A
- Status
A
ahs
Guest
Refute the fact that the early Christians were batizing infants? Why woud any Catholic try to refute that? Or refute the fact that there was an argument over whether an infant had to be 8 days old? Again, why would aynone try to refute that, especially in light of the evidence of history?
S
SPH1
Guest
Justinian
The part I made in red clearly shows that Justinian DID NOT have a SBC view of baptism as being symbolic only.
Furthermore, where Justinian says " brought up in bad habits and wicked training" it is not clear that he is referring to people/children brought up in Christian households. I don’t know if Justianian was brought up Christian as a child, but it would seem odd to portray a Christian household as “wicked training.” But if I recall correctly, Justinian was writing to the Emperor and non-Christians, so as with the Apostles, was addressing pagans who had to come to Christ. For them, infant baptism is not yet even an issue.
I also doubt that the SBC follows Justinian’s description of the Sunday service and the Eucharist.
So the SBC is clearly cherry-picking in an attempt to salvage their view against infant baptism…why I don’t know as they don’t even believe that baptism is necessary; unlike Justinian.
Cyprian
Scitor:
Here it is best to just attack the man. Nevertheless, he was a Bishop.
Gregory of Nazianzus
Scitor:
And what about only putting off baptism until about 4 years of age? Is that what the SBC does?
This in no way supports the SBC.
Scitor said:
The part I made in red clearly shows that Justinian DID NOT have a SBC view of baptism as being symbolic only.
Furthermore, where Justinian says " brought up in bad habits and wicked training" it is not clear that he is referring to people/children brought up in Christian households. I don’t know if Justianian was brought up Christian as a child, but it would seem odd to portray a Christian household as “wicked training.” But if I recall correctly, Justinian was writing to the Emperor and non-Christians, so as with the Apostles, was addressing pagans who had to come to Christ. For them, infant baptism is not yet even an issue.
I also doubt that the SBC follows Justinian’s description of the Sunday service and the Eucharist.
So the SBC is clearly cherry-picking in an attempt to salvage their view against infant baptism…why I don’t know as they don’t even believe that baptism is necessary; unlike Justinian.
Cyprian
Baptism of infants right away or after 8 days in no way supports the SBC.
Scitor said:
Here it is best to just attack the man. Nevertheless, he was a Bishop.
Gregory of Nazianzus
Did the SBC see the part about “unless the child is in danger of death”?
And what about only putting off baptism until about 4 years of age? Is that what the SBC does?
This in no way supports the SBC.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
C
Chiefsinner
Guest
There must be way too much pride to actually see it…Cyprian proves that bishops approved infant baptism.
Tertullian proves that infants were being baptized though it was not his preference.
What more do I need to do? The early church baptized infants, and this is historical fact which you cannot deny.
Over the course of 2,000 years, the Catholic Church has listened to the opinions of all of her sons. Without fail, she has chosen the proper course of action from among the many paths that have been proposed.
You have attempted to prove your assertion, but you have labored in vain. Catholics, Orthodox and most Protestants baptize infants because this is what the Church has ALWAYS done.
You do not have a single verse of scripture explicitly prohibiting infant baptism.
You have proved beyond doubt that the early Church DID baptize.
The battle is lost. Do you not see it?
po18guy
Well-known member
I think that your concern over this issue stems from the fact that your communion has no authority to declare anything outside of what is reasonably plain in the limited revelation contained in the scriptures. However, and this is huge, the Catholic Church was given the authority to bind or loose “whatever” in the words of our Savior. If we believe Christ, then we also believe that Christ gave this power to the Church. Infant baptism is an area that has been held bound on earth and in heaven by the power of the Church. End of argument.
You may disagree based on your personal interpretation of various scriptures and early writings, but that does not affect in the least the authority of the Catholic Church to bind or loose infant baptism, or any other thing that is contained in “whatever”.
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
I don’t know where you are getting this text, but it is extremely biased.
Is the author forgetting St. Paul who claimed All have sinned in Adam? Romans 5. Original sin is in the Bible, but it just doesn’t go by that name yet.
Cyprian was one of the greatest bishops of the Church ever! He was also a Saint and a Martyr. They made him Bishop because he was already so highly educated, influential, and revered. Rarely does one find a bishop as illustrious as St. Cyprian. That is how we can easily recognize a bigoted text like this one.
Elsewhere I asked you to have an open mind when considering the Catholic Church’s teaching on infant baptism. You asked me to do the same. However, I am not on a SBC website seeking information. You, are on a Catholic website (I suppose) looking for answers about the Catholic teaching on Infant baptism. You have been given a treasure trove of CAtholic teaching on Infant baptism. That should suffice, unless you have honest questions about those answers. I have to wonder if your objections are honest or just rehashes of SBC doctrine and bigotry. Because if its the latter, you are not being honest with yourself.
S
Scitor
Guest
The purpose of my post was to address Randy’s post #120, not to say SBC supports Justinian’s description of the Sunday service.
And as far as cherry picking I could make the same argument for Catholics stating scripture is necessary for salvation. I have provided numerous scripture to refute this.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
No problem.
Some apparently feel that the early church did not baptize infants, but that can be disproved by reading the historical citations if the following article. Early Teachings on Infant Baptism and from the very early account of the martyrdom of Polycarp (a disciple and friend of St. John as well as bishop of the Church in Smyrna) in which Polycarp plainly says the following when the proconsul tries to get him to deny Christ because of his old age. He shows that he was infant baptized.
CHAPTER 9 (LINK) 9:1 But to Polycarp, as he entered the arena, there came a voice from heaven, saying, Be strong, and play the man, O Polycarp. And the speaker no man saw; but the voice those of our people who were present heard. And when he was brought in there was a great tumult, when men heard that Polycarp was apprehended.
9:2 Then, when he had been brought in, the proconsul asked him if he was Polycarp. And when he confessed, he would have persuaded him to deny, saying, Have respect unto thine age, and other things like these, as is their custom to say: Swear by the fortunes of Caesar; Repent; Say, Away with the Atheists. But Polycarp, when he had looked with a grave face at all the multitude of lawless heathen in the arena, having beckoned unto them with his hand, sighed, and looking up unto heaven, said, Away with the Atheists!
9:3 And when the proconsul pressed him, and said, Swear, and I will release thee, revile Christ; Polycarp said, Eighty and six years have I served him, and in nothing hath he wronged me; and how, then, can I blaspheme my King, who saved me?
The Case For Infant Baptism
Historians tell us that Polycarp may have been baptized by St. John the Evangelist himself since they were contemporaries.
Catholics don’t believe that scripture is necessary for salvation because if that were the case most of the early church wouldn’t have been saved since it the New Testament wasn’t even begun until about 25 years after the Ascension of Our Lord. At that time most of the Gospel spread by word of mouth and few were literate enough to read anything anyway. If scripture is necessary then illiteracy would be a serious hindrance to it.
The context of the entire New Testament supports salvation as preached by the Catholic Church for some 2,000 years. Baptists came a long when? About 400 years ago or less? If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1605.
S
Scitor
Guest
Sorry…in the above I meant to say baptism not scripture
S
Scitor
Guest
Meant to say baptism is not necessary for salvation.
A
ahs
Guest
But you never once provided a Bible verse to refute the necessity of Baptism. You only provided your (or your pastor’s) fallible interpretation of some Bible verses. The burden is on you, if you want to convince anyone of your position, to show why any reasonable Christian should reject the 2,000 year teaching of the Church on the necessity of Baptism and accept some 16-17th century doctrine of man that denies it’s necessity.
S
Scitor
Guest
You must not have read my previous post that gave quite a bit of history of the early church related to infant baptism. It is very clear there is no definite proof that infant baptism was practiced during the time of Christ or for the next 200 years. During the subsequent 200 years there is mention of infant baptism, but yet no proof it was a readily accept practice.
Please…answer me this. If, as you say, infant baptism was a normal practice during the time of Christ and immediately after, then why was there no cohesiveness among the church leaders around this issue. If it was truly the norm of the earliest church, then there would be no reason for dispute or differences of opinion.
A
adrift
Guest
Baptism wasn’t required until Jesus rose from the dead and commanded it.
Really? Why? From the beginning there were disagreements. Read Acts and the Epistles to see that there was many disagreements. Paul discusses those concerning baptism.
BTW does this mean you have realized that your intial post was inaccurate?
F
Fr_of_Jazz
Guest
Actually not. . .on all counts!
Augustine’s conclusions departed from the earlier tradition attested to by Gregory of Nazianzus: “It will happen, I believe . . . that those last mentioned [infants dying without baptism] will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since, though unsealed [by baptism], they are not wicked. . . . For from the fact that one does not merit punishment it does not follow that one is worthy of being honored, any more than it follows that one who is not worthy of a certain honor deserves on that account to be punished.” Oration 40, 23]
Augustine’s conclusions were debated throughout the Middle Ages. St. Thomas departed explicitly from Augustinian teaching and returned to the earlier tradition represented by Gregory mentioned above. He proposed, “limbo” as it is commonly called, a place of natural happiness for infants dying w/o baptism even though the sharing in the divine nature afforded those who are baptized was not enjoyed by them.
It was the theological conclusion represented in Aquinas, not Augustine, that enjoyed the majority support as a legitimate theological opinion (not a doctrine of the faith) up to the Reformation and beyond into the 20th c.
In his statement Auctorem Fidei (1794) rejected the teachings of the Synod of Pistoria and reaffirmed that infants do not suffer the pains of hell and that it is theologically rash to deny the state of limbo.
We can find the same affirmation in 2 seminary theology manuals prior to Vat II: Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 1952, p. 113-4; and Ad. Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, 1959, pp. 428-30.
Vatican II, contrary to your (typical and unfounded Evangelical) jaundiced view, i.e., painting a happy face on Catholicism, reaffirmed the earlier tradition going back to Gregory.
Since you, at least, present yourself (in discussing individual ECFs) as being interested and capable of tracing the history of theological questions, you might then want to read The Hope Of Salvation For Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised by the International Theological Commission (2007). It gives far more ample documentation and far more capably traces the complexities of the development of this problem than you have demonstrated.
If you’re going to play-act like a historian of theology, you should at least get some elementary and readily-available facts straight.
A
ahs
Guest
Sure, I read it. You provided the evidence that completely refuted your position. I’m not talking about that anymore because I don’t want to try to refute the facts, which you yourself provided, that the earliest Christians baptized infants. I’m moving on to the other topic that you yourself just introduced, which is the “necessity of baptism for salvation”.
You clarified for us:
I answered:
So, if it is your goal to convince anyone here of your position, then please explain why any reasonable Christian should reject the 2,000 year teaching of the Church on the necessity of Baptism and accept some 16-17th century doctrine of man that denies it’s necessity.
It’s in our human nature to dispute things. I can’t think of any time in history when things were not disputed to some degree or another. I believe that, in itself, is a strong argument to the Catholic position that Christ established a visible and authoritative Church to bind and loose “whatever”, to quote Christ directly. But I’m not interested in chasing that rabbit right now. What I want to know is, why any reasonable Christian should reject the 2,000 year teaching of the Church on the necessity of Baptism and accept some 16-17th century doctrine of man that denies it’s necessity.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Re-reading the OP, I think that is clear.
The OP is down to, “Well, infant baptism may have been practiced in the early church…but there were still disputes about it until Trent.” Or something like that.
It’s all over but the mopping up.
Councils of the Church base their decisions on doctrinal matters upon what they believe to be the ancient apostolic teaching of the Church, agreed? So, early in the fifth century, the following two councils made judgments on the baptism of infants based on what they believed to be ancient doctrine:
Council of Carthage V
“Item: It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they [abandoned children] were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the [North African] legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such [abandoned children] from the barbarians” (Canon 7 A.D. 401]).
Council of Mileum II
“[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration” (Canon 3 A.D. 416]).
F
Fr_of_Jazz
Guest
Right. Laying out the biblical and historical facts on the subject is one thing. But if he is going to take issue with the teaching and practice of the CC (and EOC) on this question, he has to develop the justification of his protestation.
If indeed he is doing so, I have asked him:
- How would you sketch out the argument for your protesting view that it is more reasonable to conclude that infant baptism (at the eve of the Reformation the preexisting conviction the CC and EOC held by Scripture and Tradition in the Church) is positively contrary to God’s will and must be abandoned completely in favor of his particular Reformation view?
- He said: …“the bible does not say you cannot baptize infants,” is an invalid argument. It holds absolutely no weight. Think about it.”
I did think about it, and concluded I don’t hold sola scriptura. So I asked him “Why IS the fact that ‘the bible does not say you cannot baptize infants,’ … an invalid argument" for one who does not hold SS?
D
dronald
Guest
Honestly… The Catholic Church should just make a declaration from the seat of Peter once and for all on what happens to unbaptized babies and stillborn children then call it a night.
This is obviously a very important topic and the CC won’t touch it for obvious reasons. It needs to happen.
This is obviously a very important topic and the CC won’t touch it for obvious reasons. It needs to happen.
po18guy
Well-known member
Do you want something else to disagree with? Since no bible Christian on earth can say what happens to unbaptized children who die - neither can they say what harm comes to a child through baptism, I fail to see the point.
Some things remain a mystery because God has willed it so.
Some things remain a mystery because God has willed it so.
- Status