M
Matariel
Guest
No, because Big-T Traditions are apostolic in nature. That’s what makes them a part of Big-T Tradition.
Either way, the Church has already settled the issue that infants are to be baptized, so it’s a moot point.
- Status
Either way, the Church has already settled the issue that infants are to be baptized, so it’s a moot point.
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, and the earliest document of the Teaching of the Apostles outside of Scripture, the Didache. It has been an unbroken tradition observed in the Church, handed down from the Apostles.
J
Jolly_Joe
Guest
It should also be remember that God baptised the infants as they crossed the Red Sea, and it should also be noted that infants were alway included in the baptism and circumcision of people who converted to Judaism.
The idea of excluding the infants would have been totally contrary to the historic practices and the culture and so if infants were to be excluded it would have required clear teaching against it.
Instead of that, we see that the promise of for the children, that Jesus said the children were believers and that they belonged to the kingdom of God, and so on.
Everything about the New Covenant was more inclusive than the Old Covenant. Infants were clearly a part of the Old Covenant, no reason to exclude them from the New. Nor is there a reason to dream up alternate ways for them to be saved. Those who teach that infants cannot believe but are automatically saved actually turn heaven into a place filled with unbelievers mixed with a few who had faith. No reason to believe that is true.
Since the word’s households, and nations do indeed include infants and since there is nothing in those passages to exclude them, it becomes a motivated reading to exclude them, especially since when we see infants spoken of in other places it is to include them, not exclude them.
Making infants saved a different way means that one’s salvation does not rest on Christ but relies on characteristics of the person. Ultimately it is a denial of original sin and the fact that all died with Adam, a dangerous thing since dying with Adam is linked to being made alive through Christ.
The idea of excluding the infants would have been totally contrary to the historic practices and the culture and so if infants were to be excluded it would have required clear teaching against it.
Instead of that, we see that the promise of for the children, that Jesus said the children were believers and that they belonged to the kingdom of God, and so on.
Everything about the New Covenant was more inclusive than the Old Covenant. Infants were clearly a part of the Old Covenant, no reason to exclude them from the New. Nor is there a reason to dream up alternate ways for them to be saved. Those who teach that infants cannot believe but are automatically saved actually turn heaven into a place filled with unbelievers mixed with a few who had faith. No reason to believe that is true.
Since the word’s households, and nations do indeed include infants and since there is nothing in those passages to exclude them, it becomes a motivated reading to exclude them, especially since when we see infants spoken of in other places it is to include them, not exclude them.
Making infants saved a different way means that one’s salvation does not rest on Christ but relies on characteristics of the person. Ultimately it is a denial of original sin and the fact that all died with Adam, a dangerous thing since dying with Adam is linked to being made alive through Christ.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Where does the Didache say that infants are baptized, and that Apostles baptized infants? I couldn’t find that. thanks.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Is the sacrament of marriage something you would consider a Big-T tradition?
H
Hesychios
Guest
An excellent observation.
I can accept this point.
I suppose one might say context is everything.
Dismas and Nicodemas are two different persons. In the conversation directly with Nicodemas it is written:
He came to Jesus at night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God, for no one can do these signs that you are doing unless God is with him.”
Jesus answered and said to him, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother’s womb and be born again, can he?” Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit.
Do not be amazed that I told you, ‘You must be born from above.’ The wind blows where it wills, and you can hear the sound it makes, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."
Nicodemus answered and said to him, “How can this happen?”
Jesus answered and said to him, "You are the teacher of Israel and you do not understand this?
Clear as mud! No mention of original sin in this text as we have it. No works vs faith dialog, no Limbus Patrum. Just this, and he says "**Do not be amazed that I told you, ‘You must be born from above.’
The wind blows where it wills … **"
Within hours of the completion of Our Lord’s bloody sacrifice on the cross he tells a thief “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” in response to: “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”
The only fact we really have on this matter is that Jesus (whom we believe to be God) said so.
That’s it … God said “today you will be with me in Paradise.”.
Your guess is as good as mine as to how that could be so. He said so, and so it is.
We can’t put God in a box, he can do whatever he pleases. To say that Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation seems the same kind of box as someone saying “it is not necessary”. Both positions, being absolutes, seem to be constraints upon God’s sovereign power over all creation.
M
Matariel
Guest
Yes; it’s the oldest of the Church’s seven Sacraments and was instituted by God in the Garden of Eden at the beginning of time. It is therefore not only an apostolic Tradition, but was even present long before the NT.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Ok, then, where is there any record of Apostles performing (celebrating) the sacrament of marriage in the New Testament (or elsewhere)? Nowhere. That’s my point.
And by the way, the Church does not teach that the Sacrament was instituted in the garden of Eden. The Sacrament was instituted by Christ.
M
Matariel
Guest
Um, Catholics do not believe in Sola Scriptura, so that’s an invalid point. You’re acting like you believe in that Protestant notion. Do you not understand what apostolic Tradition is? I suggest you reread that area in your Catechism.
It was instituted in Eden and was elevated by Christ to the status of a Sacrament. Are you saying before Christ no one was married? I’m sorry, but that’s absurd.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
You’re the one who disagreed with me when I said that we don’t know for sure Apostles practiced all “Big-T” traditions. Look at your post #141. If you have evidence that Apostles practiced the Sacrament of marriage (which you admit is a Big T tradition) then please share, whether it’s from Scripture or not.
I did not say anything about “sola Scriptura” so I don’t know why you’re bringing that up.
And no, if you would please just read what I’ve typed, you would realize that I did not in any way say no one before Christ was married. Please don’t read into my posts things I didn’t state. If you don’t understand something I said, just ask for clarification, no need to make assumptions and accusations.
M
Matariel
Guest
We do because the Church derives Tradition from the Apostles. This is Catholic dogma.
The Church says all Sacraments were apostolic— all Sacred Tradition is Apostolic. Case closed. The Church is the guardian of Sacred Apostolic Tradition, so She knows.
You implied it had to be in the Scriptures that the Apostles married couples, or at least a historical record that they married couples.
Even though much of Sacred Tradition (which is apostolic by nature) is not in the Bible anyway.
Quote:
G
guanophore
Guest
Infants are among the children that are too young to speak for themselves. Didache means Teaching. The document is a summary of the Apostolic Teaching and practices.
As you look into baptism in the early father’s writings, you see that the controversy was not about whether they should be baptized, but whether they should wait 8 days. The Apostles understood that baptism replaced circumcision as the entrance rite into the kingdom.
G
guanophore
Guest
It seems like the wedding in Cana was certainly a celebration of marriage. Rabbi’s performed the marriages. the Apostles were not rabbi’s.
What do you think He meant when He said “from the beginning, it was not so”? (divorce)
G
guanophore
Guest
What are you saying? Do you not believe the Apostles were married, or do you think their marriages were not sacramental?
D
diggerdomer
Guest
That doesn’t answer my question about the Didache.
And, Tertullian, for instance, one of the Church fathers, was not arguing about 8 days but rather argued against the practice of infant baptism.
If you can give more insights to my question about the Didache I’d appreciate it.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
It wasn’t a sacrament before Christ.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
I believe the at least some of the Apostles were married (we know Peter was, we don’t know one way or another about others). It wasn’t a Sacrament before Christ.
G
guanophore
Guest
I don’t think so, digger. Either one accepts the testimony of history and literary criticism that the Didache is an early church document that represents the Teaching of the Apostles, or not. If you cannot accept this, then you will probably not accept that any of the contents of the document portray and accurate representation of what the Apostles did and taught.
Yes, Tertullian did argue against it, because it was the standard practice in North Africa since the time the Apostolic message came there. Why did he do so?
Tertullian, treatise on BAPTISM 18,4 (c. AD 200-206)
"According to circumstance and disposition and even age of the individual person, it may be better to delay Baptism; and especially so in the case of little children. Why, indeed, is it necessary – if it be not a case of necessity – that the sponsors to be thrust into danger, when they themselves may fail to fulfill their promises by reason of death, or when they may be disappointed by the growth of an evil disposition? Indeed the Lord says, ‘Do not forbid them to come to me’ [Matt 19:14; Luke 18:16].
“Let them come, then, while they grow up, while they learn, while they are taught to whom to come; let them become Christians when they will have been able to know Christ! Why does the innocent age hasten to the remission of sins? …For no less cause should the unmarried also be deferred, in whom there is an aptness to temptation – in virgins on account of their ripeness as also in the widowed on account of their freedom – until they are married or are better strengthened for continence. Anyone who understands the seriousness of Baptism will fear its reception more than its deferral. Sound faith is secure of its salvation!”
Tertullian also embraced the Apostolic teaching that it is possible to fall away from the faith, to sray from grace, and therefore fail to obtain one’s inheritance.
C
cochise098
Guest
"There are some people who believe that baptism is necessary for salvation.
While the Bible clearly teaches that baptism in water is necessary for obedience, it is not a requirement for salvation. True, the apostle Peter did say, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). But notice it says the baptism is to be “in (into) the name of Jesus Christ.” It says nothing about water. This baptism takes place when a person believes and receives Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13). We are placed (baptized) by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ. When that happens, our sins are forgiven. This spiritual baptism is the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5 and the “baptism that saves” of 1 Peter 3:21. On the other hand, again and again faith is stated as the basic requirement for salvation, with no mention of baptism. (See John 3:16–18, 5:24; Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9–14.)
If water baptism doesn’t wash away sins, what good is it? Why is it one of the steps you should take as a new Christian? Here are three reasons:
Baptism is going public for God. It is telling the world that you’ve decided to follow Jesus."
While the Bible clearly teaches that baptism in water is necessary for obedience, it is not a requirement for salvation. True, the apostle Peter did say, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). But notice it says the baptism is to be “in (into) the name of Jesus Christ.” It says nothing about water. This baptism takes place when a person believes and receives Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13). We are placed (baptized) by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ. When that happens, our sins are forgiven. This spiritual baptism is the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5 and the “baptism that saves” of 1 Peter 3:21. On the other hand, again and again faith is stated as the basic requirement for salvation, with no mention of baptism. (See John 3:16–18, 5:24; Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9–14.)
If water baptism doesn’t wash away sins, what good is it? Why is it one of the steps you should take as a new Christian? Here are three reasons:
- Water baptism identifies your desire to obey Christ (Matthew 28:19–20). If you know that He wants you to be baptized and you refuse, you are being disobedient to your Savior, the One who died for you.
- Water baptism identifies your desire to be joined to Christ (Romans 6:1–4). Through the symbolism of water baptism, you can show others a good visual picture of what it means to become a Christian. Being baptized shows that when Christ died, we died. When He was buried, we were buried. And when He rose from the dead, we rose from the dead—to a new life and a new purpose.
- Water baptism indicates your desire to follow Christ (Romans 6:4). It symbolizes your final break with your old life, with the past and its sin. And although you will continue to sin, being baptized tells the world you are headed in a new direction, you are taking your first steps on a new road.
Baptism is going public for God. It is telling the world that you’ve decided to follow Jesus."
C
Cristian_B
Guest
If you go that far with your parallel between baptism and circumcision, how come that women are baptized? If the comparison between baptism and circumcision is so big, then the Church should prohibit all women from being baptized. I hope you disagree. Baptism is the new circumcision in the sense that it is the new process trough which one joins the Church.
- Status