**Jew and Gentile.Something changed, then changed again to what we have today.Churches eventually were made for one body, all together.There are varied reasons for this but it has been suggested that some is due to the more widespread infant baptism (no postponing).

Uh…scripture please. No “altar calls”…well obviously you avoided my link like the plaugue. Guys don’t even bother with him. My dog can understand our teachings better than a rebellious PROTESTant. (Emphasis on purpose)

 

[pocohombre]

I know man… at this point, poco’s posts are demagoguery…

BTW, thanks for your sig link!

God Bless.

Actually thank you for inferring that i might be leading.

 

[pocohombre]

Uh…scripture please. No “altar calls”…well obviously you avoided my link like the plaugue. Guys don’t even bother with him. My dog can understand our teachings better than a rebellious PROTESTant. (Emphasis on purpose)

Sorry, you gave me no link or it was not directed to me. I found it however and will take a look .The person you responded to also did not show clearly it was a response to me,but i’ll get back to him also,Lord willing. Do you even know where the term protestant came from,what they were protesting ?

 

[fbl9]

Sorry, you gave me no link or it was not directed to me. I found it however and will take a look .The person you responded to also did not show clearly it was a response to me,but i’ll get back to him also,Lord willing. Do you even know where the term protestant came from,what they were protesting ?

if you haven’t already pocohombre please take a look at the links provided by Church Militant. back on the first page (I think).

What did Luther have to say on this subject?
Why or how could have your source of guidance in how to understand scripture, has this important detail wrong?

 

[pocohombre]

]if you haven’t already pocohombre please take a look at the links provided by Church Militant. back on the first page (I think).

Took a brief look thank you

What did Luther have to say on this subject?

More importantly what were the circumstances of his stand ?

Why or how could have your source of guidance in how to understand scripture, has this important detail wrong

He strayed from his own teaching then and settled on tradition. I understand to do otherwise would have given credability to some anabaptists that were also attacking him,and he disliked them ,had some goofy ideas,much worse than his catholic roots. .Anyways,is that your paradigm that we must follow some human? I am not Lutheran.Luther did enough good, he could not do it all (be perfect). If some suggest that the CC “strayed” over time,then reformation may also happen in stages. If we follow man ,ok but only God is true(perfect) ,man is not. With Luther, as with CC, and all really, give honor where honor is due.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Actually thank you for inferring that i might be leading.

:knight2:

 

[pocohombre]

:knight2:

oohhhhhh, you got me. You sent me straight to heaven, no purgatory. Playing like an angel-:harp:

 

[Isaiah45_9]

oohhhhhh, you got me. You sent me straight to heaven, no purgatory. Playing like an angel-:harp:

Ha, I have no such power.

However, I can for you to go to :heaven: and all other persons as well. That would mean that all have submitted :getholy: to God’s Will and it would end the :slapfight: troubles of this life.

:grouphug:

Until that day arrives I will :knight1: defend the Faith.

 

[bogeydogg]

Luther did not stay with tradition. Luther Melancthon Chemnitz all affirmed not tradition of baptizing infants, but all affirmed that word and sacrament confer salvation. You have clearly not understood Lutheran doctrine. Doctrine btw defended by confessional Lutherans to this day.

The Table is the Body and Blood of Christ and saves sinners. Baptism saves by word and sacrament. The priest absolutely forgives the sins of the penitent.

Luther and those who followed him confirmed the salvific nature of the sacraments and appealed to not be excommunicated because they very specifically condemned the Platonic meanderings of Zwingli concerning the sacraments. It was not the Anabaptists Luther argued with only, Luther rejected Zwingli because Zwingli rejected the actual presence of Christ in the Sacrament. A rejection that stands to this day among confessional Lutherans. I do not know a single confessional Lutheran who thinks of himself as a “protestant” we are catholic and reject Calvin as a Unitarian who effectively rejected Christ in favor of defending the Father’s glory.

So you need to read your history better because the notion that Luther was pretty much a baptist who clung to tradition on this and that is dead wrong. Luther condemned those who taught what the baptists teach and that condemnation stands to this day. That is why confessional Lutheran Churches will not communes Baptists or Presbyterians because the doctrines taught by those churches concerning the sacraments and soteriology are held as heretical by the Augsburg Confession.

 

[Porknpie]

We can look at what the Church wrote on baptizing infants. This is how the bible should be interpreted…as Origen comments…the apostles taught it…which meant Christ taught them…that’s reason enough for me.

No where in the bible does it say not to baptize infants. No where. Just the opposite…the bible, the written Word of God says “whole households were baptized”.

If infants were not part of the household…what were they part of?

"[T]herefore children are also baptized." Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233).

"For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too." Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

“Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, **Baptism is given even to infants. **And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous.” Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244).

"But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day…And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism….we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…" Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251).

"It shows no crease when infants put it on [the baptismal garment], it is not too scanty for young men, it fits women without alteration." Optatus of Mileve, Against Parmenium, 5:10(A.D. 365).

“Have you an infant child? Do not let sin get any opportunity, but let him be sanctified from his childhood; from his very tenderest age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Fearest thou the Seal on account of the weakness of nature?” Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:17 (A.D. 381).

“‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ **No one is expected: not the infant, **not the one prevented by necessity.” Ambrose, Abraham, 2,11:79 (A.D. 387).

"We do baptize infants, although they are not guilty of any sins." John Chrysostom, Ad Neophytos (A.D. 388).

 

[Porknpie]

To the OP, here’s another link to a thread I started on “whole households”.

Also, the bible and Church history aside, logic should work like this

-All family members are in a whole household.
-Infants are family members.

Therefore

-Infants are in a whole household.

Not sure how some Protestants can get this so wrong.

Pork