Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

[Phil12123]

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

God can do anything, but ordinarily infants do not have faith of any sort. Their brains have not developed enough to understand the Gospel, etc. In addition, “faith comes by hearing the word of God” (Rom. 10:17), which an infant cannot yet hear with any comprehension. That all may be different for young children, even very young children, but certainly not infants.

 

[Phil12123]

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.

Well, a person can be wrong on one doctrine and right on others. Like you—wrong on infant baptism, right on the Trinity, Deity of Christ, substitutionary atonement, etc., etc.

 

[onenow1]

**God can do anything, but ordinarily infants do not have faith of any sort.

You said it yourself ordinarly.

When Jesus blessed the infants was that a waste of time because they did’nt undestand ? Or did something happen ? Possibly baptism ?

Isn’t everything a blessing ? Including faith ? Hope ? and Love ?

Bless= Consecrate, Sanctify. Could be baptism as the church sees it anyway…

Faith is a supernatural gift, we can’t comprehend how; and were not infants.

Jesus said it himself all things are possible with God, but not with man.

Good Night , Peace, OneNow1**

 

[NotWorthy]

Well, a person can be wrong on one doctrine and right on others. Like you—wrong on infant baptism, right on the Trinity, Deity of Christ, substitutionary atonement, etc., etc.

You lost me on that one, Phil.

 

[mercygate]

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.

Montanism was a much more global heresy than that. The passage you are thinking of is Hebrews 6. Montanism believed that even repentance would not allow for restoration.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

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.

Is this sacramentalism?

And if one can ever be sure that the Devil has no chance of getting its hooks into that person, how is that any different from OSAS?

 

[Phil12123]

Me: 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.

You: Montanism was a much more global heresy than that. The passage you are thinking of is Hebrews 6. Montanism believed that even repentance would not allow for restoration.

Isn’t that what Hebrews 6:4-6 says?

 

[mercygate]

Me: 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.

You: Montanism was a much more global heresy than that. The passage you are thinking of is Hebrews 6. Montanism believed that even repentance would not allow for restoration.

Isn’t that what Hebrews 6:4-6 says?

That is ONE verse. It is not the entire scriptural corpus on the subject of penitence and redemption, and it is usually one that people arguing your side of the question ignore when it comes to eternal security.

 

[Phil12123]

That is ONE verse. It is not the entire scriptural corpus on the subject of penitence and redemption, and it is usually one that people arguing your side of the question ignore when it comes to eternal security.

**Well, yes, it is ONE verse, and I don’t even know if that verse was the basis of Montanism or of any of Tertullian’s beliefs, whether orthodox or “heretical.” My point was that, as Montanism was described by you, the “heresy” may have some biblical support that might argue against labeling a Montanist a “heretic.”

We must also remember that in the early years of the church, after the death of the apostles, there really wasn’t any “pope” or Magisterium around to conclusively deal with differences of opinions on all doctrine. Christians were lead, or not, by the Holy Spirit Who was promised to guide them into all truth, etc. Most Christians probably did not have all the scriptures, and that may have lead to some erroneous doctrinal positions, like baptizing infants or Montanism. No one in possession of all of what we have today as the NT would delay baptism until their death bed, when they see how quickly some were baptized, like the jailor and the eunuch (Acts 8 & 16), and when they see how sins after baptism are dealt with (1 John 1:9).**

 

[NotWorthy]

**
We must also remember that in the early years of the church, after the death of the apostles, there really wasn’t any “pope” or Magisterium around to conclusively deal with differences of opinions on all doctrine.**

Wrong.

 

[Phil12123]

Wrong.

Can you demonstrate otherwise, say, from the year 100 to the year 200, how differences of opinions on doctrine were resolved by a pope or Magisterium? Who was the pope and who made up the Magisterium during that period, and what actions did they take that resolved any differences of opinions on doctrines during that period?

 

[dosdog]

Father Kelly
The fact that God loves his creatures so much that he sent his Son to die in order to save them means that there exists an “original grace” just as there exists “original sin,” Father Kelly said. The existence of original grace “does not justify resignation,” or thinking that everyone will be saved automatically
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0506867.htm

original sin -

Several things happen at baptism. First, the spiritual (though not physical) effects of original sin are removed from the soul. This removal is accompanied by an infusion of sanctifying grace, which makes the soul spiritually alive. The soul receives an indelible character that irrevocably identifies it as a member of the heavenly family.

Also, all punishment due to pre-baptismal actual sins is completely remitted. This kind of baptism–the only kind mentioned in the Bible–is for the living, not for the dead. Our chance to become heirs with Christ comes here on earth. Once we’ve died, there is no chance to be baptized.

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/CAMORM2.HTM

In the course of further study, however, I discovered that the overwhelming majority of Christians whom God had used in the past centuries of the Church not only practiced infant baptism but did so because they believed the Scriptures taught it. The great evangelical theologian of the Ancient Church, Augustine, held to the practice and so did the great Reformers: John Hus, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Knox. Those devout scholars, John Wycliff and William Tyndale, who labored to give us the English Bible, and all the translators involved in the King James Version held that the practice was biblical.

When we come to the revivalists of the Eighteenth Century, we find both John and Charles Wesley, George Whitfield and Jonathan Edwards, men whom God used in the conversions of untold thousands, all practiced infant baptism. This is true also of the overwhelming majority of the Christians who were involved in settling and founding the United States—from the Pilgrims on the Mayflower to the Huguenots from France. These were not people who did things because of tradition rbvincent.com/BibleStudies/Infbapt.htm

The Church belongs to the Oriental Orthodox family of churches, and has been a distinct church body since the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD,

the Coptic Orthodox Church is the Church of Alexandria that was established by Saint Mark, the apostle and evangelist, in the middle of the 1st century (approximately 42 AD). The head of the church, and the See of Alexandria, is the Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of All Africa on the Holy See of Saint Mark, currently His Holiness Pope Shenouda III. More than 95% of Egypt’s Christians belong to the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, though other churches also claim Patriarchates and Patriarchs of Alexandria, among them:
The Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria,
The Coptic Catholic Church of Alexandria,
The Greek Melkite Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Church

The Sacrament of Baptism has the first rank among the Seven Holy Sacraments, as it is the door by which the believer enters the church and has the right to partake in the rest of the Sacraments.

Baptism is a redemptive Sacrament, necessary for redemption and entry to eternal life according to what the Lord said: “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of Water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God” (John 3). It is one of the four redemptive Sacraments: Baptism, Myron, Confession and Communion of the Holy Body and precious Blood of the Lord.

but if the new-born is sick and his parents are afraid the baby will die, they must request the priest to baptize and anoint the baby with the Myron, even if the child is one day old, and under any circumstance (as the priest may not be fasting or unable to baptize him by immersion); the baptism must be carried out quickly, so that the child does not die without Baptism and is deprived from entry or sight of the Kingdom, according to the words of our beloved Savior (John 3). The method to be followed is that someone, except the mother, should take the child to the church to be baptized. If the baby lives, the Baptism is correct and should not be repeated.

If his parents neglect the Baptism, and the child dies without Baptism, it is the right of the church to impose a punishment on the parents for a period of one year, of prayers and fasting with prostration. They may also be forbidden to receive the Holy Eucharist during this whole year. copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/sacraments/1_baptism.htm

 

[mercygate]

Well, yes, it is ONE verse, and I don’t even know if that verse was the basis of Montanism or of any of Tertullian’s beliefs, whether orthodox or “heretical.” My point was that, as Montanism was described by you, the “heresy” may have some biblical support that might argue against labeling a Montanist a "heretic."

Nearly every heresy has SOME basis in Scripture because Scripture is not self-contained, self-explanatory, or free-standing. The New Testament grew out of the Church. That’s why the early Church came together in synods and councils under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to interpret doctrine. That is why the early Church canonized the Old Testament. Scripture is the Word of God, which is consummated in the Person of Jesus Christ. His Church, his Word. His Unity promised to those 11 men: "as I and my Father are one. Man! Don’t you just LOVE this!

**

We must also remember that in the early years of the church, after the death of the apostles, there really wasn’t any “pope” or Magisterium around to conclusively deal with differences of opinions on all doctrine. Christians were lead, or not, by the Holy Spirit Who was promised to guide them into all truth, etc.

** Look That promise to “guide you into all the truth” was made only to the 11 guys who were still in the room, just as the Great Commission was given to those same 11 guys. Now the Holy Spirit may very well guide me “into all the truth,” but if I am taken into a “truth” that is at odds with the teaching of those 11 guys and their legitimate successors, then it AIN’T the Holy Spirit doin’ the guiding and I’d better re-set my compass. The primacy of Peter was in place from the lips of Jesus Himself. And the Magisterium is the teaching authority of those 11 guys (and of their legitimate successors) – also in place from Christ himself: The Great Commission is to teach. Under the dual promises that the “netherworld will not prevail against it” and of being guided “into all the truth” we have great peace in placing our trust in the Magisterium. It is the only thing that makes sense of all the pieces of the puzzle as Scripture lays them before us.

Most Christians probably did not have all the scriptures, and that may have lead to some erroneous doctrinal positions, like baptizing infants or Montanism. No one in possession of all of what we have today as the NT would delay baptism until their death bed, when they see how quickly some were baptized, like the jailor and the eunuch (Acts 8 & 16), and when they see how sins after baptism are dealt with (1 John 1:9).

You are right about Christians not having all the Scriptures. And some of those Christians had “scriptures” that were not “scriptures” at all. But even after the canon was ratified and widely circulated, people went whizzing off into their own interpretations and claimng authority to do so – as they still do today. The material unity of the Church under the Apostles is a very great protection from idiopathic Christianity and from novelties of faith and practice, such as rejection of infant baptism.

 

[mercygate]

Can you demonstrate otherwise, say, from the year 100 to the year 200, how differences of opinions on doctrine were resolved by a pope or Magisterium? Who was the pope and who made up the Magisterium during that period, and what actions did they take that resolved any differences of opinions on doctrines during that period?

The letter of Clement (Bishop of Rome, i.e., “pope”) to the Church at Corinth. Clement was asked to settle a local disturbance there. The epistle was considered for inclusion in the canon of Scripture. One curious factor is that it likely dates from BEFORE the death of John the Evangelist. So the Church in Rome, and its bishop, were already seen as authoritative. Of course, the old warhorse, Irenaeus of Lyon’s Adversus Haereses treats exhaustively of mostly Gnostic heresies, and cites the undefiled faith of Rome as reason for looking to the Church of Rome as a lodestar of correct teaching. It’s available through links on CA home page. I read all this stuff in a secular university, with no Catholic influence to make me think the sources were tainted. These early writings heavily influenced my decision to cross the Tiber.

 

[NotWorthy]

Can you demonstrate otherwise, say, from the year 100 to the year 200, how differences of opinions on doctrine were resolved by a pope or Magisterium? Who was the pope and who made up the Magisterium during that period, and what actions did they take that resolved any differences of opinions on doctrines during that period?

St. Victor would come to mind. He certianly fit the bill of papal authority.

There wouldn’t have been a possibility for an Ecumenical Council during the 2nd century, for those Romans and their little persecutions would have had a field day.

 

[Phil12123]

Look That promise to “guide you into all the truth” was made only to the 11 guys who were still in the room, just as the Great Commission was given to those same 11 guys. Now the Holy Spirit may very well guide me “into all the truth,” but if I am taken into a “truth” that is at odds with the teaching of those 11 guys and their legitimate successors, then it AIN’T the Holy Spirit doin’ the guiding and I’d better re-set my compass. … And the Magisterium is the teaching authority of those 11 guys (and of their legitimate successors) – also in place from Christ himself: The Great Commission is to teach. Under the dual promises that the “netherworld will not prevail against it” and of being guided “into all the truth” we have great peace in placing our trust in the Magisterium. It is the only thing that makes sense of all the pieces of the puzzle as Scripture lays them before us.

I don’t want to drift too far from the topic of this thread, so I won’t get off into the 11 guys’ “legitimate successors.” But consider this: Jesus’ promise of the Holy Spirit was not limited to a select few believers. What He said is for ALL believers. If ALL believers receive the Holy Spirit, what do you think the Holy Spirit does in all the millions of believers you don’t categorize as being “legitimate successors”? Lie dormant? Have no teaching for them? No, a thousand times, NO! ALL believers are to be led by and taught by the Holy Spirit. Look what the Apostle John says as he writes to ALL believers:

1 John 2:
25. And this is the promise that He has promised us eternal life.
26. These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you.
27. But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.

Look what he says there—you do not need anyone to teach you, because you have the Holy Spirit to do that. Now, of course, the Holy Spirit does not teach contradictory things to different people. When you are led into a “truth” that you feel the Holy Spirit is giving you, and you find it contradicts something you hear in your church, how can you be so sure it is your compass that needs re-set, rather than theirs? Consider what Paul said about teaching in the church setting:

**1 Cor. 14:
26. How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.
27. If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret.
28. But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God.
29. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge.
30. But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent.
31. For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. **

**They were to judge what was being said, presumably whether it was from God and therefore true. If I hear something, the Holy Spirit in me can witness to my spirit whether that is of God or of the flesh or of the devil. God wants all of His children to be discerners of the truth. That comes with maturity and study of His Word. Consider the writer of Hebrews and what he said concerning those who were not mature believers:
**
**Heb. 5:
12. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food.
13. For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe.
14. But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. **

**It is the written Word of God, “the word of righteousness,” that we need to be skilled in, in order to be discerners of the truth. In praying for all believers, Jesus prayed to the Father, “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth” (John 17:17). **

 

[onenow1]

HI, All

This is what Believers baptism does and you can see it right here in a lot of forum posts. Fundamentalists and others do this.The Focus on what the person is doing or not doing and never on what God is doing and able to do. Those who focus upon what they have done in order to be saved will not see the AND in: Mark 16: 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
The second part of the verse is applicable to believers baptism or infant baptism.Paul writes that we are saved by grace through faith, and it is not of our doing. Grace comes before faith. Baptism is a pure gift of the grace of God in Christ Jesus.Eph. 2:8-9.

Mark 10: 14 our Lord Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs] to such as these.”

This is the command:
19 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,

20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

Food for thought: How do you make a disciple but by teaching, and how do we obtain grace through what we do or say? or is it from God for free ?

Peace,OneNow1

 

[mercygate]

**But consider this: Jesus’ promise of the Holy Spirit was not limited to a select few believers. What He said is for ALL believers. If ALL believers receive the Holy Spirit, what do you think the Holy Spirit does in all the millions of believers you don’t categorize as being “legitimate successors”? Lie dormant? Have no teaching for them? . . . NO! ALL believers are to be led by and taught by the Holy Spirit. **

No Catholic would disagree with you in understanding that the Holy Spirit guides all believers. The point I was making is that Jesus speaks that promise directly TO te eleven and also gives the Great Commission to THOSE eleven. When I am guided by the Holy Spirit “into truth” it is in COMMUNION with those eleven men. Since Jesus promised to build a Church upon the foundation of the Apostles, and the ‘business’ of that Church is to teach, then the guidance I receive from the Holy Spirit cannot conflict with the guidance the Holy Spirit gives to the foundation stones.

Look what the Apostle John says as he writes to ALL believers:

1 John 2:
**25. And this is the promise that He has promised us eternal life. **
**26. These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you. **
27. But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.
The knowledge John speaks of in I John is the knowledge of the person of Jesus Christ. Don’t want to derail this thread into the different Greek words used for “knowledge” here: deep, intense, personal knowledge as opposed to intellectual knowledge.

Look what he says there—you do not need anyone to teach you, because you have the Holy Spirit to do that. Now, of course, the Holy Spirit does not teach contradictory things to different people. When you are led into a “truth” that you feel the Holy Spirit is giving you, and you find it contradicts something you hear in your church, how can you be so sure it is your compass that needs re-set, rather than theirs?

You already know the answer. Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against HIS church. I may be having indigestion. David Koresh was convinced he was in the truth.

** If I hear something, the Holy Spirit in me can witness to my spirit whether that is of God or of the flesh or of the devil. God wants all of His children to be discerners of the truth. That comes with maturity and study of His Word. Consider the writer of Hebrews and what he said concerning those who were not mature believers:**

Heb. 5:
12. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food.
13. For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe.
14. But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

**It is the written Word of God, “the word of righteousness,” that we need to be skilled in, in order to be discerners of the truth. In praying for all believers, Jesus prayed to the Father, “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth” (John 17:17). **

All Catholics would agree with St. Jerome that “ignorance of Scriputre is ignorance of Christ.” Where Catholics take issue with freelancing – "My Holy Spirit can beat up your Holy Spirit – is that for us, Scripture plainly teaches that Christ’s promise of guidance “into all the truth” clearly applies to the Communion of the Apostolic Church.

We do not say that ONLY the big dogs have the guidance of the Spirit. We do say that the guidance I receive as an individual is authenticated by its consonance with Scripture and with the teaching of those who have the authentic commission to teach.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

I don’t recommend that anyone be water baptized for any reason.

1 Corinthians 1:14-17
I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. 16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

Water baptism is not part of Paul’s gospel (“my gospel” “the gospel of the uncircumcision” “the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery” Gal 2:7; Rom 16:25). There’s no good reason to be water baptized.

 

[jmcrae]

There’s no good reason to be water baptized.

God did not send me to baptize, either, but that doesn’t mean baptism isn’t important. All it means is that I am not a deacon, priest, or Bishop.

Nevertheless, I am sure that St. Paul, being a Bishop, must have baptized some people, and we do see mention in the Scriptures of the fact that he baptized the family of the jailer, and others as well.