Justin Martyr on Infant Baptism

[El_camino]

All conjecture.

He “would have” said this or “would have” said that is meaningless for this subject.

The fact is that he never said he was baptised as an infant. That is all we are left with.

Filling in the details you like where he did not is not very wise, IMV.

Ok, I grant you that he did not say it, but by the same token you cannot say that HE WAS Not baptized as an infant as he did not say that EITHER… So in that regard we are in the same position. What tilts the weight towards our side, is what I have explained regarding that all ECFs assert that only people who have been baptized are called believers, and Polycarp says he had been a believer all his life

Now, you talk about conjectures and critize us for that, however you are trying to remove the speck in the eye of your neighbor, as you, with conjectures, were not only trying to arrive at conclusion that the other side cannot not prove (as in the case of Polycarp where you cannot prove that he WAS not baptized as a child as he did not say that he was not), but you were trying to deny what historical evidence in the writings of the fathers, such the Didache and Justin Martyr, has so overwhelmenly shown regarding the unbaptized not being able to receive the Eucharist. Don’t think I have not realized how you are DODGING the evidence…

Here I post it for the fourth time. Be a good Christian and at least accept that you were wrong.

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.*

 

[El_camino]

Regarding CONSTANTINE, Atemi, you chose a very POOR example, because there is much controversy regarding him “embracing” Christianity without being baptized but until his deathbed.

Atemi:

Because he was a Christian.

He became a Christian when he was baptized, not before that. This is what all ECFs attest regarding when someone becomes a Christian.

On the other hand, there are many historians that claim that Constantine approval of the Christian religion when he was an emperor had, rather, political reasons. It happened that at the time, maintaining one religion in a kingdom is what kept it united, thus Constantine chose the most popular religion of that time (i.e., christianity).

The story about him seeing the cross on the sky and a voice telling him: “on this sign you will conquer”, has never been proven to be true. Although it could be true.

Also, there is also evidence, according to some historians, that Constantine was still worshipping APOLLO (the sun god), while he was emperor. Some even claim that if the episode of the Cross on the sky happened, Constantine might have thought that the God talking to him was Apollo telling him to take advantage of the popularity of Christianity, thus telling him conquer on this “false” sign.

Just look up any complete unbiased biography that shows evidence from many sides regarding Constantine and you will see about this.

Atemi:

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.

You don’t get it, do you?.. Why would you think that anyone would need to keep Constatine from the sacraments since HE HIMSELF kept from the sacrament that opens the door to the other sacraments (i.e., baptism) as the DIDACHE, Justin Martyr and ALL Other historical evidence until today shows

If he WAS not interested in baptism most of his life, for whatever reason, why would he be interested in receiving any other sacrament? so it is ridiculous for you to ask for evidence of someone keeping him from the sacraments.

This is specially true, if what some claim happens to be true, that he was still worshipping Apollo while he was emperor.

Many blessings,

E.C.

 

[El_camino]

Atemi, this is what your protestant buddies from www.ccel.org say about the origins of infant baptism:

c. Orign of Infant Baptism.

No time can be assigned for the beginning of the practise of infant baptism. If it had been an innovation, it seems likely that it would have provoked a violent protest. **No traces **of this can be found except in Tertullian, who, alone in the early Church, denies the expediency of infant baptism. The requirement of repentance and faith, which the apostles made a condition of baptism, was to be expected when it is remembered that their exhortations were addressed to adults. This will always be the mode of procedure when the gospel is first preached to a people. Adult baptism always comes first in every missionary Church. Infant baptism, it is reasonable to assume, arose naturally from the very beginning, as Christianity took hold of family life and training.

Patristic Testimony.

The three earliest witnesses to the prevalence of infant baptism are Iremeus, Origen, and Tertullian. The testimony of Irenaeus, though not unequivocal, leans strongly in favor of the apostolic usage. Born probably between Testimony. 120 and 130, a disciple of Polycarp, one of John’s disciples, he was surely an excellent witness. He says, “Christ came to save through means of himself all who through him are born again [regenerated] to God, infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men” (Haer., II, xxii, 4). The phrase " born again to God " refers plainly to baptism; in Irenaeus’s usage (cf. I, xxi, 1) baptism is “being born to God,” and (III, xvii, 1) “the power of regeneration unto God.” Origen, who was himself baptized in infancy, distinctly derives the custom from the apostles. " The Church," he says (on Rom. v, 9), “has received the tradition from the apostles to give baptism to little children.” He also speaks of infant baptism as a " custom of the Church" (Hom., on Lev. viii, MPG, ii, 496). The opponents of the practise make much use of Tertullian (close of the second century). In his De baptismo (xviii) he counsels delay of baptism, particularly in the case of infants. But, when the passage is investigated, it is found that his motive is not the impropriety, but the inexpediency of infant baptism, on the ground that it involved the great risk of forfeiting forever the remission of sins in the case of relapse. The very argument proves not only the existence, but the prevailing practise of infant baptism. Tertullian does not even hint at its being a postapostolic innovation. His opposition is due to his peculiar theory of the magical effect of baptism in washing away the guilt of past sins, and is by no means antipedobaptist. Loofs (Dogmengeschichte, Halle, 1893, p. 137) sententiously sums up the early historic evidence in these words: “The rite of infant baptism can be traced in Irenaeus, was contested by Tertullian, and was for Origen an apostolic usage.”

The practise of the third century is uncontested. Cyprian (d. 258) says (Epist., lxiv) an infant should be in no case denied grace and baptism. The Synod of Carthage in 252 rejected the opinion that baptism should, like circumcision, be deferred to the eighth day after birth (cf. Hefele, Conciliengeschichie, i, 115). But that the custom was not universally followed is evident from the cases of Augustine, Gregory Nazianzen, and Chrysostom, who had Christian mothers, but were not baptized till they were converted in early manhood; and Constantine the Great put off his baptism till his death-bed. Gregory Nazianzen recommended that the baptism of children be put off till they were three years old, unless there was danger of death. This delay was recommended by church teachers because of the prevailing doctrine of the effects of baptism, which was regarded as washing away original sin and all actual transgressions committed before the administration of the rite.

ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc01/articles/baptism.html

 

[Randy_Carson]

Wow.

Now we have seen Church fathers and John Calvin saying the same thing about infant baptism.

Please, Atemi.

Don’t force us to continue running up the score on you…you might consider conceding at this point and choosing another topic.

This thread hasn’t gone well for you.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It’s also interesting how some Protestants can see infant baptism as clearly taught by Scripture and others do not:

John Calvin:

Ulrich Zwingli:

Martin Luther:

“Devastating stuff.” - The New York Times

“Simply crushing.” - Rolling Stone

“Two croziers up.” - Siskel and Ebert

 

[Atemi]

Does scripture forbid infant baptism, anywhere?

Implicity, yes.

Where does scripture talk about the required age for baptism?

It doesn’t, nor does it need to.

What are Christ teachings on this very subject?

That only those who repent can be baptised…and that we are to baptise disciples.

…

 

[Atemi]

Ok, I grant you that he did not say it, but by the same token you cannot say that HE WAS Not baptized as an infant as he did not say that EITHER

I never said otherwise.

The Polycarp reference as any kind of proof of infant baptism is very poor.

… So in that regard we are in the same position. What tilts the weight towards our side, is what I have explained regarding that all ECFs assert that only people who have been baptized are called believers, and Polycarp says he had been a believer all his life

First of all, Paul says one can be a believer and yet unbaptised in Acts 19.

I’ll take the witness of the Holy Spirit as opposed to all the ECFs in the world any day.

Secondly, Polycarp said:

“Eighty six years have I served Him”

He did not use any special phraseology of “believer” that was to mean something in particular.

Thirdly, we do not know how old Polycarp was when he died.

Now, you talk about conjectures and critize us for that, however you are trying to remove the speck in the eye of your neighbor, as you, with conjectures, were not only trying to arrive at conclusion that the other side cannot not prove (as in the case of Polycarp where you cannot prove that he WAS not baptized as a child as he did not say that he was not)

I never said Polycarp was never baptised as a child.

Please pay better attention.

but you were trying to deny what historical evidence in the writings of the fathers, such the Didache and Justin Martyr, has so overwhelmenly shown regarding the unbaptized not being able to receive the Eucharist. Don’t think I have not realized how you are DODGING the evidence…

I denied nothing.

LOL.

I know full well what the Didache and Justin say. That means that that is law forever and ever?

Does that go for everything else that they said?

Plainly not.

Here I post it for the fourth time. Be a good Christian and at least accept that you were wrong.

Stop it with the silly posturing. That belongs to schoolchildren.

“Be a good Christian”? As if I am not unless I agree with you?

LOL. No.

…

 

[Atemi]

Atemi, this is what your protestant buddies from www.ccel.org say about the origins of infant baptism:

ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc01/articles/baptism.html

Besides a minor difference I have with their take on Irenaeus, I don’t have issue with anything they say there.

How you thought I would, I don’t know.

…

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Implicity, yes.

…

Name them!!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Will Atemi be as accepting of verses implicitly referencing purgatory, the Perpetual Virginity, Papal Infallibility…

You get the idea.

Finally, is it just me, or did Atemi completely ignore the quotes from Calvin and the other protestant website that was presented.

Kinda selective, isn’t he? :yup:

 

[mikeledes]

Irenaeus is not talking about water baptism here in this section. He is making an argument that Christ died at over 50 years old…

And how was an infant “reborn to God” according to Irenaeus? Can you please provide the quote where Irenaeus said Jesus was 50 years old? Hey, maybe he wasn’t good in math! That doesn’t mean he will confuse infant baptism with an apostolic practice.

LOL.

BTW, you cited the wrong book. It is Book 2, not Book 1.

Oops! :doh2:

If Irenaeus was so well connected and informed, how do you suppose he believed and taught that Jesus Christ was older than 50 years old when He was crucified?

You would think He would know, right?

Again, I would like to see the quote.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[japhy]

Can you please provide the quote where Irenaeus said Jesus was 50 years old? Hey, maybe he wasn’t good in math!

Irenaeus thought it was peculiar of the Jews to say "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" (John 8:57)

Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter XXII is entitled “The thirty Æons are not typified by the fact that Christ was baptized in His thirtieth year: He did not suffer in the twelfth month after His baptism, but was more than fifty years old when He died.” Here are paragraphs 5 and 6.

1. They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, “to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,” maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus,] they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honourable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher He excelled all others. For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: “Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old,” when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men,] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemæus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?
2. But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad,” they answered Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?” Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, “Thou art not yet forty years old.” For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being of flesh and blood. He did not then want much of being fifty years old; and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?”

 

[Randy_Carson]

Implicity, yes.

It doesn’t, nor does it need to.

That only those who repent can be baptised…and that we are to baptise disciples.

…

Let’s review:

No time can be assigned for the beginning of the practise of infant baptism. If it had been an innovation, it seems likely that it would have provoked a violent protest. **No traces **of this can be found except in Tertullian, who, alone in the early Church, denies the expediency of infant baptism…. But, when the passage is investigated, it is found that his motive is not the impropriety, but the inexpediency of infant baptism, on the ground that it involved the great risk of forfeiting forever the remission of sins in the case of relapse. The very argument proves not only the existence, but the prevailing practise of infant baptism. Tertullian does not even hint at its being a postapostolic innovation.

Origen, who was himself baptized in infancy, distinctly derives the custom from the apostles. " The Church," he says (on Rom. v, 9), “has received the tradition from the apostles to give baptism to little children.”

ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/e…s/baptism.html

 

[Atemi]

And how was an infant “reborn to God” according to Irenaeus? Can you please provide the quote where Irenaeus said Jesus was 50 years old? Hey, maybe he wasn’t good in math! That doesn’t mean he will confuse infant baptism with an apostolic practice.

Again, I would like to see the quote.

You should not be citing this text if you have not even read the context.

…

 

[Atemi]

Will Atemi be as accepting of verses implicitly referencing purgatory, the Perpetual Virginity, Papal Infallibility…

Twists and stretches do not qualify as implicit endorsement.

Finally, is it just me, or did Atemi completely ignore the quotes from Calvin and the other protestant website that was presented.

Kinda selective, isn’t he? :yup:

Who is Calvin to me? What do I care about what Calvin has to say?

I follow Christ.

…

 

[mikeledes]

Irenaeus thought it was peculiar of the Jews to say "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" (John 8:57)

Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter XXII is entitled “The thirty Æons are not typified by the fact that Christ was baptized in His thirtieth year: He did not suffer in the twelfth month after His baptism, but was more than fifty years old when He died.” Here are paragraphs 5 and 6.

1. They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, “to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,” maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus,] they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honourable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher He excelled all others. For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: “Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old,” when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men,] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemæus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?
2. But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad,” they answered Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?” Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, “Thou art not yet forty years old.” For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being of flesh and blood. He did not then want much of being fifty years old; and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?”

Thank You!

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

You should not be citing this text if you have not even read the context.

…

The context does not change the text I cited.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Twists and stretches do not qualify as implicit endorsement.

Who is Calvin to me? What do I care about what Calvin has to say?

I follow Christ.

…

The point of citing people like Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, is not to make you a Calvinist, Lutheran, etc. It’s to show that even non-Catholics see infant baptism as an apostolic custom practiced in the early church and demonstrated by the writings of the early Church Fathers. You sound a bit dismissive of Calvin, but -unless you are Arminian - you are heavily indebted to his theology and Luther’s as well.

Calvin and Luther claimed they followed Christ and believed in infant baptism? Why do they see it as clearly supported by Scripture and you don’t?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Atemi]

The context does not change the text I cited.

You said he would surely know the Apostolic teaching regarding baptism because of his connections.

I showed you that in the very section you cite, his whole point is that it is the Apostolic witness that Christ was about 50 when He was crucified.

I guess he really knows his Apostolic stuff, huh?

You don’t even believe the section you cite, yet believe that Ireneaus would know correct teaching because of those same connections.

This is not very moving, to be honest.

…

 

[mikeledes]

You said he would surely know the Apostolic teaching regarding baptism because of his connections.

I showed you that in the very section you cite, his whole point is that it is the Apostolic witness that Christ was about 50 when He was crucified.

I guess he really knows his Apostolic stuff, huh?

You don’t even believe the section you cite, yet believe that Ireneaus would know correct teaching because of those same connections.

This is not very moving, to be honest.

…

Oh no you didn’t. Them’s fightin’ words! Chose your weapon. :knight2:

On a serious note, Irenaeus may have gotten Jesus’s age wrong. But I’m pretty sure that on an issue as serious as baptism, he would be pretty accurate.

God Bless,
Michael