K
Kei
Guest
Didn’t you make another post like this?
Last edited:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
A
amerscot51
Guest
Your History is incorrect, see Council of Niacea 325 AD Infant Baptism instituted there is no record of Infant Baptism before 325, 516 AD your Church called Holy Roman Catholic Church by Tertullian. Your Doctrine is only 1700 years old, Catholic Pope John Paul in His first address admitted Catholic Church started Trinity God Head and Baptism. Catholic Encyclopedia clearly states First Church Baptism was in Jesus Name and there is no Biblical record of an infant being Baptized, any and all twisting of Scripture cannot prove any different. Unless of course you know more then John Paul and the Historians that have recorded the facts over and over. I recommend a closer study of your own Church History and two Aspirin.
Last edited:
I
Isearch
Guest
Not everything is in the bible. Your version of bible alone is self contradictory as the bible never mentioned that scriptures alone are inspired.
Last edited:
V
Vico
Guest
Jesus gave the command to baptize all: Matt. 28:19.Infant Baptism was began in the Year 325 AD and is not valid according to Scripture which says one must first repent (Acts 2:38 as stated by the Apostle Peter ) before Baptism is administered and then by emersion only by definition Baptize Greek Baptiso to Emerce. Infants obviously cannot repent though born in Sin or to say the Adam Nature that we all inherit at birth. When one is Buried they are covered with Dirt not sprinkled with it otherwise the Scripture that says we are buried with Him is of none effect and invalid. The Water is a type of the Grave that’s why first Believers were Baptiso/Emerced completely. Peter also says Baptised for the Remission or Washing away of Sin, this is where The Lords Blood is applied, First forgiveness ( Repentance) then Remission be Baptiso/ Emerced in the Name of Jesus Christ for the Remission of Sin Acts 2:38 also see Acts 4:12, Acts 10 and Acts 19. Only examples of Actual first Church Baptism is found in the first 19 Chapters of Acts.
Mathew 28:19 What to do.
Acts 2:38 How to do.
There is no evidence in Scripture that infants were ever Baptized.
Salvation is another issue.
Paul compares Baptism to circumcision which is done for infants. Col. 2:11,12
All the family were baptized at once per Acts. 16:33.
Jesus Christ said little ones believe in him: Matt. 18:6
A
amerscot51
Guest
Wow! By your own admission you use man made tradition for Doctrine, 2 Tim 3.16 to be reasonable my concern is all aborted Baby’s especially those aborted at full term by the awful practice of the heathen that do such things would condemn these non baptized to eternal punishment, Our God Jesus Christ is not into punishment of the innocent nor am I suggesting that you are it just make sense that they have no need of baptism because they’ve never had a choice, if it makes their parents feel better then that is good but later realization of self, sin and the need for Jesus in ones life is of much higher importance . To sum it up in my opinion as the Scripture says: Romans 3. 4-7 explains it well. I pray in Jesus Name a Blessing of a Spirit of Revelation be yours Dear Brother and if I by any means have offended you I pray your forgiveness.
Last edited:
A
amerscot51
Guest
P. S. I never used Scripture alone in my explanation but have referred to Church History as well, the further we are removed from History the more convoluted the facts can become that is why History is so important to help establish the facts giving a clearer picture, a closer look at the practices of the Church before man added labels and man made practice and doctrine is a real eye opener.
Last edited:
W
Wesrock
Guest
Tertullian lived in the 200s, not the 500s. You were already provided with quotes with dates from the Early Church Fathers attesting to infant baptism as an established practice received from the apostles well before Nicea.Your History is incorrect, see Council of Niacea 325 AD Infant Baptism instituted there is no record of Infant Baptism before 325, 516 AD your Church called Holy Roman Catholic Church by Tertullian. Your Doctrine is only 1700 years old, Catholic Pope John Paul in His first address admitted Catholic Church started Trinity God Head and Baptism. Catholic Encyclopedia clearly states First Church Baptism was in Jesus Name and there is no Biblical record of an infant being Baptized, any and all twisting of Scripture cannot prove any different. Unless of course you know more then John Paul and the Historians that have recorded the facts over and over. I recommend a closer study of your own Church History and two Aspirin.
Last edited:
T
tafan2
Guest
You make claims to history and scripture, but provide no references.
W
Wesrock
Guest
Ante-Nicene quotes regarding infant baptism. Some of these were already posted, but I will do so again with different formatting.
Irenaeus of Lyons: 189 AD
“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” ( Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).
“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]” ( Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).
Hippolytus: 215 AD
“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” ( The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
Origen: 248 AD
“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” ( Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).
“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” ( Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).
Continied in next post…
Irenaeus of Lyons: 189 AD
“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” ( Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).
“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]” ( Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).
Hippolytus: 215 AD
“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” ( The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
Origen: 248 AD
“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” ( Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).
“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” ( Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).
Continied in next post…
Last edited:
W
Wesrock
Guest
Cyprian of Carthage: 253 AD
“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” ( Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).
“If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” (ibid., 64:5).
“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” ( Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).
“If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” (ibid., 64:5).
Last edited:
I
Isearch
Guest
You are missing the fact that the early Christians differ on what writings are scriptures. I admit the Gospels were unanimously accepted by them, but books such as the Old Testament deuterocanonicals, the book of revelation, the letter of Jude, and others were still contested. The very Christians you accuse of adding traditions to scriptures were the ones who decided the list of the New Testament today. And the way you use scriptures is an oddity that started in the Puritans and the ridiculous restorationist movements. The sola scriptura proposed by Luther was simply elevating Scripture to be the final judge of doctrines, not this kind of sola scriptura you are utilizing. Your sola scriptura can’t help you reconcile the apparent contradictions in the Gospels and in Acts (e.g. the manner of the death of Judas and the date of the Last Supper). You need Tradition to solve that.
Last edited:
I
Isearch
Guest
In other words, your positions on what scriptures are and their use are not found in the early church. You should be grateful to those who “added traditions to the bible”. They are the ones who gave you the final edition of the New Testament.
A
amerscot51
Guest
Thank you for observation could have gotten my names crossed but years and events are correct. I’ve seen nothing written about Church Fathers especially in Scripture that supports your claim but like I said if it makes people feel better to baptize they’re children that’s fine but I support that all infants are saved baptized or not if they die at an early age.
Last edited:
W
Wesrock
Guest
The Early Church Fathers were Christian bishops, priests, and theologians writing between the first century AD and the Council of Nicea. They wouldn’t be in scripture. It’d be like a protestant studying Martin Luther or Calvin’s writings – they’re not in scripture either. The ECFs are a source of what Christians did and believed in the primitive and early Church, because they lived in that time.Thank you for observation could have gotten my names crossed but years and events are correct. I’ve seen nothing written about Church Fathers especially in Scripture that supports your claim but like I said if it makes people feel better to baptize they’re children that’s fine but I support that all infants are saved baptized or not if they die at an early age.
T
TNMan
Guest
Don’t lump all protestants together on this. It’s mainly just non-denom, Pentecostal, and Baptists that believe this way.
I was baptized in the Methodist church as an infant. I grew up in the Presbyterian Church and they practice infant baptism. I’m now LCMS Lutheran and we as well practice infant baptism (having my daughter baptized in June!)
Now, I think the Methodists and the Presbyterians may think of it more symbolically, but Lutherans and Catholics are pretty close on their beliefs on baptism.
I was baptized in the Methodist church as an infant. I grew up in the Presbyterian Church and they practice infant baptism. I’m now LCMS Lutheran and we as well practice infant baptism (having my daughter baptized in June!)
Now, I think the Methodists and the Presbyterians may think of it more symbolically, but Lutherans and Catholics are pretty close on their beliefs on baptism.
C
CatholicSooner
Guest
There are tons of sources of the early church fathers that support infant baptism in this very thread.
K
Kei
Guest
A council defines a thing not to ‘create’ some new doctrine, but defend the true doctrine as was passed on from the apostles. They typically are called to address confusion or heresy.
The Council of Nicea was called to defeat the Arian heresy, not address baptism, which as has been demonstrated was long practiced before 325. I don’t think baptism of infants was on the queue of things worked on, though I believe they condemned the certain rite of baptism of a certain heresy.
The Church was established by Christ but was illegal and “underground”, so to speak, but we still have many writings from the early Christians and records of synods, etc. The Council of Nicea was the first after Christianity was made legal throughout the land and was the first really big ecumenical council.
I dunno where you are getting your facts, but they are not trustworthy as you have said many things that are simply untrue, and demonstrably so. It sounds like it is likely from propoganda-like anti-Catholic sources that don’t accurately portray facts so as to skew one’s perception of history.
The Council of Nicea was called to defeat the Arian heresy, not address baptism, which as has been demonstrated was long practiced before 325. I don’t think baptism of infants was on the queue of things worked on, though I believe they condemned the certain rite of baptism of a certain heresy.
The Church was established by Christ but was illegal and “underground”, so to speak, but we still have many writings from the early Christians and records of synods, etc. The Council of Nicea was the first after Christianity was made legal throughout the land and was the first really big ecumenical council.
I dunno where you are getting your facts, but they are not trustworthy as you have said many things that are simply untrue, and demonstrably so. It sounds like it is likely from propoganda-like anti-Catholic sources that don’t accurately portray facts so as to skew one’s perception of history.
A
amerscot51
Guest
Catholic Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Brittanica, any resource that speaks of
Emperor Constantine, History Channel has a good Documentary about him, look for any source that tells what was adopted at the Council of Niacia 325 AD, I think it safe to say that there were people already putting into practice what’s been discussed here. As far as Scripture reference is concerned I’ve seen nothing that supports a claim for infant Baptism, Acts 2:38,39 were offered but were used completely out of context to try to prove the point, there is no mention anywhere in Acts that speaks of infant Baptism, not to worry because it is of course no Sin to do so. A real danger in my point of view is that a child will be told your OK leading perhaps to the individual never seeking a deeper and more personal relationship with Our Lord.
Emperor Constantine, History Channel has a good Documentary about him, look for any source that tells what was adopted at the Council of Niacia 325 AD, I think it safe to say that there were people already putting into practice what’s been discussed here. As far as Scripture reference is concerned I’ve seen nothing that supports a claim for infant Baptism, Acts 2:38,39 were offered but were used completely out of context to try to prove the point, there is no mention anywhere in Acts that speaks of infant Baptism, not to worry because it is of course no Sin to do so. A real danger in my point of view is that a child will be told your OK leading perhaps to the individual never seeking a deeper and more personal relationship with Our Lord.
Last edited:
W
Wesrock
Guest
We read of whole families and households being baptized and no prohibition on infant baptism. The testimony of the early Church shows that they baptized infants and believed that to have been passed down by the apostles. And we know that God instructed that newborns be brought into Abraham’s covenant and people.Catholic Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Brittanica, any resource that speaks of
Emperor Constantine, History Channel has a good Documentary about him, look for any source that tells what was adopted at the Council of Niacia 325 AD, I think it safe to say that there were people already putting into practice what’s been discussed here. As far as Scripture reference is concerned I’ve seen nothing that supports a claim for infant Baptism, Acts 2:38,39 were offered but were used completely out of context to try to prove the point, there is no mention anywhere in Acts that speaks of infant Baptism, not to worry because it is of course no Sin to do so. A real danger in my point of view is that a child will be told your OK leading perhaps to the individual never seeking a deeper and more personal relationship with Our Lord.
C
Crocus
Guest
@amerscot51 you are on a Catholic site. The answers given are Catholic Answers about the sacraments administered to Catholics. Please be respectful.
In all charity, I ask you to scroll back to @(name removed by moderator), post #14 and read the link. Particular attention to the explanations around John 3, verses 3 and 5.
In all charity, I ask you to scroll back to @(name removed by moderator), post #14 and read the link. Particular attention to the explanations around John 3, verses 3 and 5.
John 3: 3 Jesus answered him, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. 6 What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.