A
- Status
J
jemfinch
Guest
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
[SIGN]Post #15 Ignored Count: 3[/SIGN]
A
Atemi
Guest
nt…
C
Contarini
Guest
C
Contarini
Guest
Atemi,
That’s simply nonsense. Original Sin is not the reason for infant baptism. The Orthodox don’t accept the Western doctrine of original sin, and they baptize infants.
Augustine’s development of a doctrine of original sin does seem to have helped make infant baptism universal in the West. But you are simply wrong in saying that “optional infant baptism is no doctrine of anything.” On the contrary, it’s clear that infant baptism was practiced from early on and that the objections to it were based on the fear of post-baptismal sin. The role of the doctrine of original sin was to trump this fear of post-baptismal sin and thus make infant baptism universal. It was not the foundation for the practice in the first place.
In hrist,
Edwin
J
jemfinch
Guest
I have no idea what that means, but it doesn’t look like a substantiation of your claims.
Jeremy
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Atemi is displaying his Carm Roots. They use that a lot on their boards. I forget what it means: nice try, not talking, whatever…
R
rtconstant
Guest
Atemi,
At the top of the page there is a block that designates the number of pages. If you click on the first one it will take you back to the first page of this thread. You’ll notice that at the top right of each post there a number in bold. That is the post number. Scroll down to the numbers 9 and 10 Randy gives several references of ECF’s discussing infant baptism including one from Justin Martyr. Later on the second page of the thread NotWorthy gives some archeological evidence.
Thus far you have provided a single contextually shakey quote. Where is the proof of your claims that infant Baptism wasn’t a standard practice of the Church? You speak is if its all over the place yet you seem unable to provide it. Seems odd. Just like all the other times someone has made the same claims and yet couldn’t back it up.
The only thing that has been offered up so far is some people had deathbed baptisms. I’m not sure what you one hopes to prove with that as that is clearly a practice that neither Protestant or Catholic approves of.
At the top of the page there is a block that designates the number of pages. If you click on the first one it will take you back to the first page of this thread. You’ll notice that at the top right of each post there a number in bold. That is the post number. Scroll down to the numbers 9 and 10 Randy gives several references of ECF’s discussing infant baptism including one from Justin Martyr. Later on the second page of the thread NotWorthy gives some archeological evidence.
Thus far you have provided a single contextually shakey quote. Where is the proof of your claims that infant Baptism wasn’t a standard practice of the Church? You speak is if its all over the place yet you seem unable to provide it. Seems odd. Just like all the other times someone has made the same claims and yet couldn’t back it up.
The only thing that has been offered up so far is some people had deathbed baptisms. I’m not sure what you one hopes to prove with that as that is clearly a practice that neither Protestant or Catholic approves of.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Maybe Atemi is inferring that we (the Church) should have just forced a Baptism on those that were wanting to wait til their deathbed to be baptised (what I refer to as “Baptismal Roulette”).
After all, he may claim that we’ve been forcing our baptisms on these poor un-witting infants for so long without their approval.
After all, he may claim that we’ve been forcing our baptisms on these poor un-witting infants for so long without their approval.
A
Atemi
Guest
Sigh.
“NT” means “no text” and it is used all over the internet and in email.
It has nothing to do with CARM.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
So is it like, “Bump”? I mean, why would you reference a quote and then just put “NT”? Is it like, “No Comment”?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
[SIGN]Post #15 Ignored Count: 4[/SIGN]
A
Atemi
Guest
Part one…
Obviously it still was up in the air because there was not one single practice taught by the church until many centuries after Pentecost.
I know full well that the church developed away from the post-Apostolic era practice, but development is the norm for many other RC doctrines as well.
She did not “continue” the ancient practice of allowing the optional baptism of Christian infants.
No.
That was changed almost entirely.
The caricature may sound good but is not the reality.
No. They are just not relevant at the moment.
This testimony is valid and relevant, and it does not stand alone.
It is not me who is doign the ignoring. I understand the history already.
I find no people more like modern day non-Catholics than the ECFs.
This is where you must now pick and choose where you personally will arbitrarily determine their orthodoxy on this or that matter.
Twenty-first century spiritual quarterbacking works wonders in hindsight, I know.
You listen to the ECFs just as well as I do, so lecturing me when you cherry-pick yourself is not convincing at all.
You have no problem ignoring every early Christian who disagrees or contradicts what you believe today.
…
You said the doctrine was still being “worked out.”
Obviously it still was up in the air because there was not one single practice taught by the church until many centuries after Pentecost.
Justin was not talking about “his perspective” or opinion, but the practice and teaching of the church.
I know full well that the church developed away from the post-Apostolic era practice, but development is the norm for many other RC doctrines as well.
She did not “continue” the ancient practice of allowing the optional baptism of Christian infants.
No.
That was changed almost entirely.
And you related that to infant baptism on a thread about infant baptism.
Nonsense, Randy.
The caricature may sound good but is not the reality.
Ignore them?
No. They are just not relevant at the moment.
Uhhhh, he believed he was orthodox in ALL his doctrine, not on “every other” doctrine.
This testimony is valid and relevant, and it does not stand alone.
It is not me who is doign the ignoring. I understand the history already.
LOL. I am.
I find no people more like modern day non-Catholics than the ECFs.
Impossible…as they often believed contradictory doctrines.
This is where you must now pick and choose where you personally will arbitrarily determine their orthodoxy on this or that matter.
Twenty-first century spiritual quarterbacking works wonders in hindsight, I know.
I just let them speak and take them at their word. That does not mean I have to agree with them.
You listen to the ECFs just as well as I do, so lecturing me when you cherry-pick yourself is not convincing at all.
You have no problem ignoring every early Christian who disagrees or contradicts what you believe today.
…
A
Atemi
Guest
Part two…
No way.
PS: they were Catholics.
PPS: we should not seek to follow Luther or Calvin, but Christ.
How you could divine that, I will not ask. Maybe you have a bat-phone to God.
I am sure no Christian today knows what makes for better Christianity than the Apostles who planted it…but some actually think they do.
I believe the faith was delivered to us whole and lacking in nothing.
Newman needed to explain all the changes somehow.
The Scriptures are clear about who to baptise.
…
Out of hand?
No way.
PS: they were Catholics.
PPS: we should not seek to follow Luther or Calvin, but Christ.
Because, like in the early church, we are at liberty to believe otherwise.
I know you would like to think you know that much, but I am not wandering further from Christ or His Body one little bit.
How you could divine that, I will not ask. Maybe you have a bat-phone to God.
They had over 3 years of personal, one-on-one training with the Master Himself. This does not count the revelations they all amazingly received by His Spirit afterwards.
I am sure no Christian today knows what makes for better Christianity than the Apostles who planted it…but some actually think they do.
I do not believe in “tiers” of invented doctrines that we are bound to believe at threat of grave sin.
I believe the faith was delivered to us whole and lacking in nothing.
Yes. The new and novel “Development” theory.
Newman needed to explain all the changes somehow.
All this talk of me and ABC is waaaay off topic. Please bring it back.
No.
The Scriptures are clear about who to baptise.
I am sure you wouldn’t.
…
A
Atemi
Guest
Not nonsense at all.
With all due repsect, I am not addressing Orthodox Christians, but Roman Catholics.
As to why Roman Catholics baptise their infants:
In the section on Original Sin…
403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”. Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.
Because of Original Sin, the Church baptises infants.
To discuss the Orthodox thinking would take a different thread.
Objections were also based on a lack of consent or understanding.
I am not discussing “the first place” here Edwin, but modern RC teaching.
Why those in the early church baptised infants then is not why RC’s baptise their infants today.
…
E
El_camino
Guest
Contarini, FYI, Tertullian was excommunicated, not because of his belief that Infants should be denied baptism, per se, but because of his belief that led him to maintain that infants should not be baptized. This belief that got him into trouble said that after baptism there was not forgiveness from God, thus Tertullian wanted to postponed baptism until right before death.
Blessings,
E.C.
E
El_camino
Guest
Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant.
Blessings,
E.C.
E
El_camino
Guest
This is so hilarious.
It just shows how little ATEMI has read of the ECFs.
Let’s just take Justin and Infant baptism here… Ok… you got a quote from Justin that seems to deny infant baptism, although nowhere explicity does it, even though the practice was already there… but then you got an overwhelming list of ECFs that maintain it from the very beginning.
Then the only ECF that DID deny it clearly (i.e., Tertullian) was excommunicated for holding a belief that led his to deny infant baptism. How interesting.
Any way,
Blessings,
E.C.
E
El_camino
Guest
This is the typical Protestant excuse… “We are following Christ”, when what they are actually following at the end is what they WANT to follow… They are following themselves… Why would your private interpretation of Scripture be better than Calvin’s or Luther’s?
Like Luther himself said when he realized that he had let the bad genie out of the bottle with the reformation and he was unable to make it go back into the bottle:
“This one will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament [Real Presence], another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet.”
De Wette III, 61. quoted in O’Hare, THE FACTS ABOUT LUTHER, 208.
“Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the Evangelium better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers.”
Walch XIV, 1360. quoted in O’Hare, Ibid, 209.
This is exactly what happens among protestants until this very day and is the reason for their divisions.
Any way, I pray for them every day.
Blessings,
E.C.
- Status