R
rinnie
Guest
Exactly! And for those who do not know, Baptism replaced circumcision.
- Status
C
CopticChristian
Guest
at least until something better comes along, huh?'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.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
agreed, and the proviso is that you believe in Covenants.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Amen! Unfortunately many folks do not understand that OT is full of types and foreshadowing of better things to later.
R
Radical
Guest
to be clear, if infant baptism is involved, then I wouldn’t view it as even being a symbol (for the one baptized).
well, if that is an offer….I’ll gladly accept, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. This thread has been like so many others here. The OPoster asks for an opinion from Protestants. Sometimes the OPoster actually wants to learn more about the Protestant view(s)…usually, however, it is really a request to “Tell me what you believe so that I can tell you how ridiculous it is.” The OPoster’s intention really doesn’t matter b/c the Protestant Responder will be invariably swarmed by about a half dozen or so Catholics who are determined to inform the Protestant exactly how misinformed he truly is. If the Protestant persists and defends his view (which entails dismissing the Swarmer’s [often canned] arguments), then it quickly becomes a matter of the Swarmers informing the Protestant that he must be ignorant, arrogant and/or unreasonable…tis truly heart-warming when, after applying those labels, one or more offers/promises to pray for the Protestant (I personally interpret such to be a promise/offer to pray that I won’t continue to be such an ignorant, arrogant and unreasonable fool). The Swarmers rarely, if ever, allow the Protestant the last word…though, IMHO, the Protestant often gets in the last reasoned word.
I have no idea as to how this would follow from what I have said…please provide your reasoning on this…who knows, maybe you could convince me that this is what I should believe.
well, it would be belief by the one being baptized (as opposed to some 3rd party) and I don’t view it as a Sacrament
good….but do you speak for the rest?
excellent
agreed, it is not expressly forbidden
agreed, though there is no example of baptism w/o belief by the baptizand in the NT
baptism and faith together are used for that comparison and not baptism by itself….and we are still circumcised by the cutting off of our sinful nature.
again, WRT the 50% figure…I explained what you would need to get to infants being baptized in those cases. You don’t IMHO. As indicated previously, Luke refers to 4 households where the whole household is baptized. In 3 of those households it is also said that all believed. What do you think is going on with those 3 households. Was it that no one incapable of forming belief (aka infants) was present within those 3 households? If so, then why assume an infant was present in the fourth? Or is it that Luke didn’t include those incapable of forming belief (aka infants) within the term “the whole household believed” in those three cases? If so, then why assume that he included infants with “the whole household was baptized” when he wasn’t including infants with “the whole household believed”?
well, yes, some by about 150 AD +/-
there is no maybe about it…in the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 10th centuries there are still regions where infants aren’t baptized.
what type of child?..a newborn? If so, then any person with the capacity to have faith could have more faith than that child….cuz the newborn can’t have any.
agreed…and baptism is not needed for that bestowal
R
Radical
Guest
Here is the book in question: Baptism in the Early Church
It is both thourough and well written. It is an incredible resource…hope you can find a way to read it.
L
Luvtosew
Guest
It must be thorough at 912 pages, theres a good description of what it covers.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Was the Op question answered?
With proof?
L
latingirl
Guest
That;s what I want to know!!
Was the Op question answered?
With proof?
S
stewstew03
Guest
I’ll leave aside the other points you made and just focus on this one.
If you agree that it is not expressly forbidden, and recognize it was practiced by early Christians, then what, exactly, is your argument…?
Regarding Everett Ferguson
I did read through Ferguson’s chapter on infant baptism (it’s about 30 pages in length and can be accessed via Google Scholar). For iTunes listeners there’s even a three-part podcast that he delivers in which he specifically addresses his book (iTunesU - Summit 2009). Ferguson’s analysis does seem quite thorough, but I think his bias is revealed by what is missing.
For one thing, he doesn’t say much at all about the protestant sects that practice infant baptism (Lutherans, Anglicans, etc.). He also doesn’t address the elephant in the room, which is,*** if believers’ baptism was practiced exclusively by the earliest Christians, how can it be that infant baptism became a normative practice with no apparent record of a serious theological protest before Tertullian in the 3rd century (who himself didn’t object to the principle, just the timing)?*** And, if it were so controversial, would it not have sharply divided the early churches?
Ferguson (in his chapter on infant baptism) addresses the writings of Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian, but he doesn’t address the fact that there is absolutely NO hint from the first five centuries that anyone objected in principle to infant baptism.
Isn’t that incredible?
Five centuries and not one theologian considered infant baptism improper or invalid. And if it was a practice that suddenly appeared in the post-apostolic age, wouldn’t there be significant protest from someone? Indeed, this would’ve been Tertullian’s strongest argument against the practice: "the Apostolic churches didn’t like it and they didn’t do it!"
R
Radical
Guest
the book deals with the first 5 centuries…not sure why you would expect to see anything about Lutherans etc.
it would help if you read the whole book and got a complete picture of the situation in the early church regarding baptism…I am not sure you have an accurate picture of what the room looked like, let alone whether an elephant was even in it.
it looks like you read chapter 23…perhaps you could also read chapter 39 which also deals with infant baptism and then we could discuss whether there is even an elephant in the room.
G
Graehame
Guest
Radical– “This thread has been like so many others here. The OPoster asks for an opinion from Protestants. …it is really a request to ‘Tell me what you believe so that I can tell you how ridiculous it is.’ …the Protestant Responder will be invariably swarmed by about a half dozen or so Catholics,”
It’s a Catholic website. What do you expect?
Seriously, though, the reason you get swarmed is because we cannot believe that people embrace such beliefs in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. Nor will you ever convince any well-informed Catholic of your position, because we have 2000 years of tradition & the Apostolic Succession to rely upon. With all due respect, all you have is your own fallible human reasoning & that of your Reformation leaders. That makes a debate about infant baptism or any other point of doctrine rather pointless.
Furthermore, LittleSoldier & Stewstew03 have already demonstrated to you that infant baptism was most probably practiced by the immediate post-Apostolic Church, but you evade like the plague their most telling points & focus only on the arguments to which you think you can raise a barely plausible objection.
If, on the other hand, it could be demonstrated that the post-Apostolic Church did in fact call itself Catholic, that it did in fact embrace the majority of specifically Catholic beliefs, that it repudiated the majority of beliefs that are peculiar to Protestantism, & that the Bishop of Rome even probably exercised supreme jurisdiction within the lifetime of the Apostles, would that not end the discussion?
No-- because you would reject the evidence. Note that I don’t even say that these things can be proven beyond any possibility of a doubt, because they cannot. But if all the evidence that we possess is consistent with the Catholic position, & virtually none of it with those of the Protestant denominations, would that not at least strongly suggest where the truth lies? It certainly has done so with respect to a large number of former Protestants who have embraced Catholicism.
David J. Webster, a former fundamentalist Baptist Pastor who converted, sums it up, “I (have) found over 40 clear references to distinctly Catholic tenets of faith in the 135 year period immediately following the New Testament era…(A.D.100-235). Most of these references indicate these Catholic tenets were universally taught & believed throughout the Church at the time. Since they were believed so universally at such an early date, to deny they were part of the Apostolic teaching would be foolish. Protestantism then is not only based on misunderstanding & misinterpretation of Scripture, but ignorance of the plain facts of history.”
To begin with, when LittleSoldier quotes St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies, II 22:4), “He [Christ] came to save all through Himself-- all, I say, who through Him are reborn in God-- infants, & children, & youths & old men”; your answer (& by extension, that of E. Ferguson) makes no sense. How are unbaptized infants, still in Original Sin, to be “reborn in God”, as you say, thru the birth & resurrection of Jesus-- in whose birth & resurrection they are unable to participate until they are baptized? Obviously Irenaeus was referring to baptism-- a fact with which Webster agrees, & which helped lead him to the Catholic Church. For his previous Baptist faith also rejected infant Baptism, as yours does. The fact that Irenaeus used the word elsewhere to refer to Jesus’ sacrifice cannot trump the fact that he could not have been using it in that sense here. The difference is that Webster was in good faith about this, seeking the truth, which you evidently are not.
But returning to my key point, St. Ignatius of Antioch, the 3d Bishop of Antioch, was the successor in that position of St. Peter. Webster writes, “Because the 7 letters attributed to him (c. 107-110 A.D.) present such a strong case for the hierarchical…Church, they have long been questioned by Protestant scholars. The genuinity of the letters has now, however, been long since vindicated by J.B. Lightfoot. Adolph von Harnack, Theodore Zahn, & F.X. Funk; & their authenticity is now almost universally accepted.” All of the scholars cited by Webster, note, are Protestant.
In his Letter to the Ephesians, Ignatius writes: “…the bishops…are the will of Jesus Christ…we must look upon the bishop as the Lord Himself.” [3:2; 5:3; 6:1]
In his Letter to the Trallians, the Saint writes: “In like manner let everyone respect…the bishop as a type of the Father…” [3:1; 7:2]
In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans he writes: “You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father… Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” [8:1,2] Ignatius doesn’t even bother to explain his use of the term “Catholic”. Clearly he expected his readers to understand exactly what he meant, as if the expression was already in common use.
Clearly Ignatious is speaking in his letters of Catholic bishops.
It’s a Catholic website. What do you expect?
Seriously, though, the reason you get swarmed is because we cannot believe that people embrace such beliefs in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. Nor will you ever convince any well-informed Catholic of your position, because we have 2000 years of tradition & the Apostolic Succession to rely upon. With all due respect, all you have is your own fallible human reasoning & that of your Reformation leaders. That makes a debate about infant baptism or any other point of doctrine rather pointless.
Furthermore, LittleSoldier & Stewstew03 have already demonstrated to you that infant baptism was most probably practiced by the immediate post-Apostolic Church, but you evade like the plague their most telling points & focus only on the arguments to which you think you can raise a barely plausible objection.
If, on the other hand, it could be demonstrated that the post-Apostolic Church did in fact call itself Catholic, that it did in fact embrace the majority of specifically Catholic beliefs, that it repudiated the majority of beliefs that are peculiar to Protestantism, & that the Bishop of Rome even probably exercised supreme jurisdiction within the lifetime of the Apostles, would that not end the discussion?
No-- because you would reject the evidence. Note that I don’t even say that these things can be proven beyond any possibility of a doubt, because they cannot. But if all the evidence that we possess is consistent with the Catholic position, & virtually none of it with those of the Protestant denominations, would that not at least strongly suggest where the truth lies? It certainly has done so with respect to a large number of former Protestants who have embraced Catholicism.
David J. Webster, a former fundamentalist Baptist Pastor who converted, sums it up, “I (have) found over 40 clear references to distinctly Catholic tenets of faith in the 135 year period immediately following the New Testament era…(A.D.100-235). Most of these references indicate these Catholic tenets were universally taught & believed throughout the Church at the time. Since they were believed so universally at such an early date, to deny they were part of the Apostolic teaching would be foolish. Protestantism then is not only based on misunderstanding & misinterpretation of Scripture, but ignorance of the plain facts of history.”
To begin with, when LittleSoldier quotes St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies, II 22:4), “He [Christ] came to save all through Himself-- all, I say, who through Him are reborn in God-- infants, & children, & youths & old men”; your answer (& by extension, that of E. Ferguson) makes no sense. How are unbaptized infants, still in Original Sin, to be “reborn in God”, as you say, thru the birth & resurrection of Jesus-- in whose birth & resurrection they are unable to participate until they are baptized? Obviously Irenaeus was referring to baptism-- a fact with which Webster agrees, & which helped lead him to the Catholic Church. For his previous Baptist faith also rejected infant Baptism, as yours does. The fact that Irenaeus used the word elsewhere to refer to Jesus’ sacrifice cannot trump the fact that he could not have been using it in that sense here. The difference is that Webster was in good faith about this, seeking the truth, which you evidently are not.
But returning to my key point, St. Ignatius of Antioch, the 3d Bishop of Antioch, was the successor in that position of St. Peter. Webster writes, “Because the 7 letters attributed to him (c. 107-110 A.D.) present such a strong case for the hierarchical…Church, they have long been questioned by Protestant scholars. The genuinity of the letters has now, however, been long since vindicated by J.B. Lightfoot. Adolph von Harnack, Theodore Zahn, & F.X. Funk; & their authenticity is now almost universally accepted.” All of the scholars cited by Webster, note, are Protestant.
In his Letter to the Ephesians, Ignatius writes: “…the bishops…are the will of Jesus Christ…we must look upon the bishop as the Lord Himself.” [3:2; 5:3; 6:1]
In his Letter to the Trallians, the Saint writes: “In like manner let everyone respect…the bishop as a type of the Father…” [3:1; 7:2]
In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans he writes: “You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father… Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” [8:1,2] Ignatius doesn’t even bother to explain his use of the term “Catholic”. Clearly he expected his readers to understand exactly what he meant, as if the expression was already in common use.
Clearly Ignatious is speaking in his letters of Catholic bishops.
G
Graehame
Guest
Code:
St. Polycarp, c. 150, traveled to Rome from Smyrna-- this was during the era of persecutions, when the pope could have no recourse to imperial authority-- to discuss with Pope Anicetus the proper date for the celebration of Easter. Something he would hardly have done had he not been subject to the pope.
Some years later, in the early to mid-190s, when Pope Victor excommunicated Asiatic Catholics over their heterodox observance of Easter, St. Irenaeus criticized his decision to do so. But nowhere did Irenaeus say that the pope lacked the ***authority*** to do so, which would have been a far more potent criticism than merely saying that doing so was immoderate & unwise. *(I don't have a specific reference to cite on this point, but the particulars can readily be ascertained by Googling "Easter controversy".)*
The letter entitled The Martyrdom of St. Polycarp (155-157 A.D.) opens with the words: "...to all the dioceses of the holy & Catholic Church in every place..." It closes with the statement that Jesus is the "Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the world." [8:1; 16:2; 19:1]
...& years even before then, c. 95, St. Clement of Rome wrote to Corinth (Epistle to the Corinthians) with consciousness of his full Apostolic authority & ordered them to set aside certain discord in their city. Proof that he possessed this authority is found in their immediate obedience, recorded by Eusebius, as well as the fact that they read his letter from the pulpit in their churches for the next 200 years, & in the fact that the Epistle was seriously considered for inclusion in the canon of the New Testament.
At the time that Clement wrote his Epistle St. John the Apostle was still living at Ephesus, just across the Aegean Sea from Corinth-- far closer than distant Rome. Ephesus was also part of the Greek world, which Rome certainly was not. Corinth also had its own bishop. Nothing would have been simpler for the Corinthians, had they any doubt about Clement's authority, than for them to refer the question to St. John-- but they didn't. The question literally seems never to have arisen. So much for the authority of local congregations, or for "collegiality" between co-equal bishops.
Whether you agree or not, I'm sure you can see why Catholics accept the authority of the Church. No matter how you try to twist the facts to suit your prejudices, clearly the immediate post-Apostolic Church ***did*** in fact call itself Catholic, & the Bishop of Rome probably did exercise supreme jurisdiction.
It remains to be seen to what extent the ECFs embraced Catholic beliefs & repudiated Protestantism ones. This will assure us whether or not the faith presently practiced by the Church that calls itself Catholic is probably identical to that of the post-Apostolic Church.
Webster writes, "St. Irenaeus, in his Against Heresies...presents not only his own faith in the (Real Presence of the Eucharist) but demonstrates that this (doctrine) was so well established (even among the heretics) that he uses it to refute the heretics who were questioning the divine nature...of Christ..." [4, 33, 2]
St. Ignatius, in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, writes: "...those who hold heterodox opinions...abstain from the Eucharist...because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins & which the Father, in His goodness raised up again." [6:2; 7:1]
On prayers for the dead, Tertullian, in his treatise on Monogamy (written post-213 A.D.), writes: "A woman, after the death of her husband...prays for his soul &...each year...offers the sacrifice." [10, 1, 4].
Tertullian, in The Crown (211 A.D.), writes: "We offer sacrifices for the dead..." [3, 3]
On the priesthood, Tertullian, in his Demurrer Against the Heretics (c. 200 A.D.), writes: "I must not omit a description of heretical conduct... So it is that today one man is a bishop, tomorrow another...today a priest, who is tomorrow a layman. For even on laymen do they enjoin the functions of the priesthood." [41, 1, 8] So much for the priesthod of the laity.
G
Graehame
Guest
Code:
On the Apostolic Succession-- as uniquely Catholic a doctrine as you're likely to find-- Tertullian, in his Demurrer Against the Heretics (c. 200 A.D.) challenges heretics who claim their doctrines were from Apostolic times to "show the origins of their Churches, let them unroll the order of their bishops, running down in succession from the beginning, so that their first bishop shall have for author & predecessor some one of the Apostles or of the apostolic men... For this is the way in which the Apostolic Churches transmit their lists..." [32,1-3] St. Cyprian (martyred 258 A.D.) in On the Unity of the Catholic Church makes similar points. The Catholic, Orthodox, & Armenian Apostolic Churches can each do this. No Protestant denomination can, with the single (arguable) exception of the Church of England.
St. Irenaeus, again in his Against Heresies, writes: "It is necessary to obey those who...have succession from the Apostles; those who have received, with the succession of the episcopate, the sure chrism of truth... But of the rest, who have no part in the primitive succession...must be held in suspicion." [4, 26, 2]
That Sts. Peter & Paul established the Church at Rome St. Irenaeus in Against Heresies [3, 3, 3; 3, 3, 4], St. Dionysius of Corinth (166-174 A.D.) in his Letter to Soter of Rome, Caius of Rome (198-217 A.D.), Eusebius (275-339 A.D.) in his History of the Church (Bk 2, Ch 25:5-7), & many other authorities all agree & no ancient authority whatsoever denies.
In short, any impartial evaluation of the post-Apostolic Church will indicate an inescapable similarity between its organization, doctrines, & the authority that it claims & those of the present Catholic Church, and an equally inescapable ***discontinuity*** between them & those of the Protestant denominations.
These facts speak for themselves. And if they be demonstrated even to the extent of probability, then the present Catholic Church & no other must be regarded as the most likely heir to the teaching authority of the Apostles.
...and SMP501, the answer to your question-- as should be evident by now-- is that most Protestants don't accept that their denominations originated only in the 16th Century or later, or that they emerged from a rebellion against the Catholic Church. As this conversation has tended to center around infant baptism-- a doctrine to which the Baptist religion takes particular exception-- I'll content myself with pointing out that many Baptists profess to believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that their church is identical with the original Apostolic Church.
R
rinnie
Guest
There is none, And there will never be any.
Unfortunately many leaders of the RCC can go bad, and somehow People tend to blame that on the Church.
It always reminds me of Judas, because Judas betrayed Jesus, did it make Jesus bad? Of course not. Did it make the teaching’s of Christ wrong? Of course not.
But People tend to lay the sins of the priests at the foot of Jesus somehow,
It seems when I remind them that Judas betrayed Jesus and Jesus was right there, why would people think others would not also.
If you ask the question where did RC Priests go bad, you would have a ton of answers, and they would be correct. But God never promised us that our leaders were perfect. He only promised us that their teaching’s would be perfect because they are taught by the Power of the Advocate the Holy Spirit.
R
rinnie
Guest
No offense but why would we let a book trump the word of God. Infant Baptism has been practiced from the day of Pentecost.the book deals with the first 5 centuries…not sure why you would expect to see anything about Lutherans etc.
it would help if you read the whole book and got a complete picture of the situation in the early church regarding baptism…I am not sure you have an accurate picture of what the room looked like, let alone whether an elephant was even in it.
it looks like you read chapter 23…perhaps you could also read chapter 39 which also deals with infant baptism and then we could discuss whether there is even an elephant in the room.
Jesus left us the Church to teach us not some strange book. The Church is the Pilar of all truth as written in the bible. And the Church says infant Baptism.
S
stewstew03
Guest
True, but I thought protestants had history on their side - that they were more closely connected to the early Christians. Surely Lutherans, Calvinists and Arminians existed in the first 5 centuries, no? Though, of course, they weren’t identified as such until the 16th century.
I’ll ignore the ad hominem, and just say that it would only help me obtain a more complete picture as far as Professor Ferguson is concerned - no more, no less. Besides, it was my understanding that you subscribed to the notion of Sola Scriptura - and through that lens, why would I even need Professor Ferguson’s work to elucidate a more “complete picture” of such an essential Christian doctrine (namely, baptism)? Are you suggesting that, until Ferguson released his book, Christians had been completely ignorant of “true” baptism?
C
CopticChristian
Guest
What is the elephant in the room is that this book was written in 2009. I would have some interest in reading this book if someone wrote a discussion in the early centuries disputing infant baptism and if the OHCAC was the only institution on earth that was baptizing babies. Then I might say wow…look at all these books disputing what the OHCAC has been doing. This has been an ongoing controversy. Wow the OHCAC is the only insitution on earth that does this…wow I should take another look at this.
This is not the case. Where are the Fergusons before 1600…?
Then of course I might have to look at the Latter Day Saints and wonder was Joe really a prophet?
The other way of looking at is we have Radical and Fergeson trying to convince me that I should not baptize my baby v.s. Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic East/West, Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian and my understanding of the Bible…
Hummmmm…Radical and Fergeson…nope…can’t do it.
A
adf417
Guest
I have read all 868 posts with an open mind. There has been many good points that would suggest the question has been answered. But once you look through all the sarcastic remarks, the answering questions w/ questions, or not answering them at all…all I can qleen is that not everyone has an open mind. But then again…its just my opinion…as only they could possibly know if they have an open mind.
Was the Op question answered?
With proof?
N
Nicea325
Guest
And written by a non-Catholic scholar? I can bet all my marbles it has a perk of biased views .Does Feguson discuss in great detail how infant baptism was considered so unorthodox it nearly split the early such as the Arian controversy?
- Status