Infant Baptism - Laying out the facts

[Fr_of_Jazz]

If you are going to take issue with the Catholic theology of grace, faith, freedom, and salvation you need to be honest about the status of the question.

This theology existed in the CC prior to the Reformation protest against that theology and continues to exist to this day. You need to show why a Catholic must reject this prior view in favor of the newer Reformation teaching.

The CC has always taught that faith which saves which is given by grace includes belief in the teaching of Jesus: His teaching means eternal life (Jn 12:50; cf 3:36).

Jesus’ teaching includes moral content.

It is, therefore, impossible that consciously choosing to live by faith according to Jesus’ teaching (including His moral teaching) either attacks the gospel, seeks to add anything to His work of redemption, or places any more responsibility on us than God intended–because the teaching comes from Jesus Himself.

What did Jesus teach?

Mt 19:16-17; see //s in Mk 10:17-19; Lk 18:18-20
Now someone approached him and said, “Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?” He answered him, “Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

Jn 5:28-29
Those who have “done good deeds” will rise to life; those who have done “wicked deeds” will rise to condemnation.

Mt 7:21
In the Sermon on the Mount (distinctive teaching of Jesus if ever there were any) He said to his disciples “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.”

Mt 16:27
“For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father’s glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his deeds (praxis).” (Mt 16:27)
[In this quotation “*praxis in the sense of ergon (‘work,’ ‘deed’) is related to divine judgment.” --Gerhard Kittle, ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm R. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968, VI:643 “praxis.”]

Lk 10:25-28
Lawyer: “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus: “What is written in the law?” Lawyer: Love God and neighbor. Jesus: You have answered right; do this and you will live.” To illustrate love of neighbor Jesus tells the Parable of the Good Samaritan (vv 29-37).

Lk 16:19-31
Rich man condemned for ignoring Lazarus–a deed.

You consistently neglect to mention that Paul’s Polemic against “works of the Law” are related to his own move from Judaism and his fight against the Judaizing tendencies in his communities. You also leave out that his understanding of faith given by grace includes obedience to his and Jesus’ moral teaching.

Paul rejects salvation by “works of the Law”, i.e., through being an observant Jew. Paul taught in a synagogue (Acts 13:38-39): “You must know, my brothers, that through him [Jesus] forgiveness of sins is being proclaimed to you, and in regard to everything from which you could not be justified under the law of Moses, in him every believer is justified.”

He himself found out in his revelation from Christ that his former righteousness as a Pharisee based on the Law of Moses was really in the flesh and he now counts it as rubbish (Phil 3:3-11). That is, since God’s plan is now fully revealed in Christ, Judaism and the works of the Jewish Law are superseded and “obsolete” (Rm 7:6, cf. Heb 8:13).

In Gal he continues his fight against the Judaizers (Acts 15:1, 5). They taught that in order to become a Christian, you must first become Jewish; and, as a Christian in order to be saved, one must be circumcised and continue to observe the Jewish Law. He picks up this theme also in Rm. Further Romans builds up the theme that faithless, graceless acts of natural moral virtue among the pagans do not make one just in God’s eyes nor earn the grace of faith. Ephesians likewise asserts this in 2:8-9. Salvation is through Christ and faith in Him given by grace.

Yet Paul in no way excludes the choice to obey Jesus moral teaching from the act of faith, which he refers to as “Obedience which leads to righteousness.” (Rom 16:16) and the “obedience of faith” (Rom 1:5; 16:26). He warns believers who disobey, that they thereby breaks faith and will not enter the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor 6:8-10; Gal 5:16-21). He tells us we will be judged regarding our eternal destiny according to works (Rom 2:6-11).

1 Cor 6:8-10
Corinthians, who are already believers, are warned: no slanderers, robbers, etc. will enter the kingdom of God. * e.g. vv 8-9 believers inflict injustice on believers (“brothers”), but the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God.

2 Cor 5:10
“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive recompense, according to what he did in the body, whether good or evil.”

Gal 5:16-21
The Galatians, who are already believers, are warned: if you do {x, y, z, etc.}, you will not enter the kingdom of God.

Rom 2:6-11
God “will repay everyone according to his works.”

The Catholic view has always been that this comports with the rest of the teaching in the NT.

Jas 1:12
“Blessed is the man who perseveres in temptation, for when he has been proved he will receive the crown of life.”

Jas 5:19-20
One of the “brothers” [someone who already believes] may stray. His soul is saved from “death”, if he is brought back from sin. (see 1:15; 4:17). See Ezk 3:21.

1 Jn 3:21-24
those who keep His commandments remain in Him [see Jn 14:21; 15:12]

1 Jn 5:16-17
“There is such a thing as a “deadly sin” “mortal sin” in RSV]. John is talking about a “brother” =believer.*

 

[adrift]

“Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples…”
-John 4:2

*John 3:22 After this, Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where he spent some time with them baptizing.

John 4:1 Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John 2 (although Jesus himself was not baptizing, just his disciples), 3 he left Judea and returned to Galilee. *

While Jesus is not performing the baptisms personally, they are being performed by the Apostles under His DIRECT order and supervision.

 

[Scitor]

Yes these points cover everything you need I’ve added the links again since it would be difficult to browse back and forth =>

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11396338&postcount=116

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11396423&postcount=120

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11403565&postcount=146

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11409846&postcount=160

In response to Randy’s post 120 - Infant baptism as evidence by the early church:

Concerning Polycarp - Catholic apologists think they found something in the alleged words of Polycarp that supports their claim that infant baptism was practiced in the immediate post-apostolic church. What Polycarp reportedly said was this: “Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me any injury.”

It is from this that those same apologists assume that Polycarp was eighty-six years old when he was martyred; and it is from that assumption that they claim he must have been baptized as an infant. The assumption of Polycarp’s age is dependent on the statement, and the assumption that he served the Lord from infancy is dependent on the assumption of his age. That is called a circular argument. The fact is we do not know the date of Polycarp’s martyrdom with any large degree of accuracy, which precludes us from exclusively confirming or denying the claim that infant baptism was practiced in Polycarp’s time based on this writing. And we certainly cannot ascertain from this any information that would tell us why an infant would need baptism.

Further source.

 

[Scitor]

Yes these points cover everything you need I’ve added the links again since it would be difficult to browse back and forth =>

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11396338&postcount=116

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11396423&postcount=120

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11403565&postcount=146

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11409846&postcount=160

In response to Randy’s post 120 - Infant baptism as evidence by the early church:

Part 2: Irenaeus

About twenty or thirty years later, a bishop in Lyons Gaul (France) named, Irenaeus, wrote a five-book treatise On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis, or it’s Latin title, Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies). In book two of Irenaeus’ work is a statement, that according to some, supplies evidence of infant baptism.

“For He came to save all through means of Himself— all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise.” (Against Heresies 2:22:4)

The key phrase here is, born again. Those who say Irenaeus provides incidental evidence for infant baptism link these words to another place in his work where he uses them to refer to those that are baptized. It is reasonable to conclude that this supports the idea that infant baptism might have been practiced in Irenaeus’ time, but it is far from being actual proof, as some assert it is. The simple fact is; there is no conclusive evidence from Irenaeus’ works that infant baptism was practiced in his time. But whether or not the practice of baptizing infants existed then, it did develop sometime in the late second century. The question therefore becomes, why were infants baptized?

Irenaeus believed, just as Justin did, that when a person repents and is baptized they are forgiven of the sins they previously committed. To understand this we can look at a portion of his work where he contrasts those who are of this world to those who are of God. What we will learn is that Irenaeus associates both the man of the world and the man of God with works. Therefore, **it is impossible to support the idea that Irenaeus believed infants need baptism to remove the guilt of Adam’s sin. In fact, that conclusion is unreasonable given Irenaeus’ understanding.
**
“When, therefore, did we bear the image of him who is of the earth? Doubtless it was when those actions spoken of as works of the flesh used to be wrought in us. And then, again, when [do we bear] the image of the heavenly? Doubtless when he says, you have been washed, believing in the name of the Lord, and receiving His Spirit. Now we have washed away, not the substance of our body, nor the image of our [primary] formation, but the former vain conversation. In these members, therefore, in which we were going to destruction by working the works of corruption, in these very members are we made alive by working the works of the Spirit.” (Against Heresies 5:11:2)

Irenaeus criticized heretics for asserting that their salvation was purely spiritual and works meant nothing. He believed that we are justified by faith, but argued that works are an integrate part of our faith and would ultimately demonstrate the validity of it. Likewise, Irenaeus believed that condemnation was also a result of works. In light of these facts, it is impossible to quantify any assertion that Irenaeus’ works support the practice of infant baptism. The one Irenaeus reference so often cited for support of historical infant baptism is steeped in allegory and contradicts his clear expression to the contrary.

In Irenaeus’ explanation it is actions that distinguish the saved from the unsaved. So where does that leave infants? Since wrong actions define the man of the world, only right actions can counter them and redefine one as a man of God. **Since infants cannot perform unrighteous acts, they must be counted among the righteous until such time they old enough to understand right from wrong. **Although the practice of baptizing infants was undeniably established prior to the dawn of the third century, we have ample evidence that disputes the assertion that it was done to remove the guilt of Adam’s sin.

Note: Although Irenaeus often spoke of the catholicity of the church; there was nothing catholic about it with regard to practices. The lack of cohesiveness together with the scarcity of information regarding our topic makes researching this a particularly arduous task. This will become evident to the reader in subsequent post.

 

[Randy_Carson]

In response to Randy’s post 120 - Infant baptism as evidence by the early church:

Concerning Polycarp - Catholic apologists think they found something in the alleged words of Polycarp that supports their claim that infant baptism was practiced in the immediate post-apostolic church. What Polycarp reportedly said was this: “Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me any injury.”

It is from this that those same apologists assume that Polycarp was eighty-six years old when he was martyred; and it is from that assumption that they claim he must have been baptized as an infant. The assumption of Polycarp’s age is dependent on the statement, and the assumption that he served the Lord from infancy is dependent on the assumption of his age. That is called a circular argument. The fact is we do not know the date of Polycarp’s martyrdom with any large degree of accuracy, which precludes us from exclusively confirming or denying the claim that infant baptism was practiced in Polycarp’s time based on this writing. And we certainly cannot ascertain from this any information that would tell us why an infant would need baptism.

I agree. Polycarp could have been 91 or 96 or 106 when he made that statement. Now, odds are that even if he were 96, it would mean that he would have been baptized by the age of 10. At some point, even the person whom you are cutting and pasting here should admit that the probability runs in the Catholic’s favor.

There is a fair amount of information on baptism from the writings of the early church, but there is nothing that I have found that specifically mentions infant baptism prior to the early third century. There is, however, information that can be derived from some second-century works that can hopefully shed light on how the church of that time understood baptism, and whether or not infants were believed to possess the guilt of Adam’s sin at birth.

Early third century? Pre-Constantine, right? That means that before the Catholic Church was invented by Constantine, bible-only Christians were baptizing infants.

Now, much was made of Justin Martyr, and this was actually an argument from silence popular on many evangelical websites. As has been pointed out, Justin Martyr also wrote:

“Many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples since childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years” (Apology 1: 15).

Childhood? Well, so much for the Baptist notion that only adults would be baptized.

Origen

“The Church has received from the apostles the custom of administering baptism even to infants. For those who have been entrusted with the secrets of divine mysteries, knew very well that all are tainted with the stain of original sin, which must be washed off by water and spirit” (Commentary on Romans, 5.9).

“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]).

Infant Baptism received from the apostles. Boo-yah! :dancing:

Council of Carthage (254 AD)

“We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God… especially infants. . . those newly born.”

Cyprian

“Should we wait until the eighth day as did the Jews in circumcision? No, the child should be baptized as soon as it is born.” (To Fidus 1: 2).

Cyprian is decisive; the early believers were concerned about how quickly infants should be baptized - on the eighth day or sooner.

But I’m curious, what is the earliest prohibition against infant baptism that you can find?

 

[Scitor]

Yes these points cover everything you need I’ve added the links again since it would be difficult to browse back and forth =>

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11396423&postcount=120

In response to Randy’s post 120 - Infant baptism as evidence by the early church:

Part 3: Tertullian

In the early third century, a presbyter in Carthage named, Tertullian, wrote a famous treatise on baptism. Catholic apologists give a great deal of credence to this document as they often reference it as support for the necessity of baptism. But also contained in this work is something Catholic apologist, Karl Keating, insists does not exist, and that is a clear objection to infant baptism.

Keating repeatedly states that there is no written objection to infant baptism prior to the reformation. Yet from the same third-century work he references as historical proof for the necessity of baptism, resides the evidence that infant baptism was indeed disputed. Here is what Tertullian said:

“And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the** delay of baptism is preferable**; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary— if (baptism itself) is not so necessary — that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? 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? More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine!** Let them know how to ask for salvation**, that you may seem (at least) to have given to him that asks.” (Tertullian on Baptism, 18; 208A.D.)

Here we have explicit confirmation that infant baptism and disputes over the practice were both occurring in the early third century. Tertullian’s use of the phrase, innocent period is quite incidental and suggests that it was well understood that infants were innocent of sin. We can gather from Tertullian’s treatise that the reason infants were being baptized seemed to be because of how some interpreted Matthew 19:14: “Suffer the children, and forbid them not to come to Me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven”. Those who were baptizing infants understood this to mean that Jesus was commanding that little children be baptized. Tertullian disagreed and argued that children should first understand why they should come to Christ.

It is unclear how this interpretation developed, but we don’t have to go very far back from Tertullian’s time to find evidence in support of his position. In fact we only need to go back one generation and look at the writings of Clement of Alexandria; there we will find an interpretation that counters the seemingly popular understanding that Jesus was referring to baptism.

“And they brought to Him, it is said, children, that He might put His hands on them and bless them; and when His disciples hindered them, Jesus said, Suffer the children, and forbid them not to come to Me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven. What the expression means the Lord Himself shall declare, saying, ‘Unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven;’ not in that place speaking figuratively of regeneration, but setting before us, for our imitation, the simplicity that is in children.” (The Instructor 1:5)

Clement’s interpretation does not only differ from the baptism interpretation, it asserts that little children are innocent and their innocence should be imitated, a complete contrast. It might seem remarkable that these two contrasting interpretations could exist over such a small time period. But the reality is they both probably existed simultaneously. As much as some early ecclesiastical writers liked to proclaim the universality of the church throughout the world, it simply wasn’t true. This is most prominently evident when comparing the doctrines in the western churches to those in the east.

Although Tertullian did not interpret the passage the same way Clement did, he did essentially advocate the spirit of the interpretation. So it is not unreasonable to speculate that infant baptism was universally practiced, but the reasons for doing it may have been quite different.

From reading Tertullian’s treatise it seems apparent that infant baptism was performed in the western church in accordance with what they understood to be a commandment of the Lord. It is therefore inevitable that Christians would wonder why such a thing was necessary. If, as they leaned, baptism was for the remission of sins, and the Lord commanded that little children be baptized – so they interpreted – then little children must possess sin. It would be a logical conclusion from here to assume that children possess sin, and since they have no sin of their own the sin they possess must be that of Adam’s disobedience passed on to all generations.

The first evidence that people were questioning infant baptism appears in the early third century, which in conjunction with former evidence on baptism, suggests that the practice was fairly new. It wasn’t until about fifty years after Tertullian that the church in the west officially addressed the practice of baptizing infants. But nearly simultaneous to Tertullian’s time, we have evidence of how this practice was perceived in the Eastern Church.

 

[Scitor]

Yes these points cover everything you need I’ve added the links again since it would be difficult to browse back and forth =>

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11396423&postcount=120

In response to Randy’s post 120 - Infant baptism as evidence by the early church:

Part 4: Origen

Living around the same time as Tertullian in the eastern city of Caesarea Palestine, was one of the most renowned theologians in church history, a man named, Origen. Origen was instructed in the faith at a young age under the guidance of Clement of Alexandria in Egypt. Origen was extremely intelligent and dedicated to his studies, which propelled him in advancing past his contemporaries. He wrote extensively and some of his works are extant. One thing that can be ascertained about Origen from his works is that he was undoubtedly cutting edge when it comes to theological advancement. What I mean by that is Origen was not constrained by orthodoxy; if he understood a portion of Scripture in a way never before heard he had no problem persuading others to understand it the same way. It is from this man that we find the earliest clear instruction on why infants were baptized in the early church – and it is in clear contrast to the reason given in the catechism of the Catholic Church.

There is a quote from Origen that you will probably come across on many Catholic apologetic websites. The quote comes from Origen’s commentary on the Book of Romans and usually appears like this:

“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.” (Commentary on Romans 5:9)

The quote makes it appear as though Origen is saying that infants are born with sin, but that is not at all what he was saying. Here is the quote again, only in its unadulterated English translation and in context.

“After all, even in the law it is commanded that sacrifices be offered for the child who was born: a pair of turtledoves; one of which was offered for sin and the other as a burnt offering. For which sin is this one dove offered? Was a newly born child able to sin? And yet it has a sin for which sacrifices are commanded to be offered, and from which it is denied that anyone is pure, even if his life should be one day long. It has to be believed, therefore, that concerning this David also said what we recorded above, ‘in sin my mother conceived me.’ For according to the historical narrative no sin of his mother is declared. It is on this account as well that the church has received the tradition from the apostles to give baptism even to little children. For they to whom the secrets of the divine mysteries were committed were aware that in everyone was sin’s innate defilement, which needed to be washed away through water and the Spirit.” (Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans 5:9:11; p366-367)

There is a world of difference between strains of sin and sin’s innate defilement. The former implies possession of sin while the later implies a consequence of sin. So which way did Origen intend this to be taken? In the context of the passage above he seems to refer to the former understanding. In the offering of the turtledoves was a sin offering for which Origen applies to the newborn child, so he asks, “for which sin is this one dove offered? Was a newly born child able to sin?” The answer has a puzzling twist. One can detect the irony as he states, “And yet it has a sin for which sacrifices are commanded to be offered.” Then, deriving his answer from the Book of Job, he said it is denied that anyone is pure. He did not say pure from sin, but simply pure. So what did he mean by this? The answer is found in his homily on Luke and it is unmistakably clear.

“See what is written in the Book of Job: ‘No man is clean of stain, not even if his life had lasted but a single day.’ The passage does not say, ‘no man is clean of sin,’ but, ‘no man is clean of stain.’ “Stain” and “sin” do not mean the same thing. “Stain” is one thing and “sin” another.” (Homily on Luke 14:4-3)

SO sin’s innate defilement is, according to Origen, the stain of humanity which is the result of our fallen state. It is this stain, not sin for which Origen believed little children must be baptized. He also associates this stain to the birth of Jesus with one caveat; Jesus’ stain was wrought by His own will.

“Every soul that has been clothed with a human body has its own “stain.” But Jesus was stained through His own will, because He had taken on a human body for our salvation…Thus it was fitting that those offerings that, according to the Law, customarily cleanse stain should be made. They were made for our Lord and Savior, who had been “clothed with stained garments” and had taken on an earthy body.” (Homily on Luke 14:4-5)

Those who use Origen’s writings to promote the necessity of infant baptism due to the consequence of “original sin,” probably never knew that Origen assigned same stain at birth to Jesus as he did to all newborns. And I am sure that none of those same people would say that Jesus was born with the guilt of Adam’s sin. In fact, Scripture expressly refutes such accusations. So in the context of Origen’s works it is clear: people are not born with the guilt of Adam’s sin, as some assert, but rather they are born with the stain of a corrupt sin nature, which Origen believed was required to be purified through baptism. But for most folks the reason was not clear and Origen fielded questions concerning it often.

 

[Scitor]

Yes these points cover everything you need I’ve added the links again since it would be difficult to browse back and forth =>

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11396338&postcount=116

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11396423&postcount=120

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11403565&postcount=146

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11409846&postcount=160

Part 4: Continued

“Christian brethren often ask a question. The passage from Scripture read today encourages me to treat it again. Little children are baptized “for the remission of sins.” Whose sins are they? When did they sin? Or how can this explanation of the baptismal washing be maintained in the case of small children, except according to the interpretation we spoke of a little earlier? No man is clean of stain, not even if his life upon the earth had lasted but a single day. Through the mystery of baptism, the stains of birth are put aside. For this reason, even small children are baptized. For, ‘unless a man be born again of water and spirit, he will not be able to enter the kingdom of heaven.’” (Homily on Luke 14:4-5; p57-58; 216 A.D.)

This portion of Origen’s commentary has been notoriously misquoted and misunderstood. Apologists for infant baptism always point to this passage, but often modify it to fit their argument. I found the following version of the passage on several websites:

“Infants are baptized for the remission of sins. Of what kinds? Or when did they sin? But since, ‘No one is exempt from stain,’ the stain is removed by the mystery of baptism. For this reason infants are baptized. For ‘Unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Notice anything missing? Right between “When did they sin” and “No one is exempt from stain,” belongs this deleted sentence: “Or how can this explanation of the baptismal washing be maintained in the case of small children, except according to the interpretation we spoke of a little earlier?”

What was the interpretation spoken of a little earlier? It was Origen’s explanation that we are born with stain not sin, and according to Origen, sin and stain are not the same things. Nevertheless, he clearly believed that infants are in need of baptism’s purification. Since he believed that no unclean thing and enter heaven, it appears as though Origen believed that a deceased un-baptized infant could not enter heaven since it is not purified of its stain. But remember, stain and sin are not the same according to Origen’s teaching, and nowhere in his works does he ever condemn a little child for lack of baptism. As a mater of fact Origen placed un-baptized infants on the same level as believers, saying that no one will rise in resurrection without stain.

“I think we shall need a sacrament to wash and cleanse us even after resurrection from the dead. No one will be able to rise without stains, nor will any soul be found that immediately lacks all vises. Baptism contains a mystery: just as Jesus, in the economy of the flesh, was purified by an offering, so we too are purified by spiritual rebirth.” (ibid)

So in order to stay consistent with Origen’s way of thinking, he could not have believed, as the Catholics do, that small children were damned because of a lack of baptism. If Origen believed a baptized person who is tainted by his vises receives purification in his death, how could he deny the same purification to an infant that is tainted only with the stain of fallen humanity? And this isn’t the only indication that Origen believed un-baptized children are welcomed into God’s kingdom.

Elsewhere in Origen’s commentary on Romans 5:13, he expounded on Paul’s words where he said, “But sin is not imputed when there is no law.” Origen rightly concluded that the law Paul was speaking of is natural law. Natural law is governed by the conscience and can only be applicable to those who are accountable for their actions. Origen understood this and in his commentary he excluded children from the law who were under a reasonable age of accountability.

“For if Paul had been speaking of written law, that is, the Law of Moses, when he said, “But sin is not imputed when there is no law,” then sin would not have been imputed to Cain or to those who died in the flood or to those who were consumed by fire in Sodom. But since we see that not only have sins been imputed to these people but that revenge was given to them. It is shown from this that Paul is speaking of natural law, which, with the exception of the first period of childhood, exists in all men. And thus he was quite justified in saying, “For we have charged that all Jews and Greeks are under sin.” This is also why, to my way of thinking, it was not contrary to reason for certain ages to have stipulated that every type of mortal receives that ability to discern right and wrong when he arrives at the age when natural law enters his life. It is evil that gets aroused first of all, but afterward it is gradually driven out by means of instruction, education, and exhortation; and it passes over to virtue.” (Commentary on Romans 3:2:8, p192)

If sin is not imputed where there is no law, then little children can in no wise be accountable to sin of any kind. The grace of God and the sacrifice of Christ are sufficient. And in Origen’s commentary on Matthew, he expands on Christ’s teaching on becoming as a little child in great detail. There he explains how when a person becomes perfected in Christ they become as innocent as a small child. From this one could only conclude that Origen considered little children to be free of condemnation by God’s good grace, regardless of whether or not they received baptism.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Since we’re cutting and pasting:

Infant Baptism makes absolutely no sense if you believe that sinners can and must make an informed, mature decision to believe in order to be saved. Infants cannot make informed, mature decisions, so if this is the correct Doctrine of Justification/Salvation, Infant Baptism is clearly false teaching. But the (arminian) Baptist/evangelical Doctrine of Justification/Salvation is unscriptural. Being forced to make a decision to obtain a gift, makes the gift no longer free. This is salvation by works!

Baptism is a command of God. It is not a work of man. God says in plain, simple language, in multiple locations in the Bible, that he saves/forgives sins in Baptism. We orthodox Christians accept God’s literal Word. We take our infants to be baptized because God says to do it. Our infants are not saved because we perform the act of bringing them to the baptismal font…they are saved by the power of God’s Word pronounced at the time of the Baptism. Christians have believed this for 2,000 years!

There is no evidence that any Christian in the early Church believed that sinners are saved by making a free will decision and then are baptized solely as a public profession of faith. None.

Gary
Luther, Baptists, and Evangelicals
lutherwasnotbornagain.com/2013/06/the-origen-of-baptistevangelical.html

Source: andycontramundum.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-justin-martyr-proves-that-infant.html

 

[Scitor]

Yes these points cover everything you need I’ve added the links again since it would be difficult to browse back and forth =>

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11396423&postcount=120

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11403565&postcount=146

In response to Randy’s post 120 - Infant baptism as evidence by the early church:

Part 5: Cyprian, bishop of Carthage

We journey back now to the western church precisely where we left it, in the city of Carthage in the year 255, fifty years after Tertullian’s treatise on baptism. The church was still reeling from the recent persecution under the Emperor Trajan Decius. Five years earlier Decius issued an edict of suppression of Christianity. The edict required that all the occupants of the empire sacrifice before the magistrates of their community. Every resident that complied received a certificate of compliance. Failure to comply would result in torture and death.

Decius and his son who ruled with him both died in battle in 251. Decius’ persecution briefly subsided before his death, but in place of the persecution came a devastating plague that killed upwards of 5,000 a day. The plague became known as the “Plague of Cyprian” because it was particularly devastating in Carthage where he was bishop.

From the time Cyprian converted to the Christian faith he was on the fast track to the episcopate. It was not uncommon for wealthy well-educated converts to become bishops within a year or two of their baptism, and Cyprian fit that description. In many cases this practice was an issue for the church and is cited as one of the causes of the many schisms that took place throughout the church in the third century.

At a time when the legacy of the office of bishop was one of dedication and bravery, Cyprian fell far short of the persona of a bishop. Decius’ edict was first imposed upon the church leadership. But before the persecution reached Carthage Cyprian fled the city and went into hiding, abandoning his flock as the ravening wolves came to devour the sheep.

Christians that were caught in the persecution fell into one of three categories: they were either killed for their conviction proclaiming Christ, received a certificate by sacrificing to the Roman gods, or, if they had the means, received a certificate through bribery. When the persecution subsided in Carthage, many of the Christians who had either sacrificed or bribed their way out of martyrdom desired to return to the church. Initially they were welcomed back, but in an ultimate display of hypocrisy, Cyprian, while still in hiding, administered authority through an intermediary and censored the re-admittance of the lapsed. Cyprian was firmly on the side of austerity towards the lapsed refusing to allow any who sacrificed back into the church unless they were on the brink of death.

Cyprian’s strict stance on the lapsed caused a schism in Carthage between those who agreed with Cyprian and those who sought a compassionate approach to the handling of the situation. When Cyprian returned to Carthage he called a synod to address the schism and to consider the treatment of the lapsed. Those who did not sacrifice were allowed back into the church through sincere repentance, but those who sacrificed were only allowed back in at the point of death. The harsher restrictions placed on those who sacrificed were later mitigated, and if any of the lapsed were clergy they were not allowed to return to their former office.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Scitor-

Wouldn’t it be easier to simply refer us to the site where you are getting all your material?

It’s here: one-fold.com/?page_id=343

Thanks.

 

[Scitor]

Yes these points cover everything you need I’ve added the links again since it would be difficult to browse back and forth =>

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11396423&postcount=120

In response to Randy’s post 120 - Infant baptism as evidence by the early church:

Part 5: Cyprian, bishop of Carthage - Continued

Somehow, in the midst of persecution, plague, and schism, emerged a question regarding infant baptism. It is not surprising given such a volatile atmosphere that Christians would be concerned over the eternal welfare of their children. A regional bishop named, Fidus, who was apparently unable to attend the synod, wrote a letter to the synod in Carthage complaining about Therapius, a bishop who granted peace to a former presbyter against the authority of the council’s decree. His concern was answered and was satisfied by the agreement of the bishops. But his other concern regarding the baptism of infants was responded to with unanimous disagreement according to Cyprian.

Fidus was concerned about infants being baptized before the eighth day of their life. Apparently Fidus was adamant about the baptism of infants corresponding to the law of circumcision in the Old Testament church. Cyprian responded that the bishops were in complete agreement that infants should be baptized as soon as possible. Since Cyprian’s letter is the only source of information regarding this issue, and there are no documents extant from the council’s proceedings, the scale of the disagreement over infant baptism is not clear. What is clear is that questions still remained among Christian leadership over the timing of baptism, even after decades of baptizing infants.

Even though some fifty years earlier Origen explained that man is born with the stain of fallen humanity not sin, the practice of baptizing infants and the understanding that baptism is for the remission of sins, inevitably imputed some sort of sin to infants in the minds of many Christians. Cyprian was no theologion like Origen, nor was he adiquetly trained to be a bishop. Yet it was he that ultamitly shaped the foundation for the dogma that would later be defined by Augustine, namely that infants are born with the guilt of Adam’s sin.

In Cyprian’s response to Fidus he expressed the mirical of God’s creation in the birth of a child as though an infant is about as pure as one can be. According to Cyprian, Fidus argued that an infant is not pure – or cannot be purified – until the eighth day, but Cyprian argued that an infant is much closer to God that anyone who is “purified.”

“For although the infant is still fresh from its birth, yet it is not such that any one should shudder at kissing it in giving grace and in making peace; since in the kiss of an infant every one of us ought for his very religion’s sake, to consider the still recent hands of God themselves, which in some sort we are kissing, in the man lately formed and freshly born, when we are embracing that which God has made.” (Epistle 58)

Cyprian’s disagreement with Fidus almost demonstrates an agreement with Origen’s opinion, but due to his lack of understanding, he concluded that infants are baptized for the remission of “another’s” sins, i.e., Adam’s sin.

“How much rather ought we to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins— that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another.” (Epistle 58)

This to Augustine was the catalyst for his “original sin” doctrine that was adopted by the church in the fifth century. Nevertheless, Cyprian’s opinion, which may have been influenced by the persecutions, does not appear to have been prevalent in the years that followed.

In the mid fourth century, 100 years after Cyprian, the highly respected bishop of Constantinople, Gregory of Nazianzus, was faced with the question of whether or not infants should be baptized. His response was, unless the child is in danger of death the parents should put off his baptism until he is about four years of age. (Oration 40:28) His reasoning was that baptism is far more profitable to those who have begun to be responsible for their life as it serves to strengthen against the evils that befall them. Had Gregory believed that infants bear the sins of Adam he most certainly would not have advised that their baptism be held off.

Gregory’s oration also demonstrates that Christians were still battling with the question of infant baptism. His advice is echoes the teaching of Origen who believed that infants are in need of baptism, but not for remission of sins. Gregory said, “For it is better that they [infants] should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitiated.”

This is strikingly similar to what Origen believed and quite dissimilar to Cyprian’s understanding. It implies that the only thing an un-baptized infant lacks is initiation into the church and a purifying of the sin-prone nature. That alone, however, was a major concern for most Christians since they believed that one must become Christian to be saved. But Origen, as I previously mentioned, brought this into perspective when he stated that we would all need a sacrament after the resurrection because no one will be able to rise without vices.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So in order to stay consistent with Origen’s way of thinking, he could not have believed, as the Catholics do, that small children were damned because of a lack of baptism.

Scitor-

Catholics do not believe that infants are damned due to lack of baptism.

You are wasting your time with this man’s false teaching. And so am I.

 

[Scitor]

Yes these points cover everything you need I’ve added the links again since it would be difficult to browse back and forth =>

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11396423&postcount=120

In response to Randy’s post 120 - Infant baptism as evidence by the early church:

Part 6: Augustine of Hippo

The fifth century brings the final chapter to our subject. It’s where the doctrines of infant baptism and original sin are thrust into victory by the influential and increasingly powerful leadership of the church. Among those leaders was the influential and highly revered, Augustine of Hippo.

Augustine was a philosopher who converted to Christianity when he was about 33 years old. He became bishop of Hippo when he was 41 years old. As bishop Augustine essentially defined the doctrine of original sin in the context of infant baptism. In his writings against the Pelagians there is evidence of at least three differing and popular philosophies concerning the spiritual state of an infant at birth. The two primary, and possibly only, philosophies opposed by Augustine were these that he addressed in his writings:

“Infants are absolutely pure and free from all sin, whether original or actual; and those who suppose that so soon as born, infants have contracted actual sins of their own, from which they need cleansing by baptism.” (Merits of remission of sin and Infant Baptism 1:64)

The latter demonstrates a fair amount of confusion. As far as most were concerned, the church had been baptizing infants since the time of Christ, but reasons as to why conjured questions and theories. As we saw with Origen and Tertullian, people saw infants as innocent and pure, but conversely, they were taught by tradition that infants were also in need of baptism. And we saw how the collision of the two met head on in a letter written by Cyprian, where he logically concluded that infants must possess innate strains of Adam’s sin, or else why would they be in need of baptism. Incidentally, Cyprian is the only historical reference mentioned by Augustine in his thesis, and whose logic he adopted.

But Augustine goes much further in his assessment of the state of infants. He argues at length from Scripture using every implicit interpretation possible to make his case. And the case Augustine makes is nothing short of appalling in the eyes of those who see in infants the innocents of God’s creation.

Augustine adopted Cyprian’s logic that infants, because the church baptizes them, must possess the guilt of Adam’s “original” sin. Hence he referred to this type of sin as original sin. As Augustine attempted to justify his belief through Scripture, he found that if he was right, infants who die without the sacrament of baptism are counted among all that oppose God. He takes this even to the point of implying that unbaptized infants are a product of the devil.

Augustine’s conclusions became the orthodox doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church until the 1960s, when Vatican II decided to step away from such harsh assertions in an effort to seem friendlier. But seeming friendlier does not take away the reality that the Roman Catholic Church stands behind the Augustine’s conclusions, many of which I am willing to discuss…

 

[Randy_Carson]

In response to Randy’s post 120 - Infant baptism as evidence by the early church:

Fidus was concerned about infants being baptized before the eighth day of their life. Apparently Fidus was adamant about the baptism of infants corresponding to the law of circumcision in the Old Testament church. Cyprian responded that the bishops were in complete agreement that infants should be baptized as soon as possible.

Bishops? Plural? Lots of them? From lots of local churches? All in complete agreement that infants should be baptized as soon as possible. Yeah…just as I have said all along.

Since Cyprian’s letter is the only source of information regarding this issue, and there are no documents extant from the council’s proceedings, the scale of the disagreement over infant baptism is not clear. What is clear is that questions still remained among Christian leadership over the timing of baptism, even after decades of baptizing infants.

Wow. So, the continuing debate over whether to baptize immediately or to wait until the eighth day somehow proves that children should be baptized years later when they have reached the age of reason instead?

My work here is done. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Scitor-

While I appreciate your attempt address the Church Fathers, the material you provided simply proved my case: Cyprian and others clearly taught infant baptism. Thank you for that.

Now, about some other unfinished business… a few key points do need some response from you.

Post 116 - I asked whether the Church received REAL authority from Jesus and whether the Church can determine the validity of infant baptism.

Post 146 - I laid out a very simple case for infant baptism in bullet form, and I asked you to interact with those points.

Post 160 - I presented the scriptures for each of the seven sacraments as you requested, and I haven’t seen any response from you.

 

[Scitor]

Scitor-

Catholics do not believe that infants are damned due to lack of baptism.

You are wasting your time with this man’s false teaching. And so am I.

You asked me, as did many others, to address infant baptism in the early church. In fact everybody was trying to call me out as to “see…it is the question he has no answer to.”

Now that I have addressed the question with historical fact (which is sourced from the early church) you call it false teaching. **There is no doctrine or false teaching here, just the laying out of history. **The facts are there (even if you choose to ignore it) that there was disagreement in the early church about infant baptism and it was not the norm.

And thanks for providing think. I reason I copied and posted was because if I provided a link, most would probably just ignore it.
**
Instead of blindly dismissing what I have provided, can you provide historical evidence to refute it.**

And no where did it say Catholics believed infants are damned to hell because of lack of baptism, but it was a questioned raised.

 

[Randy_Carson]

In response to Randy’s post 120 - Infant baptism as evidence by the early church:

Part 3: Tertullian

In the early third century, a presbyter in Carthage named, Tertullian, wrote a famous treatise on baptism. Catholic apologists give a great deal of credence to this document as they often reference it as support for the necessity of baptism. But also contained in this work is something Catholic apologist, Karl Keating, insists does not exist, and that is a clear objection to infant baptism.

Keating repeatedly states that there is no written objection to infant baptism prior to the reformation. Yet from the same third-century work he references as historical proof for the necessity of baptism, resides the evidence that infant baptism was indeed disputed. Here is what Tertullian said:

“And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the** delay of baptism is preferable**; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary— if (baptism itself) is not so necessary — that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? 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? More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to ask for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given to him that asks.” (Tertullian on Baptism, 18; 208A.D.)

Here we have explicit confirmation that infant baptism and disputes over the practice were both occurring in the early third century. Tertullian’s use of the phrase, innocent period is quite incidental and suggests that it was well understood that infants were innocent of sin. We can gather from Tertullian’s treatise that the reason infants were being baptized seemed to be because of how some interpreted Matthew 19:14: “Suffer the children, and forbid them not to come to Me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven”. Those who were baptizing infants understood this to mean that Jesus was commanding that little children be baptized. Tertullian disagreed and argued that children should first understand why they should come to Christ.

1. Tertullian’s discussion of infant baptism proves that infant baptism was occurring in his day. 'Nuff said.
2. Tertullian expresses his preference for delaying baptism, but he does not prohibit the practice.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You asked me, as did many others, to address infant baptism in the early church. In fact everybody was trying to call me out as to “see…it is the question he has no answer to.”

Now that I have addressed the question with historical fact (which is sourced from the early church) you call it false teaching. **There is no doctrine or false teaching here, just the laying out of history. **The facts are there (even if you choose to ignore it) that there was disagreement in the early church about infant baptism and it was not the norm.

And thanks for providing think. I reason I copied and posted was because if I provided a link, most would probably just ignore it.
**
Instead of blindly dismissing what I have provided, can you provide historical evidence to refute 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?

 

[adrift]

You asked me, as did many others, to address infant baptism in the early church. In fact everybody was trying to call me out as to “see…it is the question he has no answer to.”

Now that I have addressed the question with historical fact (which is sourced from the early church) you call it false teaching.

He did Where

What he did say is thank you for showing that infant baptizm was the norm:shrug: