Justin Martyr on Infant Baptism

[runandsew]

Because I do not base my faith on the often contradictory positions of men long dead but on the living Word of God.

What I understand you to be writing here is that you base your faith on your interpretation of the Living Word of God.

Unfortunately since some of what I have seen in your posts goes against the living tradition and the magisterium of the Church, I would suggest that the parts of your faith which contradicts the Church is in error.

If you feel that you are led by the Holy Spirit in your interpretation of scripture while scripture itself shows that the Church was promised to be led by the Holy Spirit, and due to the fact that the Holy Spirit can not contradict itself, I would have to place my bets on the teachings of the Church, because I can’t find the passage that says that Atemi was given the Holy Spirit to bring to mind everything that Jesus said.

John 14:26
The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name–he will teach you everything and remind you (The Apostles) of all that (I) told you.
John 16:13
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you (The Apostles) to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.

So if the teaching of the Church is that infant baptism is OK, and your personal belief is that it is not OK, I am sorry, but I’ll have to stick with the Church.

In fact now that I think of it, I feel that I have been led by the Holy Spirit in my personal interpretation of scripture, and it led me to see that infant baptism is allowed in scripture, and my “Holy Spirit” experience matches up with what the Holy Spirit has led the Church to teach.
So I know what spirit is guiding me.

What about you, what spirit do you think it is which could lead someone to a belief that would contradict what the Holy Spirit has guided the Church to teach, considering that the Holy Spirit was promised to the Church by Jesus himself.

 

[Evan]

he contrasts natural birth, in which there is no consent on the part of the born, with spiritual birth, the consent of which he says is the entire reason for its necessity, and this is according, he says, to the apostles.

The Church has consistently taught that, in the case of an infant, the parents who will raise the child in the faith, make the choice as surrugates for the child.

So a choice is made in every case.

By those of sufficient age, they can make the choice.
By infants, by those who will form them.

Parents make many choices for a child that, at a more mature age, the child could make: Where to go to school, what to eat, what to wear, how long to stay in the sun. All for the benefit of the child in their care: Parents must look out for the welfare of both the physical and spiritual aspects of a child.

 

[deb1024]

Wow Randy that is a fantastic answer. I will have to remember that!!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Wow Randy that is a fantastic answer. I will have to remember that!!

[set Elvis=on]Thank you, ma’am…thank you very much.

Don’t be cruel…which post was true?[set Elvis=off]

:tiphat:

 

[NotWorthy]

[set Elvis=on]Thank you, ma’am…thank you very much.

Don’t be cruel…which post was true?[set Elvis=off]

:tiphat:

Ladie and Gentlemen, would Elvis PLEASE leave the building?

 

[jam070406]

St. Justin Martyr (150 AD):

“And both men and women who have been Christ’s disciples since infancy, remain pure, and at the age of sixty or seventy years …” (Justin Martyr, First Apology,15:6 – AD 110-165)

 

[guanophore]

This reference from Justin Martyr seems to present the impression he did not believe in infant baptism, and worse, that the apostles own teaching is not completely consistent with the idea. From chapter 61 of his first apology:

Note that he contrasts natural birth, in which there is no consent on the part of the born, with spiritual birth, the consent of which he says is the entire reason for its necessity, and this is according, he says, to the apostles.

Any thoughts?

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; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed.

First I would like to say that the context from which this is taken relates to adult baptism. Secondly, I would point out that children born to adult believers (the first of which were all Jews and understood that circumcision had been replaced by initiation into the New Covenant by baptism) were committed to bring up their children in the faith. Faithful Christians would never raise their children in bad habits and wickedness!

 

[guanophore]

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.

…

Then there is a flaw in your reasoning, Atemi. Although the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was taught by Jesus and the Apostles, the understanding of it was still being worked out in the minds of the Fathers for centuries. If these things did not need to be worked out, why would Paul tell us to work them out?

 

[onenow1]

Hi, Atemi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atemi
Because I do not base my faith on the often contradictory positions of men long dead but on the living Word of God.

Agreed Atemi, in light of the words of Jesus himself and these are his words. Matthew. 28: 19, “Go therefore make disciples of all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy spirit.” The only qualifier I see in this qoute is [baptize all nations.] I do believe nations include infants as well as adults.

Peace, OneNow1

 

[guanophore]

If infant baptism was not commanded by the Apostles for Christian babies, then we can all be content to understand that infant baptism is not Apostolic doctrine.

Technically it was commanded by Jesus:

Matt 28:19-20
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

So it was promulgated by the Apostles according to His command. At what point does one begin to teach a child the commandments of God? From the very beginning, of course! From having such a one initiated into the covenant by birth, then training them up in the way they should go, observing of God’s commandments.

RC idea of Original Sin to begin with…the whole reason for infant baptism.
…

Do you reject the idea of Original Sin?