A
Atemi
Guest
Is this supposed to be news?
I am indebted to my Lord.
They were Catholics.
Many of the Reformers brought a lot of baggage with them.
…
- Status
Many of the Reformers brought a lot of baggage with them.
…
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
REFUTATIONS OF ATEMI’S STATEMENTS
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.]).
“And first baptize the little ones; and if they can speak for themselves, they shall do so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for them.” (*The Apostolic Tradition *21:16 [A.D. 215]).
“For this also it was that the Church had from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants.” (Commentary on Romans 5:9)
“Infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins.” (Homily on Luke 14)
Cyprian (215-258 A.D.)
“Should we wait until the 8th day as did the Jews in the circumcision? No, the child should be baptized as soon as it is born.”
, some not until their deathbed. This was the teaching and practice of the church.****” Basil
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.]).
was teaching all these Christians to put off their baptism when many were already born and raised in Christian homes?”Good question. Who was teaching this? Have you found any writings or Church documents to this effect? We are very eager to read your supporting material.
** Hippolytus (170-236 AD)**
“And first baptize the little ones; and if they can speak for themselves, they shall do so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for them.” (*The Apostolic Tradition *21:16 [A.D. 215]).
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.”Origen (185-254 A.D.)
“For this also it was that the Church had from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants.” (Commentary on Romans 5:9)
“Infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins.” (Homily on Luke 14)
Cyprian (215-258 A.D.)
“Should we wait until the 8th day as did the Jews in the circumcision? No, the child should be baptized as soon as it is born.”
? At the Council of Carthage in 254, the 66 bishops stated: “We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God…especially infants…those newly born.”
.Why not? A bunch of folks made up sola scriptura and sola fide and a host of other heretical ideas. You must be familiar with this practice of making up theology to suite your fancy…
The opposite is the case…”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.”
Kinda sad. This has become a rout.
A
Atemi
Guest
And I have already shown that Basil himself delayed baptism, and his pious partents did the same for him.
Did they make this up?
No. The source I supplied showed clearly that it was the normal action of pious parents to put off baptising their children.
I wonder where they ever learned such a thing.
Hmmm…
There was NONE.
Even the Romans were hip to the practice of delaying baptism.
No attack upon the regular and accepted practice of delaying baptism here.
You keep forgetting that this widespread practice was accepted by the church, and it fostered it.
And when Origen wrote this, they were still delaying baptism all throughout the church.
Great.
And you do not even believe this yourself!
How did you think it would convince me?
Quoting a false teaching that your own church rejects is silly.
First of all, this was a local council without any kind of jurisdiction over the whole church.
Secondly, this just allows infant baptism, not mandates it like your church does today.
Thirdly, there is no condemnation of delayed baptism which was the regular practice of pious people of the age.
Fourthly, can you link to this council where you got this so we can all read it for oursleves and see the context?
Thank for the insult to myself and the early believers who did this with the approval of the church of their day.
If you must now stoop to personal insults, Randy, I guess I should have not been so naive.
So we are to suppose that the introduction of infant baptism would cause a “violent protest” from the church, but the introduction of delayed baptism outside of the supposed Apostolic witness would not?
LOL, Randy.
This cannot be taken seriously.
I am sorry.
…
C
clmowry
Guest
Finally something I can agree with.
M
mikeledes
Guest
Aw shucks, you don’t have to be so friendly.
That is not a convincing argument at all.
They got rid of a lot of Catholic “baggage,” they could have easily gotten rid of infant baptism. Besides, there are Protestants today who believe infant baptism is clearly supported by Scripture and cite the early church fathers for historical evidence. Why do they see it and you don’t?
God Bless,
Michael
M
mikeledes
Guest
The fact that some chose to postpone their baptism does not mean that infant baptism was not a normative practice or that they did not believe it was handed down by the apostles.
God Bless,
Michael
God Bless,
Michael
A
Atemi
Guest
My response was not unfriendly.
You post such things as if they are news. They are not.
If you understood the underlying theology of the Reformers, it would be.
Yes, but they did not, as they did not with much sacramentalism and Marianism.
Because I do not base my faith on the often contradictory positions of men long dead but on the living Word of God.
…
A
Atemi
Guest
I never argued that it was not a practice during certain eras.
Obviously, the mandate to baptise infants was not handed down by the Apostles, however, as can be plainly seen from church history.
…
M
mikeledes
Guest
You are working under the assumption that “sacramentalism” is unbiblical. In the eyes of the Reformers and their modern day counterparts it is not.
So did the Reformers. Ask a modern day Luthern or Calvinist and they will tell you the same. Why should I put greater weight to your claim over their claims?
God Bless,
Michael
M
mikeledes
Guest
The “plainly seen from church history” you have yet to establish. There are plenty of Catholic, Orthodox,Protestant (Lutheran, Calvinist), and secular historians that will tell you otherwise.
God Bless,
Michael
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Basil could not control whether his parents baptized him as a child.
But he obviously did not wait until the end of his life since you yourself have documented that he was baptized at 27. This is a far cry from a deathbed baptism which you seem to think was the teaching of the Church.
27, Atemi. Not 37, not 47, not 57, not 67, not 77…and we know clearly what Basil thought and taught since WE have documentation.
We’re also still waiting for your source material, Atemi.
You must have read this somewhere, Atemi. Please provide the source material or references to Early Church Fathers or Church documents, please.
You must have read this somewhere, Atemi. Please provide the source material or references to Early Church Fathers or Church documents, please.
You must have read this somewhere, Atemi. Please provide the source material or references to Early Church Fathers or Church documents, please.
I have no idea what you are talking about. The Church has no problem with infants being baptized quickly after birth. Your posts are taking on the tone of wild ranting.
He asks for examples of official Church teaching and then dismisses it.
I am sorry if you feel insulted by the plain truth. Protestantism is largely the result of man-made tradition and self-interpretation divorced from the true revelation of God. I do you no favors if I pretend it is not so.
Well, duh. Think this through, okay?
What does baptism do? It washes away the stain of sin. Now, who wouldn’t want to die knowing that all sin would be dealt with? So, people erroneously held off baptism so they could “have some wordly fun” and still get cleaned up in time to get into heaven. This is EXACTLY what Basil said: "The true motive for delay is a desire to indulge yourself in evil. "
Your laughter sounds nervous to me.
Me, too.
And I will waste no more time on this topic with you.
You have been answered, and you know it.
The last word is yours.
R
rtconstant
Guest
OK, so trying once more to make sure I’m getting everything strait here. Let me review what has been established.
for the argument of the regular practice of Infant baptism in the early Church:
Several statements by ECF’s {including the man who the thread is named after) and a Church council in the 200’s.
Against the argument of the regular practice of Infant baptism:
Statements by Tertulian in support of holding off on baptism until near death so as to take advantage of the free cleansing of sins so one was garaunteed Heaven.
Did I leave anything out?
for the argument of the regular practice of Infant baptism in the early Church:
Several statements by ECF’s {including the man who the thread is named after) and a Church council in the 200’s.
Against the argument of the regular practice of Infant baptism:
Statements by Tertulian in support of holding off on baptism until near death so as to take advantage of the free cleansing of sins so one was garaunteed Heaven.
Did I leave anything out?
N
NotWorthy
Guest
RT, you forgot (in the “for” column) the proven practice of the early Church of Infant Baptism as early as 90AD.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
And further back in the book of Acts.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
You and I know that, but are friends from across the river don’t accept that.
When Jesus argued with Sadducees, He only used the Pentateuch. I try and follow the same tactic.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
E
El_camino
Guest
Atemi, this is my last post to you, as you contradict yourself in all that you have said.
For instance, you said that the Didache did not say anything about the unbaptized not being able to received the Eucharist, which just shows that YOU had not read the Didache, even though you appealed to it to attacked the Eucharist. This backfired at you, because the DIDACHE does clearly say that the unbaptized could not receive the Eucharist, which shows that the writer(s) of the Didache did not consider the Eucharist to be mere symbolism. When confronted with the direct quote of the didache, you dodged it until you ended up saying: “That means that that is law forever and ever?”
When asked to be honest and behave like a good Christian recognizing that you were wrong when you said that the didache did not say anything about the unbaptized not being able to receive the Eucharist you said that that is childish. Quite interesting that you may find honesty to be childish.
Now, you come an say that what ccel say about infant baptism (except for the Ireneaus part) is something you agree with???
Come on!!
This is what ccel says:
Do you agree with that?
Basically they say that Tertullian is the ONLY church father that OPPOSED infant baptism and they assert exactly what we have been telling you about JUSTIN MARTYR. He was addressing ADULTS only. Same with many citations in the BIBLE. It is for adult baptism that the personal acceptance and repentance is needed. CCEL agrees with this. Do you agree with them?
THe very last point that ccel makes is excelent. The fact that Tertullian was a staunch opposer of infant baptism shows that it was well establish in the 2nd CENTURY, and again, in spite his strong opposition he does not even hint at it being a postapostolic innovation.
Do you agree with these comments they make?
We have been debating all these topics already, and I know that I have posed to you the very same arguments ccel poses and you have rejected them. But now you come and say that you agree with them??? You sound like John Kerry, who would change his position at his convenience.
I cannot maintain an exchange with someone who lacks objetivity and changes arguments like a chameleon changes color. You seem to be doing this just for love of dispute rather than edification.
Anyway,
Blessings,
E.C.
C
Contarini
Guest
And that’s because you do not have even an elementary understanding of fourth-century Christianity. Constantine was not fully converted until his baptism. No way would he have been allowed to receive the Eucharist.
That’s a ludicrous claim. We know perfectly well that only the baptized were allowed to receive the Eucharist. That is common knowledge about the early Church and if you knew anything about it you would know that. If an exception was made for Constantine, then *you *are responsible for providing the evidence for it.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
And just how is this an argument against infant baptism?
But it’s a threat on infant baptism. You were apparently making an argument about the general question of infant baptism. You can’t narrow yourself down to the “RC” version, because all the traditions that baptize infants rely on the same ancient tradition. Attack one, and you have to deal with them all.
This thread is about early Christian practice. If you choose to believe that the early Christians stopped following Scripture before the ink was dry on the page, then that’s your problem. But you are bringing this in now simply to distract from the point at hand. You did not answer my argument, presumably because you have no answer.
As it stands, this is gibberish. Don’t you mean “adult/believer’s baptism was allowed in the early Church”? Of course most people coming in were adult converts–that is the point I have been making. That adequately explains your alleged evidence from Justin Martyr. You have not provided one example of the child of Christian parents receiving baptism as an adult in the second century–presumably those who agreed with Tertullian were doing this at least by the end of the century, but we have no actual record of it. We do on the other hand have implicit evidence that Polycarp was baptized as an infant, and some of the folks on this board have provided evidence from the catacombs showing that infants were being baptized very early (I do not know how solid this latter argument is–I will let you have that out with the person who provided the evidence).
No one is arguing that “believer’s baptism” was not allowed in the early Church–RCs and other paedobaptist churches still baptize adult converts to this day! That should be obvious.
The question before us is twofold:
- Was there a widespread practice before the time of Constantine (outside ultra-rigorist circles represented by people like Tertullian) of children born to Christian parents being baptized as adolescents or adults? I am not aware of any evidence for this. I will not claim that it was not the case, but until you can provide evidence that baptism was being delayed (in the form of references to the adult baptism of those brought up as Christians, such as abound in the fourth century) you cannot build any argument on it. It is possible that infant baptism was universal until Tertullian questioned it.
- If, as you claim, both practices were common in the 2nd-3rd centuries, what does this say about the early Church’s theology of baptism? We agree that the post-Augustinian theology of original sin was not in place. I have argued that a mixed practice (assuming this to be the case even though you have not provided evidence for it) is best explained by the presence of two conflicting imperatives:
a. the normative necessity of baptism for regeneration, deliverance from evil, and eternal life, even in the absence of a clear doctrine of original sin; and
b. the dangers of post-baptismal sin.
You have declined to provide any rationale for why Christian parents sometimes baptized infants during this period, but have insisted that whatever this rationale was it can’t possibly have had anything to do with modern “RC” theology. This is irrational. Meanwhile we do know (from Tertullian) the reason why infants were sometimes *not *baptized, and it is not one that modern advocates of “believer’s baptism” would endorse in any way.
Lots of things had not been settled by the whole Church in a formal way. I don’t see what you are going to base on this. If you think this refutes the supposition that the household baptisms of the New Testament included infants, then I disagree. You are supposing that every apostolic practice was universally known and followed. I find that supposition to be unjustified.
There is evidence for Rome exercising some kind of leadership, from 1 Clement through Ignatius’s “presiding in charity” to the Quartodeciman controversy. . . but of course it wasn’t “at the helm” in the sense of trying to micromanage every issue. No one claims it was–not even the RCs!
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
It has been pointed out to you over and over that Justin is clearly addressing prospective converts (he was a convert himself, after all) and specifically mentions the people being baptized having an ungodly upbringing. There is no good reason to assume that his words exclude the legitimacy of infant baptism.
No, I’m saying that many issues were worked out slowly over time, and this was one of them. Rigorism was very common in the early Church–perhaps we have gone too far from it today. But eventually it was rejected, at least in its extreme forms.
Even the RCs do not deny that there have been times when less than fully orthodox practices have been very common in the Church. You are as usual attacking a straw man.
Then why on earth are you on this thread? This thread has “Justin Martyr” very clearly at the head of it. If you aren’t interested in discussing ancient Christian belief and practice, why get involved in a thread on Justin Martyr? And if you are going to talk about a highly hypothetical rejection of infant baptism in Justin, then it’s fair game to talk about why other Christians (as you admit) clearly did baptize infants at this time. Your argument fails utterly unless you are willing to tackle this.
Irrelevant to what? The point of this thread is not to prove the RCC true, but to discuss whether Justin Martyr rejected infant baptism or not. As you point out, this is of interest to many of us other than RCs.
But this thread is about second-century Christianity!
Mildly Augustinian terms, yes. What is the problem with that? You are, again, avoiding the issue–that baptism was always seen as the means of regeneration, and Augustine simply provided an additional urgency by fleshing out a doctrine of original sin. Your dichotomy between “modern RC” doctrine and the theology of the second century will not work, particularly since you refuse to discuss what that theology was, except selectively when it suits your purposes!
This thread is discussing Justin Martyr’s view of baptism, and that is of relevance to all of us. Your clumsy “divide and conquer” tactic will not work. All traditional Christians are together on this one.
No, your interpretation of Justin Martyr is pure conjecture. If Polycarp was not baptized as an infant, when did he start serving Christ? It’s a simple question.
This is probably the subject for another thread, but I’m interested in what you mean by that. It’s good to see you finally grappling with the early Church’s theology as a whole rather than simply picking out highly speculative arguments from silence that happen to suit your purposes.
In Christ,
Edwin
- Status