Non-Catholics - What does the word "Sacrament" mean to you?

[Anna_Scott]

. . . . .I am still quite amazed by the description of Baptism as the “circumcision made without hands.” The passage, in Colossians Chapter 2, lends understanding regarding the Baptism of infants. As circumcision was performed on the 8th day, so also, was Baptism performed on the 8th day—Circumcision being under the Old Covenant, and Baptism under the New Covenant. . . . .

Anna if you don’t mind explaining the infant baptism thing to me. I think you pointed out in Colossians 2 but I can’t see how it is interpreted. Thanks

Roblox84,

The passage of Scripture is from Colossians Chapter 2:

Colossians 2: 8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

9For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

Notice in verses 11-12, we are told in Christ we are circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism.

See Third Day’s Quote from the Thread entitled, “The Apostolic Origins of Infant Baptism.”
Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=405859&page=2

In Covenant Theology entire families are brought into the covenant. Entire Jewish families were brought into the old covenant. Males by circumcision, females by the faith of their father.

In the New Covenant, baptism replace circumcision. As Paul states baptism is the circumcision of Christ. ( Colossians 2:11). The New Covenant baptism was better than circumcision because no one is denied baptism " For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew or Greek, there is neither slave no free, ther is neither male nor female, for you are all in Christ Jesus " (Galatians 3:27-28). . . . .

. . . . . .Acts 12:38-39 Repent and be baptized every one of you…for the promise is to you and to your children". This speech was made in front of thousands of Jews who circumcised their children into the old covenent. Their children would likewise be baptized into the new covenant. The Greek word here for children is “teknon” which is also used here in Acts 21:21 “and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children (teknon) of observe the customs”

See my quote from the Thread entitled, “Protestants: Sinner’s Prayer-What must it say and does it assure Salvation?”
Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=431456

. . . . .I am realizing that Baptism does impart certain graces, including the forgiveness of sin. I met with the Episcopal Priest, yesterday (I’ve been visiting a conservative Episcopal Church.) His explanation of Baptism was very similar to yours, both for adults and for infants; and seems much in line with the quotes you gave from CCC.

The Episcopal Book of Common Prayer describes the “inward and spiritual grace in Baptism” as “the union with Christ in his death and resurrection, birth into God’s family the Church, forgiveness of sins, and new life in the Holy Spirit.”

The Priest explained that just as circumcision was performed when an infant was 8 days old, Baptisms were performed on the 8th day as well. Circumcision was done under the Old Covenant. Baptism is done to bring one into the New Covenant.

I’m sure Catholic forum members can explain the connection between Circumcision and Baptism better than I can, as this is new to me.

Even though I have read the New Testament cover to cover; I missed this and other passages that speak of Graces imparted through Baptism. My oversight of these critical passages speaks volumes about the power of Protestant indoctrination. When you are told something long enough, it is easy to miss the truth, even when it is right in from of you.

I hope this helps. Perhaps, SteveVH can give more details.

Working out my salvation in fear and trembling (never a truer statement.)
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna, thanks for all your research and your comments. You know, I never ceased to be amazed at the different meanings and interpretations of scripture by different denominations. Just look at the Mormon and JW view of scripture. I really think that it boils down to approaching scripture with a pre-conceived notion and then bending, twisting and omitting verses to support that position. In other words, We KNOW that X is true, therefore this verse can’t mean what people think it means.

We need to let scripture speak to us rather than the other way around. It is the reason we need to have one, authentic and authoritative interpreter and that is precisely what we believe we have with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Scripture does not interpret itself and I know, after listening to people who know a lot more than I, that I have no way of understanding the language and culture of biblical times to make a valid interpretation. I am very often surprised at how far off I am when I finally learn the truth.
It’s why Jesus started a Church on earth and didn’t just say “good luck”.

Thanks for the great post.

Steve,

It seems like many of my posts, these days, reveal a “real-time” unraveling of false doctrines drilled into me by the Baptist Church. It’s as if God is working on me with a chisel. I’m humbled and grateful, but it’s rough. Stay tuned. I have a long way to go.

Anna

 

[TriuneUnity]

Steve,

It seems like many of my posts, these days, reveal a “real-time” unraveling of false doctrines drilled into me by the Baptist Church. It’s as if God is working on me with a chisel. I’m humbled and grateful, but it’s rough. Stay tuned. I have a long way to go.

Anna

Glad He is, Anna. Not that you were less Christian when you were Baptist…But looking at baptism as God’s grace to undeserving sinners, that quickens them to life… sure changes one’s view of salvation as wholly the work of God.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Great post Triune.

Danke schoen!

 

[TriuneUnity]

So, I take it that you were a Catholic Christian at one time?

This is an interesting statement. Before I was Catholic (when I was Protestant) I experienced God as distant, but personal. Now I experience, as a Cartholic, that God is super-personal and interpersonal; in fact, that is what the Catholic doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity is all about. Like St. Augustine said of the Trinity, “God is Lover, Beloved, and the Love they share.” God is, literally, a Communion.

What church did you belong to when Protestant, if I may ask?

 

[SteveVH]

Roblox84,

The passage of Scripture is from Colossians Chapter 2:

Colossians 2: 8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

9For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

Notice in verses 11-12, we are told in Christ we are circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism.

See Third Day’s Quote from the Thread entitled, “The Apostolic Origins of Infant Baptism.”
Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=405859&page=2

See my quote from the Thread entitled, “Protestants: Sinner’s Prayer-What must it say and does it assure Salvation?”
Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=431456

I’m sure Catholic forum members can explain the connection between Circumcision and Baptism better than I can, as this is new to me.

Even though I have read the New Testament cover to cover; I missed this and other passages that speak of Graces imparted through Baptism. My oversight of these critical passages speaks volumes about the power of Protestant indoctrination. When you are told something long enough, it is easy to miss the truth, even when it is right in from of you.

I hope this helps. Perhaps, SteveVH can give more details.

Working out my salvation in fear and trembling (never a truer statement.)
Anna

I’m almost afraid to say anything. What a great explanation. Circumcision was the sign of the Old Covenant, a sign of incorporation into Abraham’s family. All covenants signify a familial relationship. Baptism signifies the New Covenant and accomplishes entrance into the family of God; we become daughters and sons of Him. Circumcision prefigures Baptism.

Anna, you have chosen some great verses to demonstrate your point. I found a couple of writings from the early Church that address infant Baptism:

St. Hippolytus of Rome (c. 215 AD) “Baptize first the chidren; and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them.”
(The Apostolic Tradition 21) (This also lends itself to the profession of faith being necessary as we previously discussed).

Origen (post 244 AD) "The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants. (Commentary on Romans 5, 9)

Thanks so much for your (name removed by moderator)ut here.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna, thanks for all your research and your comments. You know, I never ceased to be amazed at the different meanings and interpretations of scripture by different denominations. Just look at the Mormon and JW view of scripture. I really think that it boils down to approaching scripture with a pre-conceived notion and then bending, twisting and omitting verses to support that position. In other words, We KNOW that X is true, therefore this verse can’t mean what people think it means.

We need to let scripture speak to us rather than the other way around. It is the reason we need to have one, authentic and authoritative interpreter and that is precisely what we believe we have with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Scripture does not interpret itself and I know, after listening to people who know a lot more than I, that I have no way of understanding the language and culture of biblical times to make a valid interpretation. I am very often surprised at how far off I am when I finally learn the truth.
It’s why Jesus started a Church on earth and didn’t just say “good luck”.

Thanks for the great post.

Glad He is, Anna. Not that you were less Christian when you were Baptist…But looking at baptism as God’s grace to undeserving sinners, that quickens them to life… sure changes one’s view of salvation as wholly the work of God.

TriuneUnity,

You are very kind.

It is a blessing to receive God’s “chiseling.” I am amazed by His great love for us, and by His patience. I’ve fallen off the path so many times. Sometimes, I envision God looking down at me saying, “What in the world is she doing this time.” Of course He knows the answer, and sends his rescue squad. I’ve been carried back to “the path” many times.

Anna

 

[TriuneUnity]

TriuneUnity,

You are very kind.

It is a blessing to receive God’s “chiseling.” I am amazed by His great love for us, and by His patience. I’ve fallen off the path so many times. Sometimes, I envision God looking down at me saying, “What in the world is she doing this time.” Of course He knows the answer, and sends his rescue squad. I’ve been carried back to “the path” many times.

Anna

And Baptism is one of the means by which He carries you back! Drown the old Adam daily in your baptism

 

[Anna_Scott]

I’m almost afraid to say anything. What a great explanation. Circumcision was the sign of the Old Covenant, a sign of incorporation into Abraham’s family. All covenants signify a familial relationship. Baptism signifies the New Covenant and accomplishes entrance into the family of God; we become daughters and sons of Him. Circumcision prefigures Baptism.

Anna, you have chosen some great verses to demonstrate your point. I found a couple of writings from the early Church that address infant Baptism:

St. Hippolytus of Rome (c. 215 AD) “Baptize first the chidren; and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them.”
(The Apostolic Tradition 21) (This also lends itself to the profession of faith being necessary as we previously discussed).

Origen (post 244 AD) "The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants. (Commentary on Romans 5, 9)

Thanks so much for your (name removed by moderator)ut here.

Steve,

Appreciate your comments, and the quotes from St. Hippolytus and Origen. You made a very important point about covenants signifying “a familial relationship,” and I can see that Circumcision prefigures Baptism.

I’m wondering about the point, in history, in which infant Baptism was abandoned. I’m sure it would have changed as a result of the Protestant Reformation. I do need to research this.

Thanks for your help,
Anna

 

[TriuneUnity]

I’m wondering about the point, in history, in which infant Baptism was abandoned. I’m sure it would have changed as a result of the Protestant Reformation. I do need to research this.

Thanks for your help,
Anna

Infant baptism was rejected en masse by the Anabaptist movement in the early 1500s. There may have been sporadic individuals throughout history prior to that time, but I am unfamiliar with an entire sect that rejected it. I could be wrong.

I know that Tertullian advised to delay baptism and not to apply it to infants, but for wholly other reasons than what the Anabaptists asserted.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Infant baptism was rejected en masse by the Anabaptist movement in the early 1500s. There may have been sporadic individuals throughout history prior to that time, but I am unfamiliar with an entire sect that rejected it. I could be wrong.

I know that Tertullian advised to delay baptism and not to apply it to infants, but for wholly other reasons than what the Anabaptists asserted.

Thanks, Triune. This gives me a starting point.

I’m signing off. Goodnight all. :sad_bye:
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Infant baptism was rejected en masse by the Anabaptist movement in the early 1500s. There may have been sporadic individuals throughout history prior to that time, but I am unfamiliar with an entire sect that rejected it. I could be wrong.

I know that Tertullian advised to delay baptism and not to apply it to infants, but for wholly other reasons than what the Anabaptists asserted.

TriuneUnity,

Following your mention of Tertullian, I did a search and found a Catholic Apologetics site, which has a discussion between CHARLIE RAY and SEAN M. BROOKS, regarding whether or not Tertullian actually opposed infant Baptism. I don’t know these two men, but their discussion is very interesting.

Tertullian advised to delay infant Baptism. Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with Tertullian’s advisement to delay infant Baptism; it is clear that the Sacrament of Baptism was viewed as being very serious. How could one read Tertullian’s concerns; and then claim that Baptism (for infants or adults) is not a Sacrament, or that Baptism is purely symbolic?

Link: bringyou.to/apologetics/a110.htm
Partial Quote (Emphasis is mine):

Did Tertullian Reject Infant Baptism?

. . . . .Tertullian, treatise on BAPTISM 18,4 (c. AD 200-206)

"According to circumstance and disposition and even age of the individual person, **it may be better to delay Baptism; and especially so in the case of little children**. Why, indeed, is it necessary -- if it be not a case of necessity -- that the sponsors to be thrust into danger, when they themselves may fail to fulfill their promises by reason of death, or when they may be disappointed by the growth of an evil disposition? Indeed the Lord says, 'Do not forbid them to come to me' [Matt 19:14; Luke 18:16].

"Let them come, then, while they grow up, while they learn, while they are taught to whom to come; let them become Christians when they will have been able to know Christ! Why does the innocent age hasten to the remission of sins? ...For no less cause should the unmarried also be deferred, in whom there is an aptness to temptation -- in virgins on account of their ripeness as also in the widowed on account of their freedom -- until they are married or are better strengthened for continence. Anyone who understands the seriousness of Baptism will fear its reception more than its deferral. Sound faith is secure of its salvation!" . . . .

I will continue my studies. :coffeeread:

Thank you, TriuneUnity. As always, I appreciate the help from all my friends at CAF.

Anna

 

[TriuneUnity]

TriuneUnity,

Following your mention of Tertullian, I did a search and found a Catholic Apologetics site, which has a discussion between CHARLIE RAY and SEAN M. BROOKS, regarding whether or not Tertullian actually opposed infant Baptism. I don’t know these two men, but their discussion is very interesting.

Tertullian advised to delay infant Baptism. Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with Tertullian’s advisement to delay infant Baptism; it is clear that the Sacrament of Baptism was viewed as being very serious. How could one read Tertullian’s concerns; and then claim that Baptism (for infants or adults) is not a Sacrament, or that Baptism is purely symbolic?

Link: bringyou.to/apologetics/a110.htm
Partial Quote (Emphasis is mine):

Did Tertullian Reject Infant Baptism?

. . . . .Tertullian, treatise on BAPTISM 18,4 (c. AD 200-206)

"According to circumstance and disposition and even age of the individual person, **it may be better to delay Baptism; and especially so in the case of little children**. Why, indeed, is it necessary -- if it be not a case of necessity -- that the sponsors to be thrust into danger, when they themselves may fail to fulfill their promises by reason of death, or when they may be disappointed by the growth of an evil disposition? Indeed the Lord says, 'Do not forbid them to come to me' [Matt 19:14; Luke 18:16].

"Let them come, then, while they grow up, while they learn, while they are taught to whom to come; let them become Christians when they will have been able to know Christ! Why does the innocent age hasten to the remission of sins? ...For no less cause should the unmarried also be deferred, in whom there is an aptness to temptation -- in virgins on account of their ripeness as also in the widowed on account of their freedom -- until they are married or are better strengthened for continence. Anyone who understands the seriousness of Baptism will fear its reception more than its deferral. Sound faith is secure of its salvation!" . . . .

I will continue my studies. :coffeeread:

Thank you, TriuneUnity. As always, I appreciate the help from all my friends at CAF.

Anna

Baptists usually don’t refer to him precisely for that reason. Tertullian believed that baptism remitted sins… so he advised to delay it until older or even near to the point of death. Now, his opinion was idiotic and nonsensical. However, it does show, as you said, that the church has always been united on baptism as a means of God’s grace and the beginning of the Christian life.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Baptists usually don’t refer to him precisely for that reason. Tertullian believed that baptism remitted sins… so he advised to delay it until older or even near to the point of death. Now, his opinion was idiotic and nonsensical. However, it does show, as you said, that the church has always been united on baptism as a means of God’s grace and the beginning of the Christian life.

TriuneUnity,

I am amazed by the way Christianity has been “watered down,” to the point that all Sacraments are lost, as is the case with the Southern Baptist Churches. Ironically, the Southern Baptists claim Scripture as the source of their beliefs; yet, their beliefs are in direct contradiction to Scripture, even without the consideration of tradition.

Anna

 

[TriuneUnity]

TriuneUnity,

I am amazed by the way Christianity has been “watered down,” to the point that all Sacraments are lost, as is the case with the Southern Baptist Churches. Ironically, the Southern Baptists claim Scripture as the source of their beliefs; yet, their beliefs are in direct contradiction to Scripture, even without the consideration of tradition.

Anna

If I had to present a single reason why I am Lutheran, it would be the sacraments. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are for the weak. I need the sacraments because I am weak. I need what the sacraments give. In the sacraments I have “forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation.” In preaching, baptism, and the Eucharist the Word of God comes to me, and in the Eucharist the whole person of Christ is present and given for me. This is certainly the most difficult pill of Lutheran doctrine for other Protestants to swallow. Yet, the theology of the sacraments is far too vital for the life of Lutheran churches to be downplayed. The sacraments are means of grace by which the work of Christ is further mediated to us.

A theology of sacraments however is not optional for any denomination. When we reject those means of grace which God has identified, we substitute them with makeshift sacraments of our own device. Whether it is speaking in tongues, raising hands in worship, “personal devotions/quiet time”, evangelistic invitations/altar calls, churches are constantly building up extra-biblical sacraments by which they believe God dispenses grace.

To be Christ-centered is to be sacrament-centered (though the reverse is not necessarily true). If we want Christ alone, then we must seek him in those which God has chosen that he be found and not places of our own invention.

 

[SteveVH]

TriuneUnity,

Following your mention of Tertullian, I did a search and found a Catholic Apologetics site, which has a discussion between CHARLIE RAY and SEAN M. BROOKS, regarding whether or not Tertullian actually opposed infant Baptism. I don’t know these two men, but their discussion is very interesting.

Tertullian advised to delay infant Baptism. Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with Tertullian’s advisement to delay infant Baptism; it is clear that the Sacrament of Baptism was viewed as being very serious. How could one read Tertullian’s concerns; and then claim that Baptism (for infants or adults) is not a Sacrament, or that Baptism is purely symbolic?

Link: bringyou.to/apologetics/a110.htm
Partial Quote (Emphasis is mine):

Did Tertullian Reject Infant Baptism?

. . . . .Tertullian, treatise on BAPTISM 18,4 (c. AD 200-206)

"According to circumstance and disposition and even age of the individual person, **it may be better to delay Baptism; and especially so in the case of little children**. Why, indeed, is it necessary -- if it be not a case of necessity -- that the sponsors to be thrust into danger, when they themselves may fail to fulfill their promises by reason of death, or when they may be disappointed by the growth of an evil disposition? Indeed the Lord says, 'Do not forbid them to come to me' [Matt 19:14; Luke 18:16].

"Let them come, then, while they grow up, while they learn, while they are taught to whom to come; let them become Christians when they will have been able to know Christ! Why does the innocent age hasten to the remission of sins? ...For no less cause should the unmarried also be deferred, in whom there is an aptness to temptation -- in virgins on account of their ripeness as also in the widowed on account of their freedom -- until they are married or are better strengthened for continence. Anyone who understands the seriousness of Baptism will fear its reception more than its deferral. Sound faith is secure of its salvation!" . . . .

I will continue my studies. :coffeeread:

Thank you, TriuneUnity. As always, I appreciate the help from all my friends at CAF.

Anna

Anna, I’ve never seen this, thank you so much. If I am reading this correctly, Tertullian is concerned for those who make promises on behalf of the infant; that they would be in danger if they did not carry them out. Note that he says “if it not be a case of necessity”, in other words if the infant is not in danger of dying, I suppose. If it not be a case of necessity he want the responsibility of keeping Baptismal vows to fall on the baptized. I found his last comment very interesting, that “Anyone who understands the seriousness of Baptism will fear its reception more than its deferral”. While the Church did not agree with his assessment, I acutally see his point. As you said, at a minimum it demonstrates the seriousness with which the Church viewed the sacrament. Very interesting indeed.

 

[SteveVH]

It just occurred to me that we have people from various faith tradtions all seeking truth together rather than focusing on our differences. This is so refreshing to me and is the purpose of the forum. I just want to say thank you to all who are participating here with such charity and intellectual honesty. I have a theory that about 95% of our differences stem from miscommunication. That is the purpose of this thread. When we speak of Baptism or Communion, we rarely define our terms which is all important in attempting to communicate with one another. The same words mean completely different things to different faith traditions. We don’t have to agree, but maybe we can least understand each other. I pray that we continue in this spirit.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna, I’ve never seen this, thank you so much. If I am reading this correctly, Tertullian is concerned for those who make promises on behalf of the infant; that they would be in danger if they did not carry them out. Note that he says “if it not be a case of necessity”, in other words if the infant is not in danger of dying, I suppose. If it not be a case of necessity he want the responsibility of keeping Baptismal vows to fall on the baptized. I found his last comment very interesting, that “Anyone who understands the seriousness of Baptism will fear its reception more than its deferral”. While the Church did not agree with his assessment, I acutally see his point. As you said, at a minimum it demonstrates the seriousness with which the Church viewed the sacrament. Very interesting indeed.

Though I don’t agree with Tertullian; I do, also, see his point.

I think the most significant message we can claim from Tertullian’s concern, is the serious nature of the Sacrament of Baptism. Tertullian would have no such worry, if Baptism was believed to be purely symbolic. I know I am repeating what I said in my previous post; but the truth about the graces imparted during the Sacraments is new to me. I should have seen it long ago.

It just occurred to me that we have people from various faith tradtions all seeking truth together rather than focusing on our differences. This is so refreshing to me and is the purpose of the forum. I just want to say thank you to all who are participating here with such charity and intellectual honesty. I have a theory that about 95% of our differences stem from miscommunication. That is the purpose of this thread. When we speak of Baptism or Communion, we rarely define our terms which is all important in attempting to communicate with one another. The same words mean completely different things to different faith traditions. We don’t have to agree, but maybe we can least understand each other. I pray that we continue in this spirit.

It’s a great discussion Steve, with a rich exchange of ideas and beliefs. As you said, we may not agree on everything; but the posts do help us understand the different perspectives concerning the Sacraments. It is always refreshing to find respect and civility throughout a Thread.

I do wish Protestants, who do not believe in Sacraments, would participate. I looked back through the Thread. Most of the Posts are from Catholics, Lutherans, and Episcopal affiliation (me.) Publisher is Quaker; but posted only once and did not address the topic of the Sacraments. Cheese_sdc lists religion as “Cheesian”— I have no idea what “Cheesian” means, but the posts express views outside Orthodox Christianity.

Hopefully, others will join in.

Anna

 

[Matt_Macomber]

I’m almost afraid to say anything. What a great explanation. Circumcision was the sign of the Old Covenant, a sign of incorporation into Abraham’s family. All covenants signify a familial relationship. Baptism signifies the New Covenant and accomplishes entrance into the family of God; we become daughters and sons of Him. Circumcision prefigures Baptism.

Anna, you have chosen some great verses to demonstrate your point. I found a couple of writings from the early Church that address infant Baptism:

St. Hippolytus of Rome (c. 215 AD) “Baptize first the chidren; and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them.”
(The Apostolic Tradition 21) (This also lends itself to the profession of faith being necessary as we previously discussed).

Origen (post 244 AD) "The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants. (Commentary on Romans 5, 9)

Thanks so much for your (name removed by moderator)ut here.

From yours and Annas (name removed by moderator)ut the posts show that children were being baptized even before the bible and protestant churchs were around. So where do all the negative comments of babtizing children come from these day’s?

 

[Roblox84]

Infant baptism was rejected en masse by the Anabaptist movement in the early 1500s. There may have been sporadic individuals throughout history prior to that time, but I am unfamiliar with an entire sect that rejected it. I could be wrong.

I know that Tertullian advised to delay baptism and not to apply it to infants, but for wholly other reasons than what the Anabaptists asserted.

That’s very interesting. So who were these Anabaptists? Is this were today’s baptists, southern baptists, independent baptists, etc… come from? Also, do you know what was the reasoning for the rejection of infant baptism? Because from what I read in the previous post it was just some guy that wanted to delay it. Why did so many people choose to follow him after a thousand years of doing it another way?