Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

[onenow1]

Originally Posted by onenow1
Originally Posted by Phil12123
Perhaps the infants are already a part of His Kingdom until they reach the age of understanding and then reject Him.

Quote= OneNow1, This entire universe is God’s kingdom Phil, make no mistake about that. Adams original sin disrupted it. That’s what baptism is all about, we cannot repent for Adam, Jesus did that on the cross. I’ll pray for all of us gettting closer to God.

Peace, OneNow1

Quote=NotWorthy,You think this is what Paul was talking about in Romans, chapter 5?

QUOTE=OneNow1, YES !

Quote:NotWorthy
And the gift is not like the result of the one person’s sinning. For after one sin there was the judgment that brought condemnation; but the gift, after many transgressions, brought acquittal. For if, by the transgression of one person, death came to reign through that one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of justification come to reign in life through the one person Jesus Christ. In conclusion, just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all. For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous

. It’s clear that Paul was talking about Original Sin. This is what Baptism wahes away.

Also this NotWorthy.

Acts 16​

27 When the jailer woke and saw that the prison doors were open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped.
28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, “Do not harm yourself, for we are all here.”
29 And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas,
30 and brought them out and said, “Men, what must I do to be saved?”
31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house.
33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their wounds, and he was baptized at once, with all his family.
34 Then he brought them up into his house, and set food before them; and he rejoiced with all his household that he had believed in God.

I think in this instace you would have to extrapolate that, the whole household was taught in one night all they needed to know about Jesus, I think this is illogical.vs 33, Note baptised at once !
as far as I can see the jailer was the only one to believe. Teaching would come later.

Peace,OneNow1

 

[MariaG]

Perhaps the infants are already a part of His Kingdom until they reach the age of understanding and then reject Him. If He says, “of such is the kingdom of heaven,” meaning those in the kingdom are innocent in their minds and in their ways, the infants are already there, where He said the adults had to become (be converted and become as little children). To show that, He rebuked the disciples who hindered the children. Baptism would not be needed for them. They can’t repent and don’t need to. Nor until they have understanding need they believe, or anyone else for them. So baptism would be entirely in appropriate. When they reach the age of understanding, they accept or reject the Gospel. At that point they need to be born again and then receive baptism.

Perhaps.

You are basing your belief on a perhaps?

Since we have clearly shown that infant baptism has been happening since the early Church, it is beholden on you to show that your interpretation is not the one that has come along.

Even Martin Luther did not get rid of infant baptism. That didn’t happen for a couple of hundred years later.

So not only do you contradict the Early Church, the current Catholic Church, but you also contradict those who “reformed” the Church and all you have to offer is your interpretation of scripture.

I have my own. It fits with 2000 years of Christianity, Catholic or Reformed.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Phil12123]

Tertullian:

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."

**This passage would not make sense if only those who were accountable were being baptized.
**

Not necessarily. He does not criticize anyone else’s view here, as no other view is stated, but simply says baptism should be delayed till the children are learning and able to know Christ. Obviously, it is not delayed in the case of adult believers, and he is simply saying, baptism in the case of children should be delayed. What he is saying here is essentially what I have been saying for 30 pages of this thread, with nothing but opposition from all of you. Here we have an ECF and I don’t hear a lot of cheering for him from any of you. So, you can forget the no-believers’-only-baptism-until-1500 arguments. Here you have someone in about 190 or 200 (or whenever that essay was written) saying what I have been saying and what the Anabaptists said at the time of the Reformation.

 

[mercygate]

Tertullian:

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.”

**Not necessarily. He does not criticize anyone else’s view here, as no other view is stated, but simply says baptism should be delayed till the children are learning and able to know Christ. Obviously, it is not delayed in the case of adult believers, and he is simply saying, baptism in the case of children should be delayed. What he is saying here is essentially what I have been saying for 30 pages of this thread, with nothing but opposition from all of you. Here we have an ECF and I don’t hear a lot of cheering for him from any of you. So, you can forget the no-believers’-only-baptism-until-1500 arguments. Here you have someone in about 190 or 200 (or whenever that essay was written) saying what I have been saying and what the Anabaptists said at the time of the Reformation.**No. Tertullian is advising a pastoral counsel. And he wouldn’t have been advising it if infant baptism had not been in practice so that the question came up.

We DO have evidence that infant baptism was normative. Later, Tertullian’s position would come into vogue among some Christians (like Constantine). In fact, they did not even baptize believers until they were on their deathbed. Imagine going through life without receiving Holy Communion!

The point of this thread is whether infant baptism is valid and whether it was practiced in the early Church. It WAS practiced in the early Church. But the pastoral questions were the same then as they now are. Tertullian had the question but he did not have the answer.

The question was “What do you do when a person sins after Baptism?” We now have a fully articulated theology on this, thanks to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who has brought the Church “into all the truth” on the subject.

The Church was never against “believer’s baptism” it simply holds that believer’s baptism is not the only way to approach the sacrament, because the sacrament conveys saving grace via the action of the Holy Spirit through the faith of the Church Church – of whom the infant’s sponsors are members.

Why is this so hard to grasp?

 

[jmcrae]

So, you can forget the no-believers’-only-baptism-until-1500 arguments. Here you have someone in about 190 or 200 (or whenever that essay was written) saying what I have been saying and what the Anabaptists said at the time of the Reformation.

Um - why would Tertullian have recommended a change in practice to adults-only baptism, if adults-only baptism was already the norm?

No. What this passage shows is that infant baptism was the norm of the Early Church. Tertullian did not succeed in having his changes implemented; in fact, he (ultimately) got excommunicated from the Church because he refused to follow Church norms on all sorts of different issues.

 

[Phil12123]

Um - why would Tertullian have recommended a change in practice to adults-only baptism, if adults-only baptism was already the norm?

Where do you see him saying anything about a change in practice? And it’s not “adults-only baptism” that he is advocating. It’s believers-only.

 

[jmcrae]

Where do you see him saying anything about a change in practice? And it’s not “adults-only baptism” that he is advocating. It’s believers-only.

If I say, “You should become a Catholic,” the assumption in the statement is that you are not yet a Catholic.

I don’t have to say, “You should change your religious practices from what they are right now, and become a Catholic,” because you already know that your religious practices are different than those of a Catholic.

When Tertullian says, “We shouldn’t be baptizing babies” we can safely assume that they were baptizing babies - he doesn’t have to explicitly say the words “change in practice.”

 

[NotWorthy]

Am I reading this correctly?

After 30 pages of scoffing at the Early Church Fathers, our friend is now using the Early Church Fathers to prove his point?

And as proof, he chooses a man whose teachings drifted into acknowledged heresy?

Now let me go look up the word *“irony” *in the dictionary and see if someone’s picture is in it.

 

[mercygate]

Where do you see him saying anything about a change in practice? And it’s not “adults-only baptism” that he is advocating. It’s believers-only.

A quibble. Tertullian specifically mentions “age” as a factor. And he mentions the peril to the sponsors should a godchild go wrong after baptism. He says nothing about the state of a person’s belief. He is concerned about the likelihood of defection. As I said earlier, with the passage of time, Christians went through a phase when adult converts were not baptized until they were gasping their last breath, lest post-baptismal sin cast them imperil their salvation.

 

[mercygate]

Am I reading this correctly?

After 30 pages of scoffing at the Early Church Fathers, our friend is now using the Early Church Fathers to prove his point?

And as proof, he chooses a man whose teachings drifted into acknowledged heresy?

Now let me go look up the word *“irony” *in the dictionary and see if someone’s picture is in it.

Tertullian’s particular heresy was Montanism – which included the belief that Christians who fell from grace could not be redeemed.

Ahem. Phil?

 

[onenow1]

Phil
Your eisegesis is very sweet to the ears Phil, because what your suggesting is, believe and thats alll you have to do for the rest of your life. This does not correspond with Jesus last command.

As much as I try to use your glasses I just don’t see it. And it does’nt jive with Jesus last command. Matt.28: !9-20,Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

I must repeat myself being taught does not mean you will belive, it is our choice after baptism adult or child.

Have to go now , Peace, OneNow1

 

[jmcrae]

Before baptism, it is the Devil’s choice, whether we will sin or not.

After baptism, it is our choice, whether we will sin or not.

This is why it is so important to baptize our children as young as possible - so that the Devil has no chance to get its hooks into them.

 

[Phil12123]

If I say, "You should become a Catholic," the assumption in the statement is that you are not yet a Catholic.
I don’t have to say, “You should change your religious practices from what they are right now, and become a Catholic,” because you already know that your religious practices are different than those of a Catholic.

When Tertullian says, “We shouldn’t be baptizing babies” we can safely assume that they were baptizing babies - he doesn’t have to explicitly say the words “change in practice.”

**Yes, but in your example, the words “should become” indicate a change from one thing to another. Tertullian doesn’t use the words you indicated (“shouldn’t be baptizing”). He simply says, under the appropriate subject area of his essay, in the case of children, delay of baptism is preferable, etc. His words do not indicate he is trying to refute anyone else or argue against an already established practice.
**

 

[Phil12123]

Am I reading this correctly?

After 30 pages of scoffing at the Early Church Fathers, our friend is now using the Early Church Fathers to prove his point?

And as proof, he chooses a man whose teachings drifted into acknowledged heresy?

Now let me go look up the word *“irony” *in the dictionary and see if someone’s picture is in it.

**You are misconstruing me. The 30 pages were me trying to get you to see who Jesus said should be baptized, which is not infants. Along the way, when you mentioned the ECF, I stated my opinion regarding them (don’t you recall?), indicating they sometimes differed in their teachings, so I preferred to stick to Scripture, which we all believe and which never changes or contradicts itself. I even mentioned Tertullian briefly, though I did not have the quote of him at that time, like we do now.

What I think is truly “ironic” is how you all have treated the ECF as unified in one voice approving infant baptism in an attempt to say infant baptism has always been taught and practiced since the NT church did it to households (allegedly). And then we see Tertullian saying otherwise, so I simply want to point him out to correct the erroneous idea that it was not until 1500 that anyone taught against infant baptism. Fair enough?

As for Tertullian and his alleged heresies, please give me a link that specifically deals with those, what they were, who accused him, etc. From one source I have, he was once accused of being a Montanist but that was never proven. He merely spoke up for Montanists who were being persecuted for what they were teaching. A person can be against heresy (Montanism) and at the same time be against persecuting heretics (Montanists).**

 

[Phil12123]

A quibble. Tertullian specifically mentions “age” as a factor. And he mentions the peril to the sponsors should a godchild go wrong after baptism. He says nothing about the state of a person’s belief. He is concerned about the likelihood of defection. As I said earlier, with the passage of time, Christians went through a phase when adult converts were not baptized until they were gasping their last breath, lest post-baptismal sin cast them imperil their salvation.

**“Nothing about the state of a person’s belief”? How can you say that? Tertullian says baptism should be delayed until the children are learning and can come to Christ on their own. How does that occur without belief?:

**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. **

And “defection” from what? Faith in Christ, of course. Come on now. Don’t fight his words too!

 

[Phil12123]

Tertullian’s particular heresy was Montanism – which included the belief that Christians who fell from grace could not be redeemed.

Ahem. Phil?

Is that it? Just that belief? I might not agree with it but that is hardly enough to excommunicate someone for, IMHO. There might even be scriptural support for it. Heb. 6:1-7 (I don’t have a Bible with me, so that is a guess), says it is impossible for those who were once enlightened… etc., etc.who fall away, to renew again unto repentance etc.

 

[Phil12123]

Phil
Your eisegesis is very sweet to the ears Phil, because what your suggesting is, believe and thats alll you have to do for the rest of your life. This does not correspond with Jesus last command.

As much as I try to use your glasses I just don’t see it. And it does’nt jive with Jesus last command. Matt.28: !9-20,Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

I must repeat myself being taught does not mean you will belive, it is our choice after baptism adult or child.

Have to go now , Peace, OneNow1

Not sure I am following you here. I did not say you just believe and that’s all you do for the rest of your life. I said faith alone saves you, but you are saved for a purpose, to do good works that He wants you to do. I thought I made that clear from my quote of not only Eph. 2:8-9 but also verse 10 (which mentions works).

 

[onenow1]

Not sure I am following you here. I did not say you just believe and that’s all you do for the rest of your life. I said faith alone saves you, but you are saved for a purpose, to do good works that He wants you to do. I thought I made that clear from my quote of not only Eph. 2:8-9 but also verse 10 (which mentions works).

HI,Phil,
The entire Matthew verse, taken as a whole statement is a complete directive, nowhere in that verse is faith or belief mentioned. what he is saying is make students of all nations, sign them up so to speak;> And then he says baptise, and then teach your students, these students may or may not accept this teaching, but the seal of baptism remains, either way.
EPH
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God –
9 not because of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them

Nothing you can say or do gives you faith only the grace of God.

vs. 8, not your own doing: Faith is a gift of God.

The question needs to be aked can God give the gift of faith to an infant ? What say you Phil ?

Peace, OneNow1

 

[NotWorthy]

What I think is truly “ironic” is how you all have treated the ECF as unified in one voice approving infant baptism in an attempt to say infant baptism has always been taught and practiced since the NT church did it to households (allegedly). And then we see Tertullian saying otherwise, so I simply want to point him out to correct the erroneous idea that it was not until 1500 that anyone taught against infant baptism. Fair enough?

**Nobody in this thread has (correctly) called the ECF’s infallible or even unanimous. They are fallible men. But when the Church looks at what they taught it considers several things.

• Is it consistent with what the Church has taught?
• Do other ECF’s site their writings to support their own teachings (usually in the form of sermons or homilies)?
• Do the other ECF’s condemn their writings?

This is how we came to appreciate the writings of such saints as Augustine, Ignatius, Ireneaus, Justin Martyr and so on.

So their may be inconsistencies (these are humans)
As for Tertullian and his alleged heresies, please give me a link that specifically deals with those, what they were, who accused him, etc. From one source I have, he was once accused of being a Montanist but that was never proven. He merely spoke up for Montanists who were being persecuted for what they were teaching. A person can be against heresy (Montanism) and at the same time be against persecuting

heretics (Montanists).**The details on his heresy can be found at newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm.

The formal secession of Tertullian from the Church of Carthage seems to have taken place either in 211 or at the end of 212 at latest. The earlier date is fixed by Harnack on account of the close connection between the “De corona” of 211 with the “De fuga”, which must, he thinks, have immediately followed the “De corona”. It is certain that “De fuga in persecutione” was written after the secession. It condemns flight in time of persecution, for God’s providence has intended the suffering. This intolerable doctine had not been held by Tertullian in his Catholic days. He now terms the Catholics “Psychici”, as opposed to the “spiritual” Montanists. The cause of his schism is not mentioned. It is unlikely that he left the Church by his own act. Rather it would seem that when the Montanist prophecies were finally disapproved at Rome, the Church of Carthage excommunicated at least the more violent among their adherents. After “De fuga” come “De monogamia” (in which the wickedness of second marriage is yet more severely censured) and “De jejunio”, a defence of the Montanist fasts. A dogmatic work, “Adversus Prazean”, is of great importance. Praxeas had prevented, according to Tertullian, the recognition of the Montanist prophecy by the pope; Tertullian attacks him as a Monarchian, and develops his own doctrine of the Holy Trinity (see MONARCHIANS and PRAXEAS). The last remaining work of the passionate schismatic is apparently “De pudicitia”, if it is a protest, as is generally held, aagainst a Decree of Pope Callistus, in which the pardon of adulterers and fornicators, after due penance done, was published at the intercession of the martyrs. Monceaux, however, still supports the view which was once commoner than it now is, that the Decree in question was issued by a bishop of Carthage. In any case Tertullian’s attribution of it to a would-be episcopus episcoporum and pontifex maximus merely attests its peremptory character. The identification of this Decree with the far wider relaxation of discipline with which Hippolytus reproaches Callistus is uncertain.

 

[NotWorthy]

Tertullian’s particular heresy was Montanism – which included the belief that Christians who fell from grace could not be redeemed.

Ahem. Phil?

Yeah, I certainly didn’t mean to imply that Tertullian’s heretical teachings were on baptism.

I just thought it ironic that the person Phil finally uses for proof is a person who turned out to be a heretic.