Justin Martyr on Infant Baptism

[El_camino]

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.

IF you were to read a CATHOLIC writing from today explaining how and in what conditions an adult is supposed to be baptized you would see that it is VERY VERY similar to what Justin Martyr wrote.

ADULT Catechumens today go through lengthy preparation to understand what they are going to go through when they are baptized and they must ask for CHrist and for baptism to be baptized otherwise they cannot be baptized.

You cannot arrive to the conclusion that Justin Martyr rejected infant baptism when he was talking about ADULT baptism. THey were two different topics then as they are today. If you do, then even today you would arrive at the same conclusion from catholic writtings about ADULT BAPTISM.

Atemi:

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

Justin Martyr preached in Asian Minor and in Rome. THere are inscription in the Catacombs that date from his time that clearly show that there was infant baptism practiced at least in Rome at the time.

About Asia minor, we have Polycarp who said he had been a believer since he was an infant. In all writtings from the fathers, it is clear that a believer becomes a believer when he is baptized and before that he is either an unbeliever or a catechumen (in preparation to be baptized). THIS IS Very clear from all the ECFs’ writings without exception.

ATEMI:

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

He spoke only on ADULT baptism because he was more concerned with NEW converts coming into the CHURCH. The bible is the very same way.

If you don’t agree show me where Justin Martyr spoke of INFANT BAPTISM as opposed to Adult baptism. If you can’t then don’t answer things like that.

ATEMI:

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.

YOU ARE WRONG, that is exactly the point… because if you are rejecting INFANT baptism for different reasons, then you are holding to DIFFERENT DOCTRINES (which you are), which by coincidence happen to result in the same regretful action of rejecting what is good and what has been the practice of the Church from the very beginning.

Your doctrine of REJECTION of infant baptism as you know it appeared for the first time in the 16th century with the anabaptists and not in the first century. THUS you are maintaining a NOVEL doctrine.

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

The REALITY is that Tertuallian ended up being EXCOMMUNICATED from the CHurch because of his HETERODOX and heretical beliefs, and so it happens Tertullian was the ONLY CHURCH father that EXPLICITLY and CLEARLY rejected infant baptism for reason different to yours.

That just shows that he DID NOT maintain what the CHURCH in general maintained!.

Atemi:

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

Not at all, all that I am claiming is that for YOU to cite this or that ECF on this or that doctrine, you should make sure that IT IS the same doctrine that you maintain, otherwise this backfires at you.

Tertullian rejection of infant baptism has backfired at you, because Tertuallian, the ONLY ECF who actually explicitly rejected infant baptism, had different reasons (heresy) for the rejection, thus it shows that YOUR DOCTRINE as to the rejection itself is not the SAME as Tertullians but it is a NOVEL doctrine, invented by the ANABAPTISTS in the 16th century.

So YOUR CLAIM that the ECFs are closer to the protestants than the Catholic is MOOT!.

Blessings,

E.C.

 

[rtconstant]

Lets take this one step at a time. Atemi are you trying to establish that we’re supposed to wait till our deathbed to be baptised? The advantage of which being that since there is no remission of sins after baptism we won’t have a chance to sin and ruin it?

 

[Contarini]

Not nonsense at all.

With all due repsect, I am not addressing Orthodox Christians, but Roman Catholics.

I thought you were making a general point about infant baptism, not about the specific Augustinian rationale for infant baptism.

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.

This is a fairly toned down view of original sin that might perhaps fly with the Orthodox–I dunno.

However, the point here is that you said “optional infant baptism is no doctrine of anything.” Obviously that is not true. If some Christians baptized their infants and others did not (something which you still have not shown to be the case before Tertullian, but which probably was the case), that shows that there were doctrinal reasons for infant baptism being a good idea (whether an undeveloped notion of original sin, probably expressed in terms of the power of death over us, or simply the belief that baptism is the means by which we share in Christ’s life) and other doctrinal reasons (presumably those articulated by Tertullian, or perhaps simply the assumption that baptism should involve informed personal consent, which is the point you are pushing) working in the other direction. Obviously the practice of infant baptism is evidence for the doctrines of the early Church.

Obviously with the development of a stronger notion of original sin, the necessity of infant baptism came to be emphasized more clearly. If that is all you are claiming, you’re hardly saying anything controversial!

Objections were also based on a lack of consent or understanding.

That’s possible, but you have provided not *one *shred of evidence for it.

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.

Why do you think they baptized infants then?

Does it contradict the rationale you cited from the catechism? Does it have nothing to do with deliverance from the fallen state of humanity?

There is continuity between the early patristic notions of the human condition and Augustine’s much more pointed and specific doctrine of original sin. And similarly, there is continuity between the reasons why early Christians baptized infants (or why the Orthodox do so today–a point that is far from irrelevant, as you claim!) and the reasons why RC’s do so.

You cannot bracket out the post-Augustinian Catholic view–it’s part of a larger picture.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Randy_Carson]

All irrelevant.

You used this same word in the thread on “Fruit of the Vine”.

Is this the pattern when an argument is not going your way? Dismiss unpleasant facts as irrelevant?

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

Especially when the information confounds you.

This thread is about Jutin Martyr.

Sort of. It’s actually about infant baptism and Justin’s view on it.

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.

Please, oh, please, Atemi. Provide one quotation from a church document to substantiate your claim.

Your argument sounds like this:

1. Most Catholics today are in favor of artificial birth control.
2. They learned it from the Church.

This is a non sequitur.

Tertullian was not taught to delay baptism by any Church document, priest or Bishop. He may have observed other Christians doing that, but it has never been official Church teaching.

He is just another brick in the wall.

Funny, but you actually just seem to be walling yourself in.

Atemi, how old were you when you stopped learning about your faith? How old were you when you left the Church?

I’m willing to bet you have learned more truth about the Church since St. Patrick’s day than you did in many years prior.

 

[El_camino]

Here’s something interesting about the idea that MOST Early Christians believed that baptism should be put off until very late in life:

Atemi:

PS - since so many Christians deferred their baptisms until later in life, and some even on their deathbed, are we to assume that they did not partake of the Eucharist all that time?

Atemi said this trying to invalidate what the Didache says about the Eucharist, which should not be given to the unbaptized. IT seems that Atemi never read the Didache, even though he was appealing to it to invalidate the Eucharist, because he thought that I was assuming or deducing that it said that, but NO, the DIDACHE says it literally:

"But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized; for concerning this is taught, “Do not give what is holy to dogs.” (Didache 9)

What relates to this thread is that Atemi has assumed that most early Christians together with Tertullian believed that baptism should be delayed as much as possible, so to say that the unbaptized believers could not partake of the Eucharist is ridiculous to Atemi. He is trying to IMPLY that JUSTIN MARTYR believed the same that Tertullian did.

Well, this is what Justin Martyr says:

“We call this food Eucharist, **and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration ** and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

This is contradictory for Atemi, because it would mean that, as he himself said it, MANY believers did not take the Eucharist until much later into their lives when they were baptized. And this does not make any sense.

By Atemi’s own admission, this shows that JUSTIN MARTYR did not believe the same thing that Tertullian did. And He actually didn’t because Tertullian was a schismatic.

Many blessings,

E.C.**

 

[Randy_Carson]

Here’s something interesting about the idea that MOST Early Christians believed that baptism should be put off until very late in life:

Atemi said this trying to invalidate what the Didache says about the Eucharist, which should not be given to the unbaptized. IT seems that Atemi never read the Didache, even though he was appealing to it to invalidate the Eucharist, because he thought that I was assuming or deducing that it said that, but NO, the DIDACHE says it literally:

"But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized; for concerning this is taught, “Do not give what is holy to dogs.” (Didache 9)

What relates to this thread is that Atemi has assumed that most early Christians together with Tertullian believed that baptism should be delayed as much as possible, so to say that the unbaptized believers could not partake of the Eucharist is ridiculous to Atemi. He is trying to IMPLY that JUSTIN MARTYR believed the same that Tertullian did.

Well, this is what Justin Martyr says:

“We call this food Eucharist, **and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration **** and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

This is contradictory for Atemi, because it would mean that, as he himself said it, MANY believers did not take the Eucharist until much later into their lives when they were baptized. And this does not make any sense.

By Atemi’s own admission, this shows that JUSTIN MARTYR did not believe the same thing that Tertullian did. And He actually didn’t because Tertullian was a schismatic.

Many blessings,

E.C.Not to mention the stupidity of anyone going through life without the grace of any sacraments since baptism is the gateway to all the others.

 

[Atemi]

Not to mention the stupidity of anyone going through life without the grace of any sacraments since baptism is the gateway to all the others.

Since many early Christians, most notably Constantine, put off baptism until the end of their lives…

…are we to suppose that they all skipped the Eucharist all that time?

No. That is not believable.

You call it “stupidity,” but that is indeed what we see that happened for many folks.

…

 

[NotWorthy]

Since many early Christians, most notably Constantine, put off baptism until the end of their lives…

…are we to suppose that they all skipped the Eucharist all that time?

No. That is not believable.

You call it “stupidity,” but that is indeed what we see that happened for many folks.

…

You’ll have to prove that Catholics EVER taught this (Eucharist without Baptism). For you’ve been shown that the Catholic Church has denied this.

Believe it or not, Constantine was not the head of the Catholic Church. He was in error when he did this.

 

[Atemi]

I thought you were making a general point about infant baptism, not about the specific Augustinian rationale for infant baptism.

I was making a general point about the RC view of infant baptism.

However, the point here is that you said “optional infant baptism is no doctrine of anything.” Obviously that is not true.

Saying something is optional is not saying very much about that very thing.

If some Christians baptized their infants and others did not (something which you still have not shown to be the case before Tertullian, but which probably was the case), that shows that there were doctrinal reasons for infant baptism being a good idea (whether an undeveloped notion of original sin, probably expressed in terms of the power of death over us, or simply the belief that baptism is the means by which we share in Christ’s life) and other doctrinal reasons (presumably those articulated by Tertullian, or perhaps simply the assumption that baptism should involve informed personal consent, which is the point you are pushing) working in the other direction. Obviously the practice of infant baptism is evidence for the doctrines of the early Church.

The practice of optional and discretionary infant baptism is evidenced.

Now if that practice is based on sound doctrine, that is debatable.

What we do know is that mandatory infant baptism was unknown to the Apostles and they never taught it. That eliminates the remission of Original Sin as the purpose of water baptism.

Obviously with the development of a stronger notion of original sin, the necessity of infant baptism came to be emphasized more clearly. If that is all you are claiming, you’re hardly saying anything controversial!

That is all I ever said.

That’s possible, but you have provided not *one *shred of evidence for it.

I quoted Tertullian himself, since some seem obsessed with him, who voiced that same point.

Why do you think they baptized infants then?

Not because it was taught by the Apostles.

Does it contradict the rationale you cited from the catechism?

Yes. The rationale discussed in the Catechism developed over many centuries and was not present in the early church.

Does it have nothing to do with deliverance from the fallen state of humanity?

As in regeneration? Of course.

Believe in one, the other tends to follow.

Add the guilt of Original Sin and then it tends to be a slam dunk over a relatively short period of time.

There is continuity between the early patristic notions of the human condition and Augustine’s much more pointed and specific doctrine of original sin.

A very twisted continuity, IMV.

And similarly, there is continuity between the reasons why early Christians baptized infants (or why the Orthodox do so today–a point that is far from irrelevant, as you claim!) and the reasons why RC’s do so.

“Continuity” is too broad.

It speaks of nothing we can truly work with.

You cannot bracket out the post-Augustinian Catholic view–it’s part of a larger picture.

It must be bracketed out, but then again, that is a different thread.

…

 

[Church_Militant]

I don’t have to have Justin Martyr, though it does affirm that he believed the same thing that the New Testament teaches.

Posts 1, 2, 4, & 20 on The Eucharist IS Scriptural certainly make the case for me.

Justin is good, but even earlier still is Ignatius of Antioch who writes.

CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS. (LINK)

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.and then also

Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper(18) Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it.

Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.Between the New Testament and the early church, I have no doubts whatever concerning the Real Presence in the Eucharist.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[El_camino]

Since many early Christians, most notably Constantine, put off baptism until the end of their lives…

…are we to suppose that they all skipped the Eucharist all that time?

No. That is not believable.

You call it “stupidity,” but that is indeed what we see that happened for many folks.

…

What are you talking about when you say “that is not believable”… There is nothing here to “believe”, the historical evidence is overwhelming … Both Justin Martyr and the Didache attest to this as they both clearly say that unbaptized individuals cannot partake of the Eucharist. And why is that? because both the Didache and Justin Martyr did not considered the Eucharist merely a symbolism, if they did, then obviously it would not matter if unbaptized believers would partake of it. You did not know that, did you?

Here are the quotes again just in case:

"But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized; for concerning this is taught, “Do not give what is holy to dogs.” (Didache 9)

“We call this food Eucharist, **and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration *** and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Many blessings,

E.C.*

 

[Randy_Carson]

Whoa.

If infant baptism had to be “worked out” as being taught and commanded by the Apostles, then that is worrisome for the doctrine today, IMV.

If such doctrine was still up in the air over a century after Pentecost, especially considering that Justin was from the Holy Land itself, then we can rest assured that such teaching was not dictated by the Apostles.

Basil on Baptism

Those not baptized are still in darkness, and the Church ceases not to solicit them to come and be renewed in the sacrament of regeneration. Decide, then, to be baptized without delay. Show the seal of the child of God.** The true motive for delay is a desire to indulge yourself in evil.** There will be nothing to commend in giving yourself when sated with pleasure and ready to die. Life, too, is uncertain; also, one’s ability to receive baptism if so delayed. It may be too late at last, and then — the fires of hell! (Homily upon Baptism, [ca.350 A.D.]).

So, here is Basil in the middle of the fourth century clearly stating two important truths:

1. Those who are unbaptized are living in darkness; and
2. Delaying baptism is indulgent and dangerous.

Gosh, Atemi, who taught Basil that?

Did the false practice of delaying baptism creep into the Church? Sure did.

Did the Church formally teach people to delay baptism? Nope.

Do people practice contraception today? Sure do.

Does the Church formally teach people to use ABC? Nope.

Do people accept false doctrines and wander away from the true Church? Sure do.

Does the Church formally teach any error that would cause them to do so? Nope.

Do these same people post their misunderstandings in this forum every day? Pretty much.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Contarini]

Since many early Christians, most notably Constantine, put off baptism until the end of their lives…

…are we to suppose that they all skipped the Eucharist all that time?

No. That is not believable.

You call it “stupidity,” but that is indeed what we see that happened for many folks.

…

That’s ridiculous. You may not find it believable, but that’s because of your own historical ignorance.

There’s no way the early Church would have let people receive the Eucharist without baptism. Clearly your boasts about knowing the writings of the Fathers were utterly empty.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I was making a general point about the RC view of infant baptism.

Well, you can’t separate the “RC view” from the more general issue, because RCs ultimately base their practice on the Tradition they have received from the early Church.

Saying something is optional is not saying very much about that very thing.

Sure it is–it’s saying that it’s valid, for one thing. If infants were being baptized and the Church didn’t denounce the practice, then clearly the modern Anabaptist/Baptist view of baptism is completely contrary to the view of the early Church. You want to use this kind of argument against Catholicism, but it works far better against “believers’ baptism.” The rationale given by those like Tertullian who opposed infant baptism (actually make that just Tertullian–I can’t think offhand of any early Christian other than Tertullian who opposed infant baptism!) was rooted in a view of postbaptismal sin that modern “anabaptists” don’t hold. On the other hand, given what we know about the early Church’s understanding of the human condition (subject to death and the power of the devil, etc.) before baptism, it’s easy to see continuities between the reasons why early Christians baptized infants and the post-Augustinian Western rationale, even though the latter goes much further.

Furthermore, find me one statement from the early Church saying that the practice is optional! That is a supposition on your part.

What we do know is that mandatory infant baptism was unknown to the Apostles and they never taught it. That eliminates the remission of Original Sin as the purpose of water baptism.

No, you have a wooden understanding of Tradition and the deelopment of doctrine. First of all, you are basing an awful lot on the fact that Justin Martyr assumes the baptism of adult converts as the norm. You actually have no evidence of a Christian from that period who was brought up by Christian parents but not baptized until adolescence or adulthood. All your examples come from the fourth century. This may be because infant baptism was universal in the second century (which would demolish your argument), or it may be simply because at this stage of the Church’s history people born to Christian parents were far outnumbered by adult converts. But that latter case doesn’t help you either, because that adequately explains the evidence from Justin Martyr.

In short, in order for your argument from Justin to work you’d have to have at least one case of Christian parents in the second century choosing not to baptize their children. You don’t have such evidence.

Not because it was taught by the Apostles.

In other words, you don’t have a clue as to why they did it, but you are certain that it can’t have had anything to do with sin? This is very unconvincing.

Yes. The rationale discussed in the Catechism developed over many centuries and was not present in the early church.

Of course it developed over centuries, but that does not mean that some such notion was not present in the early Church. Clearly early Christians believed that Adam’s sin had affected us all. It is reasonable to suppose that they thought that baptism of infants did something to counteract these effects, even though they didn’t word it in Augustinian terms.

As in regeneration? Of course.

Believe in one, the other tends to follow.

Add the guilt of Original Sin and then it tends to be a slam dunk over a relatively short period of time.

If I follow you, then you are granting my point. Early Christians believed that baptism was regenerative (which is why Polycarp’s testimony is evidence for infant baptism, unless he was around 100 at the time). And they believed that infants needed to be regenerated. However, they also saw sin after baptism as far more serious than sin before baptism. So one can reasonably see why some Christians might choose to baptize their infants and others might not (even though there is no actual evidence I’m aware of that delaying baptism was a common practice before the fourth century). This is not optional in the sense that they didn’t care.

A very twisted continuity, IMV.

What’s twisted about it? There was never any doubt that the human race was fallen and that baptism was the means by which we were grafted into Christ and delivered from the powers of evil. Augustine simply put a much sharper edge on this thoroughly traditional belief.

Edwin

 

[clmowry]

Even if we assume for a second this is true.

What’s your point?

Something to this effect:

“Some people thought you should wait to be baptized therefore infant baptism is wrong despite the fact that there is plenty of clear evidence that infant baptism has been practiced over the entire history of the Church?”

Chuck

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

 

[Atemi]

That’s ridiculous. You may not find it believable, but that’s because of your own historical ignorance.

There’s no way the early Church would have let people receive the Eucharist without baptism. Clearly your boasts about knowing the writings of the Fathers were utterly empty.

Just an observation, Edwin.

I do find it hard to believe that a man like Constantine would not have been sharing in the supposed “source and summit” of the Christian life for his entire life after conversion.

I do not recall anything saying that Constantine was kept from all the Sacraments. If you have historical evidence that Constantine was kept from the Sacrament, then of course I am more than willing to look at it.

…

 

[El_camino]

Just an observation, Edwin.

I do find it hard to believe that a man like Constantine would not have been sharing in the supposed “source and summit” of the Christian life for his entire life after conversion.

I do not recall anything saying that Constantine was kept from all the Sacraments. If you have historical evidence that Constantine was kept from the Sacrament, then of course I am more than willing to look at it.

…

Atemi, who cares about your “finding hard to believe”. The historical evidence is overwhelming that no one could receive the Eucharist if they were not baptized, and why is that? because early Christians did not consider the Eucharist as a mere symbolism, like what you believe.

In the case of Constantine, if he was not interested in getting baptized early on, why would he be interested on receiving the Eucharist or any other sacrament for that matter?

Stop your biased supposition and abide by the historical evidence.

Starting with the didache (probably the oldest liturgical book in existence, which dates form the 1st century, which you yourself were appealing to) and the writtings of Justin Martyr from the 2nd century and MANY other writtings it is clear that the unbaptized could not receive the Eucharist.

Here are the quotes again just in case:

"But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized; for concerning this is taught, “Do not give what is holy to dogs.” (Didache 9)

“We call this food Eucharist, and **no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration *** and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Many blessings,

E.C.*

 

[Atemi]

Part 1:

I was making a general point about the RC view of infant baptism.

Well, you can’t separate the “RC view” from the more general issue, because RCs ultimately base their practice on the Tradition they have received from the early Church.

As do the Orthodox, Methodists, and Episcopalians…in one way or another.

This is an RC board.

Saying something is optional is not saying very much about that very thing.

Sure it is–it’s saying that it’s valid, for one thing. If infants were being baptized and the Church didn’t denounce the practice, then clearly the modern Anabaptist/Baptist view of baptism is completely contrary to the view of the early Church.

But not the Scriptures.

You want to use this kind of argument against Catholicism, but it works far better against “believers’ baptism.”

Not at all.

Believer’s baptism was the norm in the early church, especially considering the numbers of converts.

The fact that infant baptism was allowed in the early church is a pure demonstartion that infant baptism was not mandated by the Apostles as it is mandated by the RCC today.

The rationale given by those like Tertullian who opposed infant baptism (actually make that just Tertullian–I can’t think offhand of any early Christian other than Tertullian who opposed infant baptism!) was rooted in a view of postbaptismal sin that modern “anabaptists” don’t hold. On the other hand, given what we know about the early Church’s understanding of the human condition (subject to death and the power of the devil, etc.) before baptism, it’s easy to see continuities between the reasons why early Christians baptized infants and the post-Augustinian Western rationale, even though the latter goes much further.

And that is where we see the mandate to baptise infants coming into fruition.

Furthermore, find me one statement from the early Church saying that the practice is optional! That is a supposition on your part.

We find no statements from the earliest church saying it is mandated either.

We both know the history of that era. Babies were being baptised, but that was not the mandate of the church.

Actaully, what we find is different churches pretty much doing their own thing. So much for Rome being at the helm.

What we do know is that mandatory infant baptism was unknown to the Apostles and they never taught it. That eliminates the remission of Original Sin as the purpose of water baptism.

No, you have a wooden understanding of Tradition and the deelopment of doctrine. First of all, you are basing an awful lot on the fact that Justin Martyr assumes the baptism of adult converts as the norm.

Just about every mention by him of baptism plays this out.

…

 

[Atemi]

Part 2:

You actually have no evidence of a Christian from that period who was brought up by Christian parents but not baptized until adolescence or adulthood. All your examples come from the fourth century. This may be because infant baptism was universal in the second century (which would demolish your argument), or it may be simply because at this stage of the Church’s history people born to Christian parents were far outnumbered by adult converts.

Then your argument here is that the church lost the correct Apostolic teaching regarding water baptism after the first couple of centuries and then began a whole new heretical practice of delaying water baptism.

I am sure the Catholics here would love to hear that one.

In short, in order for your argument from Justin to work you’d have to have at least one case of Christian parents in the second century choosing not to baptize their children. You don’t have such evidence.

We don’t have evidence from the second century that infants were commanded to be baptised either.

Not because it was taught by the Apostles.

In other words, you don’t have a clue as to why they did it, but you are certain that it can’t have had anything to do with sin? This is very unconvincing.

No. I was posting the relevant response.

I am not here to argue the ancient reasons for water baptism of infants.

Merely pointing out that such is similar to modern RC practice is irrelevant, as the same claim can be made by all those I mention earlier.

Yes. The rationale discussed in the Catechism developed over many centuries and was not present in the early church.

Of course it developed over centuries, but that does not mean that some such notion was not present in the early Church.

Again, I am not interested in “some notion.”

I am interested in what the Apostles actually taught.

Clearly early Christians believed that Adam’s sin had affected us all. It is reasonable to suppose that they thought that baptism of infants did something to counteract these effects, even though they didn’t word it in Augustinian terms.

Yes. Regeneration was the goal.

But the RCC today words it “in Augustinian terms.”

You are arguing infant baptism with me as an Episcopalian. I am only interested in addressing Roman Catholicism as that is the forum.

**As in regeneration? Of course.

Believe in one, the other tends to follow.

Add the guilt of Original Sin and then it tends to be a slam dunk over a relatively short period of time.**

If I follow you, then you are granting my point. Early Christians believed that baptism was regenerative (which is why Polycarp’s testimony is evidence for infant baptism, unless he was around 100 at the time).

Actually, Polycarp is no such evidence at all. He never said he was baptised as an infant. Pure conjecture.

And they believed that infants needed to be regenerated. However, they also saw sin after baptism as far more serious than sin before baptism. So one can reasonably see why some Christians might choose to baptize their infants and others might not (even though there is no actual evidence I’m aware of that delaying baptism was a common practice before the fourth century).

Yes. It was the broken understanding of sin and repentance in the early church that also caused havoc.

Errors on top of errors, IMV.

This is not optional in the sense that they didn’t care.

But it is optional in the sense that it was not mandated by the church either way.

…

 

[japhy]

And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training

I would draw attention to the language used (which I have emphasized) which appears to be addressing people born into non-Christian families, that is, converts. “Bad habits” and “wicked training” does not sound like the proper training of the children in Christian families to me.