Justin Martyr on Infant Baptism

[Randy_Carson]

I find no people more like modern day non-Catholics than the ECFs.

Impossible…as they often believed contradictory doctrines.

Thanks for your response. I was beginning to believe I would receive none.

The two statements you made above pretty much say it all for me. While I don’t agree with your conclusions, this certainly opens a window into your thought processes.

1. You find that the ECF’s are very much like modern Protestants.
2. You also find that they believed contradictory doctrines.

I’ll let that sink in…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Part two…

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.

…

Thank you for your time.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

In another thread, I have posted a quote from Justin Martyr which is very explicitly in favor or the real presence in the Eucharist.

Yet, Atemi sees a close connection between the ECF’s and non-Catholics!

Talk about seeing what you want to see!

 

[Atemi]

Thanks for your response. I was beginning to believe I would receive none.

That is because most of your post was off topic.

The two statements you made above pretty much say it all for me. While I don’t agree with your conclusions, this certainly opens a window into your thought processes.

1. You find that the ECF’s are very much like modern Protestants.

Yes. In their liberty and doctrinal variety.

1. You also find that they believed contradictory doctrines.

Yes. Many ECFs did.

…

 

[Atemi]

Thank you for your time.

And the same to you.

Instead of just a huge and easy cut and paste, you posted content laden material that can actually be dialogued with.

I always respect and appreciate that.

 

[Atemi]

Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant.

No.

That is only a guess. That is recorded nowhere.

 

[Atemi]

I find no people more like modern day non-Catholics than the ECFs.

This is so hilarious.

It just shows how little ATEMI has read of the ECFs.

Actually, it shows that I have read them extensively.

I am happy to know I put a smile on your face.

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.

Select and out-of-context quotes I am used to. They are surely not “overwhelming” at all.

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.

Tertullian broke with his roots because of Montanism, not infant baptism.

Tertullian’s opinions about infant baptism were not unique to him.

…

 

[El_camino]

I find no people more like modern day non-Catholics than the ECFs.

Actually, it shows that I have read them extensively.

I am happy to know I put a smile on your face.

Select and out-of-context quotes I am used to. They are surely not “overwhelming” at all.

Tertullian broke with his roots because of Montanism, not infant baptism.

Tertullian’s opinions about infant baptism were not unique to him.

…

Atemi, you have not given any answer to what I have posed. You have merely contradicted what I have said, without any prove. It is easy to answer: I HAVE read them, when I said that you have not… Or that they are out of context without showing why they are out of context. I would suggest that you do not answer at all if you are going to answer like that.

One thing, Tertullian was excommunicated because of his belief that LED him to deny infant baptism, because HE DID believe that baptism regenerated, but that after baptism there would not be any forgiveness. SO his rejection of infant baptism was based on something VERY different to YOURS, so it would not make sense for you or any other protestant to cite him. I have seen landmark baptists claiming that Tertullian was and ECF baptist because he rejected infant baptism. This is ridiculous!..

Blessings,

E.C.

 

[Atemi]

Atemi, you have not given any answer to what I have posed.

Actually, I did.

Pay attention.

Just because you do not get the answer you want does not make it a non-answer.

You have merely contradicted what I have said, without any prove. It is easy to answer: I HAVE read them, when I said that you have not…

Yes. Exactly.

Are you seeking a dissertation?

Please.

You claimed that I have not read the ECFs. You were wrong. Plain and simple.

Or that they are out of context without showing why they are out of context. I would suggest that you do not answer at all if you are going to answer like that.

I am sorry, but I make it a practice to not reply to easy and lazy cut-and-paste posts.

It takes 3 seconds to post five pages of text in a post…and then you expect that I take my time and respond manually to every point.

LOL. No.

I respect my time more than that.

Dialogue I can do. Long and lazy cut-and-pastes I ignore.

One thing, Tertullian was excommunicated because of his belief that LED him to deny infant baptism, because HE DID believe that baptism regenerated, but that after baptism there would not be any forgiveness. SO his rejection of infant baptism was based on something VERY different to YOURS, so it would not make sense for you or any other protestant to cite him.

“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.” - Tertullian (On Baptism, 18)

Not so different than my position.

Other than that, we do not cite these fathers because they totally agree with us, but because they disagree with the modern RCC.

It makes no sense for you to cite the fathers, from my POV.

…

 

[Randy_Carson]

And the same to you.

Instead of just a huge and easy cut and paste, you posted content laden material that can actually be dialogued with.

I always respect and appreciate that.

Atemi-

But if I hadn’t badgered you with my signs, you would have ducked the discussion altogether as you have in other threads. Don’t think we don’t notice.

I posted the quotes from the Fathers which are chock full of content that you can dialogue with…feel free to interact with them one by one or to post opposing quotations if you like. They are, after all, a direct refutation of your previous posts.

[SIGN]Dispensation[/SIGN]

In your particular case, we would love for you to cut & paste some support for your assertions.

Feel free to cut & paste any documentation whatsoever to back up your claims whenever you like.

It is the absence of such that we find more disturbing.

This is significant.

 

[holy_wood]

SINCE NOBODY SEEMED TO LOOK AT THESE SCRIPTURE PASSAGES I though I would post them again.

Justin Martyr was not a Pope so what does it matter what he said?

III. Infant Baptism
Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new “circumcision” for all people of the New Covenant.

Job 14:1-4

Psalm 51:5 - we are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the necessity of baptism from conception.

Matt 19:14 - Jesus clearly says the kingdom of heaven also belongs to children. **There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism. **

Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” --AND-- “He who does not believe will be condemned.” This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer.

Luke 18:15 – Jesus says, “Let the children come to me.” The people brought infants to Jesus that he might touch them.

Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, “Repent and be baptized…”

Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius, which generally included infants and young children. There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults.

Acts 16:15 - Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word “household” comes from the Greek word “oikos” which is a household that includes infants and children.

Acts 16:15 - further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia’s faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents’ faith, not the children’s faith.

Acts 16:30-33 - it was only the adults who were candidates for baptism that had to profess a belief in Jesus. This is consistent with the Church’s practice of instructing catechumens before baptism. See Acts 16:15,33. The earlier one comes to baptism, the better. For those who come to baptism as adults, the Church has always required them to profess their belief in Christ. For babies who come to baptism, the Church has always required the parents to profess the belief in Christ on behalf of the baby. But there is nothing in the Scriptures about a requirement for ALL baptism candidates to profess their own belief in Christ (because the Church has baptized babies for 2,000 years).

Acts 16:33 - Paul baptized the jailer (an adult) and his entire household (which had to include children). Baptism is never limited to adults and those of the age of reason. See also Luke 19:9; John 4:53; Acts 11:14; 1 Cor. 1:16; and 1 Tim. 3:12; Gen. 31:41; 36:6; 41:51; Joshua 24:15; 2 Sam. 7:11, 1 Chron. 10:6 which shows “oikos” generally includes children.

**Rom. 5:12 - sin came through Adam and death through sin. Babies’ souls are affected by Adam’s sin and need baptism just like adult souls. **

Rom. 5:15 - the grace of Jesus Christ surpasses that of the Old Covenant. So children can also enter the new Covenant in baptism. From a Jewish perspective, it would have been unthinkable to exclude infants and children from God’s Covenant kingdom.
Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:2 - Paul addresses the “saints” of the Church, and these include the children he addresses in Eph. 6:1 and Col. 3:20. Children become saints of the Church only through baptism.

Eph. 2:3 - we are all by nature children of wrath, in sin, like all mankind. Infants are no exception. See also Psalm 51:5 and Job 14:1-4 which teach us we are conceived in sin and born unclean.

**Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:3-5 - the faith of those who brought in the paralytic cured the paralytic’s sins. This is an example of the forgiveness of sins based on another’s faith, just like infant baptism. The infant child is forgiven of sin based on the parents’ faith. **

Matt. 8:5-13 - the servant is healed based upon the centurion’s faith. This is another example of healing based on another’s faith. If Jesus can heal us based on someone else’s faith, then He can baptize us based on someone else’s faith as well.

**Mark 9:22-25 - Jesus exercises the child’s unclean spirit based on the father’s faith. This healing is again based on another’s faith. **

***1 Cor. 7:14 – Paul says that children are sanctified by God through the belief of only one of their parents. ***

Joshua 5:2-7 - God punished Israel because the people had not circumcised their children. This was based on the parent’s faith.

INFANT BAPTISM IS VALID. IF YOU DENY IT THEN YOU DENY SCRIPTURE!!!

 

[El_camino]

Actually, I did.

Pay attention.

Just because you do not get the answer you want does not make it a non-answer.

Yes. Exactly.

Are you seeking a dissertation?

Please.

You claimed that I have not read the ECFs. You were wrong. Plain and simple.

I am sorry, but I make it a practice to not reply to easy and lazy cut-and-paste posts.

It takes 3 seconds to post five pages of text in a post…and then you expect that I take my time and respond manually to every point.

LOL. No.

I respect my time more than that.

Dialogue I can do. Long and lazy cut-and-pastes I ignore.

That is why I SAID that if you cannot ANSWER or you have no time to answer like you should (with the necessary proof) then DON’T ANSWER. As simple as that!

Otherwise you are getting into childish arguments:

NO YOU DON’T!

I DO TOO!

NO YOU DON’T

I DO TOO!

NO YOU DON’T

I DO TOO!

Atemi:

“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.” - Tertullian (On Baptism, 18)

Not so different than my position.

Other than that, we do not cite these fathers because they totally agree with us, but because they disagree with the modern RCC.

It makes no sense for you to cite the fathers, from my POV.

…

Just to keep ellaborating on the way to properly answer questions, taking advantage of what you have posted here

You have posted a small except from tertullian to support that he rejected infant baptism for the same reasons as you…

Well, I say that you are taking TERTULLIAN out of context. IF it was you, that would END your contribution, which is the reason why I SAID that your answers lack objectivity and tend to be childish.

In my case, I said you are taking him, out of context and I will show you why you are taking tertullian out of context.

Becuase of Tertullian belief that many sins were unforgiveable, and that ONLY baptism provided the REMISSION of SINS, thus right below to what you had just quoted Tertullian says:

“For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred—in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom—until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation”

So he prefers that EVEN the UNWED and widows are not baptized until they marry.

SO his belief that BAPTISM regenerated and ONLY baptism was the only way to remit some sins, led him to believe that infants and unmarried should not be baptized and in fact that baptism should be DELAYED as MUCH as possible!!!

THIS IS very different from what you believe.

Blessings,

E.C.

 

[Atemi]

Atemi-

But if I hadn’t badgered you with my signs, you would have ducked the discussion altogether as you have in other threads. Don’t think we don’t notice.

Nonsense.

I cannot respond to every poster and their brother who makes a challenge.

You are not that special, Randy.

Sorry.

I posted the quotes from the Fathers which are chock full of content that you can dialogue with…feel free to interact with them one by one or to post opposing quotations if you like. They are, after all, a direct refutation of your previous posts.

No they are not.

I do not respond to huge, lazy cut and pastes.

If you did not take the time, then don’t expect others to do any different.

…

 

[nilofc]

I have seen a Video Presentation by Steven Ray about the Catholic Church in its humble beginnings…

He said that the truths of the Catholic Church is like peeling a cabbage, layer by layer, until the truth is revealed in its entirety. Like a seed of acorn which will one day spring out to a fully blown tree.

Surely we cannot blame any saint who has said contrary to what the Catholic Church’s teaching, primarily because the infallibility rests on the Chair of Peter. And surely, the fullness of the truth has not yet been revealed at that time.

An example of this is the “Delayed Ensoulment” theory of Aristotle which was adopted by St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Agustine which was later debunked by the Catholic Church.

If one is not sure always consult the Church.

 

[Atemi]

You have posted a small except from tertullian to support that he rejected infant baptism for the same reasons as you…

No. You are not listening.

I do not post Tertullian because he believed exactly as I do.

I will not repeat that again. It gets old.

Well, I say that you are taking TERTULLIAN out of context. IF it was you, that would END your contribution, which is the reason why I SAID that your answers lack objectivity and tend to be childish.

In my case, I said you are taking him, out of context and I will show you why you are taking tertullian out of context.

Becuase of Tertullian belief that many sins were unforgiveable, and that ONLY baptism provided the REMISSION of SINS, thus right below to what you had just quoted Tertullian says:

“For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred—in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom—until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation”

So he prefers that EVEN the UNWED and widows are not baptized until they marry.

SO his belief that BAPTISM regenerated and ONLY baptism was the only way to remit some sins, led him to believe that infants and unmarried should not be baptized and in fact that baptism should be DELAYED as MUCH as possible!!!

THIS IS very different from what you believe.

All irrelevant.

I am not interested in every detail of Tertullian’s beliefs regarding baptism.

This thread is about Jutin Martyr.

In any event, the putting off of baptism until later in life or even on one’s deathbed did NOT arise with Tertullian as if he invented the practice and doctrine. This was the regular practice long before he showed up. Tertullian learned it from the church.

He is just another brick in the wall.

…

 

[El_camino]

All irrelevant.

I am not interested in every detail of Tertullian’s beliefs regarding baptism.

This thread is about Jutin Martyr.

In any event, the putting off of baptism until later in life or even on one’s deathbed did NOT arise with Tertullian as if he invented the practice and doctrine. This was the regular practice long before he showed up. Tertullian learned it from the church.

He is just another brick in the wall.

…

This is all related to Infant baptism, because the quote from Justin Martyr does not explicitly reject infant baptism, as saying DO NOT baptize infants!.. so it is hard to prove from that that Justin Martyr actually rejected infant baptism, but that simply he was speaking of the way adults are supposed to be baptized.

Tertuallian, on the other hand, can be seen rejecting explicitly infant baptism (he is THE ONLY ECF that does reject it explicitly), BUT he does it for completely different reasons than most protestants (including you). You do not believe, as Tertullian did, that baptism should be delayed as late as possible because baptism brings you remission of some sins that otherwise cannot be forgiven, or do you?

This atests to the fact that your beliefs, in this case the rejection of infant baptism for the reason that you reject it, are the ones that are actually novel as NO ECF actually maintain such belief of rejecting infant baptism for the reasons that you do. Quotes like those from Justin Martyr are simply extrapolations to the rejection of infant baptism and the only one that CLEARLY rejects it, Tertullian, does it for completely different reasons, thus it is NOT the same doctrine.

It was, actually, with the 16th century anabaptists that YOUR belief about the rejection of infant baptism for the reasons that you do showed up. It is TRULY a novel doctrine.

Blessings,

E.C.

 

[El_camino]

Something else

Tertullian learned it from the church.

HE did not learned it from THE CHURCH, as earlier in his life, when he was not sore yet against the catholics, whom he later called the “psichici”, as opposed to the montanists who he called the “spirituals”, he did not maintain such belief.

The basis for such heretical belief he got from the heretics (i.e., the montanists)

Blessings,

E.C.

 

[Atemi]

This is all related to Infant baptism, because the quote from Justin Martyr does not explicitly reject infant baptism, as saying DO NOT baptize infants!

The rest of Justin’s references to baptism implicitly reject infant baptism, time and time again.

It does not take an advanced degree to figure out his stance.

Also, if infant baptism was not practiced in his locale, then why would he explicitly reject it?

. so it is hard to prove from that that Justin Martyr actually rejected infant baptism, but that simply he was speaking of the way adults are supposed to be baptized.

No. It ain’t that simple.

He spoke again and again on baptism, and did not just speak about “the way adults are to be baptised.”

Tertuallian, on the other hand, can be seen rejecting explicitly infant baptism, BUT he does it for completely different reasons than most protestants (including you). You do not believe, as Tertullian did, that baptism should be delayed as late as possible because baptism brings you remission of some sins that otherwise cannot be forgiven, or do you?

The point is not that we agree on all points.

The point is that delaying baptism was a regular practice and doctrine of the church, even for numerous fathers, saints, and Doctors of the church.

I cite Tertullian because he is just another witness to this reality.

That’s all.

You keep making the faulty assumption that one must agree with everything about those they cite.

I need to remember that the next time an RC friend quotes Luther on the PVM.

…

 

[Contarini]

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.

I am not aware that Tertullian was “excommunicated” in the sense of being cast out of the Church in spite of his desire to remain. He went into schism, and as far as I know this happened some time after he wrote On Baptism. I have not heard that his view on post-baptismal sin was in itself considered heretical at that point. What made him a heretic was his rejection of the Church for not adopting his rigorous view.

However, I certainly agree that Tertullian’s fall into heresy does not help the case of those who want to argue that his position was the norm in the early Church!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

In any event, the putting off of baptism until later in life or even on one’s deathbed did NOT arise with Tertullian as if he invented the practice and doctrine. This was the regular practice long before he showed up. Tertullian learned it from the church.

I would expect that Tertullian probably did not invent it, but I’d still like to see you give a specific example of the idea before Tertullian.

We certainly have no evidence of anyone using it to criticize infant baptism before Tertullian.

Edwin