Protestants, when did the Catholic Church go bad?

[Radical]

LOL! And I’ll give you the list of names of Christians who were baptized after only making a self-conscious decision and who were between ages 7-17 years old before the 4th century:

drum roll…what do we have behind curtain number one: A BIG FAT ZERO!

I guess you picked the wrong curtain…here is the first name for your list:

Marcianus. He lived 12 years, two months and some days. He was baptized on Sept 20 and died the next day. The inscription dates to 268 AD.

And Tertullian later also held to Montanism (believed unorthodox teachings) and is considered an ecclesiastical writer more than a church father…HHHMMMMM? THERE THAT HELP?

yep, Tertullian AKA the Father of Latin Theology, held to Montanism, after which he presented the doctrine of the Trinity, defended other traditions and opposed infant baptism…doesn’t sound like a guy who would reject something known to have been introduced by the Apostles.

 

[Radical]

There is archeological evidence of an infant who was baptised in the 1st C in the catacombs

E Ferguson puts the earliest depictions (of baptism) in the catacombs at about 200 AD (and its youths, not infants)….what is your reference?

Polycarp (69-155), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant. This enabled him to say at his martyrdom. “Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 9: 3).

notice that it is “served” the Lord…this is something that could be said of someone born into a Christian home and does not mean that he was baptized as an infant.

Justin Martyr (100 - 166) of the next generation states about the year 150, “Many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples since childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years” (Apology 1: 15).

the emphasis in this passage is on sexual purity….it says nothing about the age of baptism and note the use of “disciples”. Here is what Justin said in his First Apology(61.2-3):
As many as are ** persuaded and believe **that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated.

Irenaeus (130 - 200), some 35 years later in 185, writes in Against Heresies II 22: 4 that Jesus “came to save all through means of Himself - all. I say, who through him are born again to God - infants and children, boys and youth, and old men.”

This need not refer to baptism…the verb used renascor/reborn is different than regenero/regenerate – the verb related to regeneration by Irenaeus in the passages on baptism. Further, Irenaeus also uses regeneration to refer to what Jesus achieved through his birth and resurrection (apart from any involvement of baptism). See E Ferguson p. 308. IOW we cannot say that Irenaeus had infant baptism in mind.

“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.”
(HIPPOLYTUS, The Apostolic Tradition [A.D. 215])

it is questionable if this portion of the AP can be attributed to Hippolytus…so the dating is questionable. Further, the construction is such that the instruction to baptize children first is clearly a secondary development. (Ferguson p. 367)

NOTE: At the end of this article is a photo of the carving of a child being baptised which is on the wall of a catacomb, as was reported in the post to which I have responded here (although it was reported to be an infant and the engraving is obviously not of an infant but a child; there may be more carvings.)

besides being obviously wrong about being an infant, the other thing to keep in mind is that the practice was to portray the one being baptized as smaller than the administrator (regardless of respective ages)….the site that you found leaves much to be desired

 

[Radical]

I will ignore your snipping and uncharitable comments….

hmmm….why do I feel like a kettle listening to a pot?

Read John 4:46-53…
53 The father therefore knew, that it was at the same hour that Jesus said to him, Thy son liveth; and himself believed, and his whole house.

The belief of the ruler carried over to the son, and his belief carried to his whole house.

Huh? Are you saying that the father’s belief was accredited to the whole household, even though all of the rest of them didn’t actually believe? ….that is what you take away from verse 53 (NASB) which reads:

So the father knew that it was at that hour in which Jesus said to him, “Your son lives”; and he himself believed and his whole household.

….sounds to me like the whole household simply believed b/c of the miracle…in any event, if the father “brought his family into covenant with Jesus”, then neither baptism nor circumcision are mentioned as being involved. Tell me, if a father brought his kids into covenant with Jesus: a) does that work for all his kids (no matter what their ages)? b) are his adult non-believing children to partake in the Lord’s Supper?..or are they not to be baptized either?

I suspect that under you belief system, you understand that children and infants can’t be baptized without a profession of faith. That it is not possible for the head of the household to meet the condition and bring their children into covenant with Jesus.

Why don’t we look at the examples provided in Acts (from the NIV) where the households were baptized?

Re Cornelius

Acts 11:13-14 He told us how he had seen an angel appear in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.’
Acts 10: 44-47 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.
Then Peter said, “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”

Re Lydia

Acts 16: 14-15 One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us

Re The Jailer

Acts 16:31-34 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to** all the others in his house**. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household.

Re Crispus

Acts 18 :8 Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized.

Those 4 and Paul’s reference in 1 Cor 1:16 are the instances where households are said to be baptized. Looking at those examples I don’t see any indication of a whole household being brought into a covenant relationship with Jesus by way of the faith of the head of the household.

Re: Cornelius…the message is preached to all and the HS comes on all who heard the message. It was about hearing and believing and then being baptized…and had nothing to do with the household being brought into the covenant by the head’s faith.

Re: Lydia….the text doesn’t say too much and in particular it says nothing about the household being brought into the covenant by the head’s faith.

Re: the Jailer…the word was spoken to all in the house and the whole house believed. Again, it was about hearing and believing and then being baptized…and had nothing to do with the household being brought into the covenant by the head’s faith.

Re: Re Crispus…it is specified that the whole household believed…it is believed and were baptized.

Where is there any evidence to justify your claim?

And from what I see, you will not yield to logic and reason.

let’s be clear….it is your particular logic and reasoning that I find to be unconvincing

 

[CopticChristian]

hmmm….why do I feel like a kettle listening to a pot?

Huh? Are you saying that the father’s belief was accredited to the whole household, even though all of the rest of them didn’t actually believe? ….that is what you take away from verse 53 (NASB) which reads:

So the father knew that it was at that hour in which Jesus said to him, “Your son lives”; and he himself believed and his whole household.

….sounds to me like the whole household simply believed b/c of the miracle…in any event, if the father “brought his family into covenant with Jesus”, then neither baptism nor circumcision are mentioned as being involved. Tell me, if a father brought his kids into covenant with Jesus: a) does that work for all his kids (no matter what their ages)? b) are his adult non-believing children to partake in the Lord’s Supper?..or are they not to be baptized either?
Why don’t we look at the examples provided in Acts (from the NIV) where the households were baptized?

Re Cornelius

Acts 11:13-14 He told us how he had seen an angel appear in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.’
Acts 10: 44-47 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.
Then Peter said, “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”

Re Lydia

Acts 16: 14-15 One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us

Re The Jailer

Acts 16:31-34 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to** all the others in his house**. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household.

Re Crispus

Acts 18 :8 Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized.

Those 4 and Paul’s reference in 1 Cor 1:16 are the instances where households are said to be baptized. Looking at those examples I don’t see any indication of a whole household being brought into a covenant relationship with Jesus by way of the faith of the head of the household.

Re: Cornelius…the message is preached to all and the HS comes on all who heard the message. It was about hearing and believing and then being baptized…and had nothing to do with the household being brought into the covenant by the head’s faith.

Re: Lydia….the text doesn’t say too much and in particular it says nothing about the household being brought into the covenant by the head’s faith.

Re: the Jailer…the word was spoken to all in the house and the whole house believed. Again, it was about hearing and believing and then being baptized…and had nothing to do with the household being brought into the covenant by the head’s faith.

Re: Re Crispus…it is specified that the whole household believed…it is believed and were baptized.

Where is there any evidence to justify your claim?

let’s be clear….it is your particular logic and reasoning that I find to be unconvincing

So what we have is someone looking back through a book and putting pieces of history together. We then have Traditions of the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic East/West, Anglican, Presbyterian and all other Pedobaptists to compare to.

Radical vs the Traditions of Christianity. Guess I can’t go with Radical.

 

[Nicea325]

I guess you picked the wrong curtain…here is the first name for your list:

Marcianus. He lived 12 years, two months and some days. He was baptized on Sept 20 and died the next day. The inscription dates to 268 AD.
yep, Tertullian AKA the Father of Latin Theology, held to Montanism, after which he presented the doctrine of the Trinity, defended other traditions and opposed infant baptism…doesn’t sound like a guy who would reject something known to have been introduced by the Apostles.

Nope! I said who made a self-conscious decision to be baptized. I picked the correct curtain,you simply do not like the texture. And please show us where it is written first hand Marcianus made a **self-conscious decision **and open confession he accepted Jesus as Lord and savior,then was only baptized? Was his baptism full immersion? Please enlighten us Radical since you are the only one who knows more than anyone else. The CC should just ask you being you know the actual and legit history of the past 2,000 years.

What part of Montanism did you not comprehend Tertullian later held to? Yes he defended many other orthodox doctrines to later turn to Montanism. And? Indeed…let us all listen to Radical who is the only correct source in the past 2,000 years;moreoever, and the only to know the ECF better than ANY Catholic who has ever lived. I find it truly amazing how so many Protestants as yourself to have the pride to believe you know about the CC moren than any other Catholic alive or who has ever lived? How arrogant.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

let’s be clear….it is your particular logic and reasoning that I find to be unconvincing

I did not write Acts and I did not invent logic and reason. I just read what it says and follow the rules of it. Nothing particular about my opinion in the matter.

Now if we look at your proposed argument:

If the verses don’t specifically mention that infants and children were baptized then they don’t have to be baptized. Even if the text doesn’t specifically prohibits it.

That is what you interpret.

Very well,

Where is the list of books that comprise the bible in the bible? Specific verse please. If it is not there then there is no need to have a list. Because the bible refers to itself as only Scripture and it doesn’t give us a list of what specifically is Scripture. And that means that you don’t have to follow what the Church interprets as authoritative books.

Wait, that happened already, didn’t it?
The same Church that gave us the New Testament through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is interpreting the Books it wrote wrong.
Is this what you are saying?

That is your logic, not mine.

[bibledrb]Acts 18:6[/bibledrb]

Although I’ll keep my clothes

Farewell.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

So what we have is someone looking back through a book and putting pieces of history together. We then have Traditions of the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic East/West, Anglican, Presbyterian and all other Pedobaptists to compare to.

Radical vs the Traditions of Christianity. Guess I can’t go with Radical.

There was a Murphy’s Law that said something like this:

Enough research has the ability to prove whatever theory.

 

[cruiseladytexas]

That passage can easily be interpeted differently in the original greek. its not so cut and dry. I know RCs whole basis is based on this passage but its not an infallible passage.

As I understand it he (Jesus) would have spoken in Aramaic, and only when translated into Greek was the word different, due to the male-female connection to the words, using the males form for Peter and the female form for an object.

So, Kepha would have been used for both Peter and rock.

But, he also gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, an Old Testament reference which all of the apostles, as Jews, would have known, as would the people. (fr Isiah 22)

The head of the Davidic kingdom was the king, 2nd in importance was the Queen mother, then the prime minister, who was the head of the coucil of 12. The prime minister had veto power over the others, held the keys to the Davidic kingdom.

Christ gave Peter this power, the keys to the kingdom, veto power over the other 11. Christ is the King, Mary is the Queen mother, the apostles (and their successors) were the divine council, Peter (and his successors) is the prime minister.

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. "

 

[CopticChristian]

As I understand it he (Jesus) would have spoken in Aramaic, and only when translated into Greek was the word different, due to the male-female connection to the words, using the males form for Peter and the female form for an object.

So, Kepha would have been used for both Peter and rock.

But, he also gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, an Old Testament reference which all of the apostles, as Jews, would have known, as would the people. (fr Isiah 22)

The head of the Davidic kingdom was the king, 2nd in importance was the Queen mother, then the prime minister, who was the head of the coucil of 12. The prime minister had veto power over the others, held the keys to the Davidic kingdom.

Christ gave Peter this power, the keys to the kingdom, veto power over the other 11. Christ is the King, Mary is the Queen mother, the apostles (and their successors) were the divine council, Peter (and his successors) is the prime minister.

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. "

Scott Hahn explains this here…

catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

Now the House of David is like, you know, the House of Bourbon. It’s a dynastic reference. The House of David is the Davidic kingdom, the Davidic dynasty. We know this because David has been dead for hundreds of years when this is happening in Isaiah 22, “I will give you the key of the House of David. He shall open and none shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open. He will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.” Look at all of the symbols of dynastic authority that are being given to this individual. First of all, an office. Second, a robe. Third, a throne and fourth, keys, the key of the House of David, these royal keys.

I suppose we could weigh the Isaiah, Jesus sayings, the Church Tradition against all other forms of Church leadership and say, well in consideration that as we look in the world and see that there is no other Church with any such leadership it might make one consider at least a look…

 

[stewstew03]

no….please understand that from my point of view it needs to be Belief + Baptism to yield the change that Paul mentioned. For sqeaky clean one needs a continuing belief/faith.

Well at least you’re not one of those Protestants who believes baptism is merely symbolic…

Though I see you are one who insists on getting in the last word.

 

[stewstew03]

hmmm….why do I feel like a kettle listening to a pot?

Huh? Are you saying that the father’s belief was accredited to the whole household, even though all of the rest of them didn’t actually believe? ….that is what you take away from verse 53 (NASB) which reads:

So the father knew that it was at that hour in which Jesus said to him, “Your son lives”; and he himself believed and his whole household.

….sounds to me like the whole household simply believed b/c of the miracle…in any event, if the father “brought his family into covenant with Jesus”, then neither baptism nor circumcision are mentioned as being involved. Tell me, if a father brought his kids into covenant with Jesus: a) does that work for all his kids (no matter what their ages)? b) are his adult non-believing children to partake in the Lord’s Supper?..or are they not to be baptized either?
Why don’t we look at the examples provided in Acts (from the NIV) where the households were baptized?

Re Cornelius

Acts 11:13-14 He told us how he had seen an angel appear in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.’
Acts 10: 44-47 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.
Then Peter said, “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”

Re Lydia

Acts 16: 14-15 One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us

Re The Jailer

Acts 16:31-34 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to** all the others in his house**. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household.

Re Crispus

Acts 18 :8 Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized.

Those 4 and Paul’s reference in 1 Cor 1:16 are the instances where households are said to be baptized. Looking at those examples I don’t see any indication of a whole household being brought into a covenant relationship with Jesus by way of the faith of the head of the household.

Re: Cornelius…the message is preached to all and the HS comes on all who heard the message. It was about hearing and believing and then being baptized…and had nothing to do with the household being brought into the covenant by the head’s faith.

Re: Lydia….the text doesn’t say too much and in particular it says nothing about the household being brought into the covenant by the head’s faith.

Re: the Jailer…the word was spoken to all in the house and the whole house believed. Again, it was about hearing and believing and then being baptized…and had nothing to do with the household being brought into the covenant by the head’s faith.

Re: Re Crispus…it is specified that the whole household believed…it is believed and were baptized.

Where is there any evidence to justify your claim?

let’s be clear….it is your particular logic and reasoning that I find to be unconvincing

Then from your perspective, infants, small children, and the mentally infirm of all ages were never meant to be part of the body of Christ?

 

[stewstew03]

…Where is there any evidence to justify your claim?

let’s be clear….it is your particular logic and reasoning that I find to be unconvincing

Radical,

You seem to be arguing the idea that belief is required for those who receive the Sacrament of Baptism. We’re not arguing with you on that point. “He who has ears let him hear.” (Matt. 11:15). As Catholics, we believe that one must repent, confess their faith, and be baptized. (Acts 2:37-38)

The point we’re trying to make is as follows:

1. Infant baptism is not forbidden;
2. There is no command with regard to sequence or chronology - in the OT, Jews received the mark of the Covenant first, then responded with “belief” and “faith”;
3. Baptism is compared to circumcision (when Paul addresses Jewish converts, Col. 2:8-15);
4. There is scriptural evidence for infants/children being baptized (e.g., “households” - and you’ve acknowledged the “50%” likelihood that households included infants/children);
5. The early Christians practiced infant baptism - though we recognize there may be some who didn’t:

“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.” (St. Hippolytus of Rome, circa 215 AD)

“…the Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants.” (Origen, circa 245 AD)

The Council of Carthage condemned the idea that infants/children must wait until the 8th day to be baptized, as was practiced with OT circumcision. (St. Cyprian of Carthage, 252 AD)

So, Radical, we’re not saying that you need to practice infant baptism; and we’re not condemning you for not practicing infant baptism; and we’re not saying there is no link between belief and baptism. Yes, faith is required of all believers. But who has more faith than a child?

“He was indignant and said to them, 'Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it at all. And He took them in His arms and began blessing them, laying His hands upon them.”
(Mark 10:13-16)

Evidently, God can bestow His blessings and grace upon anyone - no matter their age or intellect; and therefore the Body of Christ can include anyone - no matter their age or intellect.

 

[rinnie]

Although I definitely believe in open communion, I understand and respect the position of the RCC.

When I officiate, I take time to explain who should and should not partake. I firmly believe that in Holy Communion we encounter Christ. 1 Corinthians makes that clear. While we invite any believer - or a sincere, repentant person seeking Christ - to receive the Lord’s supper I always caution that no one should partake merely to “fit in”, nor should anyone who is involved in any significant sin for which they are unwilling to repent. The Scriptures make it clear that anyone who fails to recognize the presence of Christ brings judgement upon themselves.

My point is that Open Communion does not equal a careless attitude towards the sacrament. Ultimately, neither Protestants nor Catholics can do a background investigation on people before they partake. All we can do is impress upon people the Holiness of the Sacrament in accordance with our convictions.

Thank-you for you kind words. I believe Open Communion could equal a careless attitude towards the Sacrament, here are my reasons.

1. Many Protestant faiths to not see Communion as a Sacrament for one.
2. They see Communion as a symbol of Christ not the Holy Living Christ.
3. They do not agree with confession. They believe that they do not have to confess a mortal sin to a Priest. We are taught if you are in a state of Mortal sin, you cannot take communon until you confess to the Priest.

Now how can they go to the RCC and accept communion if they refuse to confess to a Priest, and what is the Priest to do? See what I am saying?

 

[rinnie]

Radical,

You seem to be arguing the idea that belief is required for those who receive the Sacrament of Baptism. We’re not arguing with you on that point. “He who has ears let him hear.” (Matt. 11:15). As Catholics, we believe that one must repent, confess their faith, and be baptized. (Acts 2:37-38)

The point we’re trying to make is as follows:

1. Infant baptism is not forbidden;
2. There is no command with regard to sequence or chronology - in the OT, Jews received the mark of the Covenant first, then responded with “belief” and “faith”;
3. Baptism is compared to circumcision (when Paul addresses Jewish converts, Col. 2:8-15);
4. There is scriptural evidence for infants/children being baptized (e.g., “households” - and you’ve acknowledged the “50%” likelihood that households included infants/children);
5. The early Christians practiced infant baptism - though we recognize there may be some who didn’t:

“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.” (St. Hippolytus of Rome, circa 215 AD)

“…the Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants.” (Origen, circa 245 AD)

The Council of Carthage condemned the idea that infants/children must wait until the 8th day to be baptized, as was practiced with OT circumcision. (St. Cyprian of Carthage, 252 AD)

So, Radical, we’re not saying that you need to practice infant baptism; and we’re not condemning you for not practicing infant baptism; and we’re not saying there is no link between belief and baptism. Yes, faith is required of all believers. But who has more faith than a child?

“He was indignant and said to them, 'Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it at all. And He took them in His arms and began blessing them, laying His hands upon them.”
(Mark 10:13-16)

Evidently, God can bestow His blessings and grace upon anyone - no matter their age or intellect; and therefore the Body of Christ can include anyone - no matter their age or intellect.

Another point to ponder, what about a special needs child. One that has the understanding of a 5 year old. So what they are refused Baptism?

Jesus says all must be baptised to enter into heaven. What people forget is where does it say all must understand Christ and accept Christ to be Baptised. What is Baptism?

Baptism is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit that enters into you. It is then that the seed of Christ is planted and begins to grow within a person. Why would anyone want to WAIT to have the outpouring of the Holy Spirit enter into a person is beyond my level of understanding.

The Greatest gift you could possibly give a Child is the Outpouring of the Holy Spirit enter into their soul. The sooner the better.

 

[rikkk1958]

This question is intended mainly for Protestants. When, exactly did the Catholic Church as we know it now cease to be the true Christian church? Back when I was Protestant, we always focused on the early Church (up to Augustine), and then skipped to Luther, Calvin, et al. When I started looking into it, I found that Augustine and a lot of the REALLY early Christians (Ireneus, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch) were very “Catholic,” especially compared to the reformers. Just out of curiosity, where do most Protestants draw the line (e.g. a certain council, pope, theologian, etc.) between the early Church and the “corrupt” Roman Catholic Church?

As far as I am concern, the Church had always fought for standing firm and against all odds since the beginning. With the Divine interventions and guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church made its way as promised inspite of humanity’s weaknesses. The scriptures is clear, giving warnings of false prophets and teachers. As knowledge advances so true are reasons. However, there is always one hope, one promise, one truth, and only one beginning; Jesus Christ, the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

The position of the Church in general can be answered with a simple word “Divinity”. The Church as established by Jesus Christ is Divine and will always be divine. Did the gates of hell prevailed? or, Did the second coming of Christ was at hand? Humanity will always err, but the Apostolic Tradition continued to persever in preserving the divine aspects of the Church. The Church will prevail because it is where the Word dwells.

Did it cease to be a Christian Church? Of course not. Did humanity err? Yes it did. Nobody knows God’s plan, history will only tell when it happens. The timeline of history will only be part of the plan; what is ahead is unseen and the realization of what we are hoping for. .

 

[LittleSoldier]

E Ferguson puts the earliest depictions (of baptism) in the catacombs at about 200 AD (and its youths, not infants)….what is your reference?

I do believe I have already provided a reference for this. There may be more. I haven’t had time to search.

BTW, simply saying “E Ferguson…” with no further reference as to his/her article or to the post number where the complete reference is provided is not a proper reference.

notice that it is “served” the Lord…this is something that could be said of someone born into a Christian home and does not mean that he was baptized as an infant.

the emphasis in this passage is on sexual purity….it says nothing about the age of baptism and note the use of “disciples”. Here is what Justin said in his First Apology(61.2-3):
As many as are ** persuaded and believe **that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated.
This need not refer to baptism…the verb used renascor/reborn is different than regenero/regenerate – the verb related to regeneration by Irenaeus in the passages on baptism. Further, Irenaeus also uses regeneration to refer to what Jesus achieved through his birth and resurrection (apart from any involvement of baptism). See E Ferguson p. 308. IOW we cannot say that Irenaeus had infant baptism in mind.
it is questionable if this portion of the AP can be attributed to Hippolytus…so the dating is questionable. Further, the construction is such that the instruction to baptize children first is clearly a secondary development. (Ferguson p. 367)
besides being obviously wrong about being an infant, the other thing to keep in mind is that the practice was to portray the one being baptized as smaller than the administrator (regardless of respective ages)….the site that you found leaves much to be desired

As does most of your argument.

If “the practice was to portray the one being baptized as smaller than the administrator (regardless of respective ages)…” why do you say that it is “obviously wrong about being an infant”? You don’t know that and you wouldn’t know that unless you were the one doing the carving or were a witness to the carving (and the baptism itself). You’ve stacked the cards in your favor. The truth is that none of us know the age of either the person performing the baptism or the person being baptised. But you have no reference backing up your assertion - you simply make a remark that I am supposed to accept as true because you stated it? Uh uh. Reference, please (proper reference), with a link if possible (because I can’t afford to buy any more books right now and am basically stuck in a tiny town with no inter-library loan and the closest university is over 60 miles away and it is illegal for me to drive there (for medical reasons)). If you can’t provide a link then I will accept a proper reference and as I don’t believe you would lie even to defend your position I will accept that what you claim is stated in your reference is actually what is stated, but please keep in mind that I am then unable to say if you have taken your statement out of context and that weakens its appropriateness to this discussion.

What I have provided is called evidence. All the evidence should be studied and discussed (which is what I think we are doing here - isn’t it?) There has been introduced a large amount of evidence which backs the appropriateness of infant baptism.

The bible does not state: “Thou shalt not use the umbilical cords of aborted babies for research.” So does that mean it’s morally licit to use the umbilical cords of aborted babies for research?

The bible does not state: “Thou shalt not baptise infants.” So does that mean it is morally illicit to baptise infants?

The bible is silent on many issues. I have already posted the end of the gospel of John. What he said makes it clear that the bible cannot possibly contain everything that Jesus accomplished and performed. That is one reason why the Church does not restrict herself to the bible alone; why we do not believe in sola scriptura.

We also follow tradition. In our tradition infant baptism is permissible and we believe that the removal of Original Sin and its stain, along with the grace given through the Sacrament are so important that it is acceptable for the infant’s parents and godparents to stand in the infant’s place when it comes to belief. You seem to think that seven or eight years without the removal of Original Sin and its stain and the lack of the grace imputed to the baptised person is less important than belief (if I have misunderstood your argument I apologize and request clarification). Yet I believed at age three.

Do you subscribe to sola scriptura? If so, there is no way we are ever going to agree on whether infant baptism is permissible. However, there are people in the Church who are much more intelligent and educated than I (and you) and as a faithful Catholic I defer to their teachings. The Church was given the power to bind and loosen by Jesus. I don’t think He just said that as a joke and I doubt that anyone in this thread would believe that, either.

Also, I have already explained that infant baptism is a discipline - not dogma and not doctrine. The practice of infant baptism can be changed, although it is my humble opinion that it never will be. Thank God.

 

[LittleSoldier]

So what we have is someone looking back through a book and putting pieces of history together. We then have Traditions of the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic East/West, Anglican, Presbyterian and all other Pedobaptists to compare to.

Radical vs the Traditions of Christianity. Guess I can’t go with Radical.

'Twould be radical indeed to go with Radical. I will join with you and go with the Traditions of Christianity - traditions which have been with us for approximately 2,000 years.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Then from your perspective, infants, small children, and the mentally infirm of all ages were never meant to be part of the body of Christ?

Jesus didn’t die for them.

What a radical idea.

 

[Nicea325]

Another point to ponder, what about a special needs child. One that has the understanding of a 5 year old. So what they are refused Baptism?

Jesus says all must be baptised to enter into heaven. What people forget is where does it say all must understand Christ and accept Christ to be Baptised. What is Baptism?

Baptism is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit that enters into you. It is then that the seed of Christ is planted and begins to grow within a person. Why would anyone want to WAIT to have the outpouring of the Holy Spirit enter into a person is beyond my level of understanding.

The Greatest gift you could possibly give a Child is the Outpouring of the Holy Spirit enter into their soul. The sooner the better.

Precisely! To many non-Catholics believe baptism must involve “intelligence” in order to receive it. Baptism then becomes merely exclusive for a few people. When and where did circumcision of young infant Jewish boys require “understanding” God?

 

[rinnie]

Jesus didn’t die for them.

What a radical idea.

Wonder why Peter said EVERY ONE of you must be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins.

He should have said everyone but children must be baptised for the forgiveness of sins then.

Also Jesus pointed to the Children and said these are what the Kingdom of God is made of.

Now how can they enter the Kingdom of God if they are forbidden Baptism? Peter said ALL must be baptised.

Just thought I would throw that out there.