So I'm curious some denominations teach that "accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior" and you will be saved?

[PRmerger]

No, I thought you posted they were not regenerated. Maybe you meant they were not regenerated via NT covenant but by earlier applicable covenants(what 3 or 4 of them ?) but don’t mean to post (speak) for you.

 

[benhur]

http://media.tumblr.com/b2a9386c8985ff0a7c4e24e223d8d874/tumblr_inline_n03mb1mr4Y1r79k32.gif

Not, don’t speak for me or not, they were not regenerated ?

 

[PRmerger]

Not, don’t speak for me or not, they were not regenerated ?

The latter.

Of course, the former is also a good paradigm to espouse. But I don’t believe you’ve attempted to speak for me.

 

[Telstar]

I think the argument that the earliest evidence we have of a Theologian being pro/con of infant Baptism saying it shouldn’t be practice helps the Catholic case is silly. I could easily say that any father who wrote in favour of infant Baptism only wrote so because so many Church’s weren’t practicing such. Does that sound like a good argument to you?

And then Catholics will also argue that because of the silence on the issue for 100 years that it was never brought into question because it was always infants being baptized. So here we have a bit of hypocrisy.

Silence = never an issue
Denial of Baptism = the practice must have been common

As for your quote; Hippolytus goes into detail about Baptism here and how one ought to wait and be examined for three years:

17 Catechumens will hear the word for three years. 2Yet if someone is earnest and
perseveres well in the matter, it is not the time that is judged, but the conduct.

2If any catechumens are apprehended because of the Name of the Lord, let them not be
double-hearted because of martyrdom. If they may suffer violence and be executed with
their sins not removed, they will be justified, for they have received baptism in their own
blood.
20 When they are chosen who are to receive baptism, let their lives be examined,
whether they have lived honorably while catechumens, whether they honored the widows,
whether they visited the sick, and whether they have done every good work… 2If those who
bring them forward bear witness for them that they have done so, then let them hear the Gospel.
…5Let those who are to be baptized be instructed that they bathe and wash on the fifth day
of the week. 6If a woman is in the manner of women, let her be set aparta and receive
baptism another day….
…7Those who are to receive baptism shall fast on the Preparation of the Sabbath

So again, we have a three year waiting period before Baptism; which works well with Saint Gregory.

Actually, there are many indications from the ECF and other early Catholic sources, that the practice of infant Baptism came directly from the Apostles. They were the first to practice it. But, some later theologians thought it was wrong, so it became an issue that had to be addressed; because it was causing major disagreements in the Church. The New Advent website says this:

The tradition of Christian antiquity as to the necessity of infant baptism is clear from the very beginning. We have given many striking quotations on this subject already, in dealing with the necessity of baptism. A few, therefore, will suffice here.

**Origen** (in cap. vi, Ep. ad Rom.) declares: **"The Church received *from the Apostles*** the tradition of giving baptism also to infants".

**St. Augustine** (Serm. xi, De Verb Apost.) says of infant baptism: **"This the Church always had, always held; this she received from the faith of our ancestors; this she perseveringly guards even to the end."**

**St. Cyprian** (Epistle 58) writes: **"From baptism and from grace . . . must not be kept the infant who, because recently born, has committed no sin, except, inasmuch as it was born carnally from Adam, it has contracted the contagion of the ancient death in its first nativity; and it comes to receive the remission of sins more easily on this very account that not its own, but another's sins are forgiven it."**

**St.Cyprian's letter to Fidus** declares that **the Council of Carthage in 253 reprobated the opinion that the baptism of infants should be delayed until the eighth day after birth**.

The **Council of Milevis** in 416 **anathematizes whosoever says that infants lately born are not to be baptized**.

The Council of Trent solemnly defines the doctrine of infant baptism (Sess. VII, can. xiii). It also **condemns (can. xiv) the opinion of Erasmus that those who had been baptized in infancy, should be left free to ratify or reject the baptismal promises after they had become adult**.

Because it was a Tradition that came directly from the Apostles, the Church ruled that it must be continued. There are many reasons given in that link that show why Baptism is so important, as well as the reasoning behind infant Baptism. It’s a very long discourse, but it’s well worth the read.

 

[Telstar]

Part of the opposition is the effect it may have on the infant growing up. Infant baptism wouldn’t be so bad if it is given as a symbol versus an effectual spiritual birth. Now you have an adult thinking he has been born again at infancy when in fact he has not .That is the danger of effectual infant baptism teaching. Many compare it to OT circumcisiion, and I agree that it is somewhat sanctifying for the child (much like a disbelieving spouse is sanctified remaining with a believing spouse as per Paul). That still may not mean the child is spiritually alive and may the be part of the reasoning of a bar mitzvah, where the child decides for himself at age of 13.(maybe a little like confirmation though that still assumes rebirth at infancy baptism). Regardless it still may be Jewish tradition and law to be eventually self responsible for new birth. That is why I think Jesus stressed to Nicodemus that despite circumcision and bar mitzvah rites, one still needed to be born of the spirit. Jesus apparently did not tie born again to these rites That is the rites were no magic wand of effectualness (automatic rebirth) as proposed by some for NT rites.
So I guess when speaking of infant baptism we must define why and what it really means. Does it rob an adult conversion of a public baptism ? Yes, but then if it is only symbolic, one can always confess what one usually does at baptism, faith in Christ, at any time after being born again, without the rite . I suppose they could still have a good conscience towards the baptism command by referring to their infant baptism, though my experience has been that most do it gladly over again…I believe any early church infant baptisms were rare, maybe had regional acceptance but not universal, and was done for sanctifying but not for justifying, like a “dedication” to the Lord( per the Pual/spouse idea)…Sorry, haven’t read all your stuff but hopefully you object to any false assurance derived from effectual infant baptism practice.

You’ve touched on the key to the main objection other Christians have to infant Baptism in the Catholic Church, when you mentioned Confirmation (in bold). Confirmation is the Sacrament that young teens receive, where they are Confirmed in the Faith. They renew their vow of commitment to believe in, and follow, the Faith that they received in their Baptism! Confirmation is also where they receive the gift of the Holy Spirit through the imposition of hands, by the Bishop. So, all of the objections that these babies aren’t capable of making that commitment are completely nullified by the Sacrament of Confirmation. It fills up all of the implied voids that are claimed to be missing.

 

[dronald]

Actually, there are many indications from the ECF and other early Catholic sources, that the practice of infant Baptism came directly from the Apostles. They were the first to practice it. But, some later theologians thought it was wrong, so it became an issue that had to be addressed; because it was causing major disagreements in the Church. The New Advent website says this:

Because it was a Tradition that came directly from the Apostles, the Church ruled that it must be continued. There are many reasons given in that link that show why Baptism is so important, as well as the reasoning behind infant Baptism. It’s a very long discourse, but it’s well worth the read.

Yes, but again like Origen, Tertullian claimed to get his beliefs on Baptism from Tradition.

 

[dronald]

Haha.

Except even you and I would agree that Tertullian’s theology is wrong on why infant baptism ought to be delayed and that it does not reflect correct Catholic theology.

It’s actually not a terrible reason posed by Tertullian. Imagine we didn’t have to admit that Hitler was baptized Catholic? That’s what Tertullian is getting at.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, but again like Origen, Tertullian claimed to get his beliefs on Baptism from Tradition.

He can’t claim that he got his incorrect beliefs on Baptism from Tradition.

Unless you can point to something in Tradition which articulated his erroneous belief?

 

[PRmerger]

It’s actually not a terrible reason posed by Tertullian. Imagine we didn’t have to admit that Hitler was baptized Catholic? That’s what Tertullian is getting at.

I don’t have any problem admitting Hitler was a baptized Catholic.

In fact, that gives great hope to all of us sinners–even the worst sinners are admitted to His Body.

Tertullian was egregiously erroneous if he believed that sinners of the worst degree have no place in the Church.

I am astonished that you don’t see Tertullian’s views as “a terrible reason”.

Were you under the misapprehension that the Church ought not have sinners?

 

[dronald]

He can’t claim that he got his incorrect beliefs on Baptism from Tradition.

Unless you can point to something in Tradition which articulated his erroneous belief?

He certainly did claim so, as do others. You’ll certainly pick the ones who draw the same conclusions as you as being the ones who really drew from Tradition.

I don’t have any problem admitting Hitler was a baptized Catholic.

In fact, that gives great hope to all of us sinners–even the worst sinners are admitted to His Body.

Tertullian was egregiously erroneous if he believed that sinners of the worst degree have no place in the Church.

I am astonished that you don’t see Tertullian’s views as “a terrible reason”.

Were you under the misapprehension that the Church ought not have sinners?

Someone can do what Hitler did and proclaim to be Catholic at the same time? Even though he renounced his Catholicism? I would assume that Catholics say that Hitler was not Catholic.

I don’t think it proves anything about the Church admitting the worst of sinners, seeing that Hitler was baptized at a time where he could neither accept or refuse.

 

[PRmerger]

He certainly did claim so, as do others. You’ll certainly pick the ones who draw the same conclusions as you as being the ones who really drew from Tradition.

Then you should be able to point to something from Tradition, pre-Tertullian, that articulates his erroneous beliefs.

Please cite your source.

 

[dronald]

Then you should be able to point to something from Tradition, pre-Tertullian, that articulates his erroneous beliefs.

Please cite your source.

I don’t know that there’s anyone who wrote on the topic earlier than him; apart from the Bible, Didache, and certain homelies. Each time Baptism is mentioned instruction for infants is left out; even when it goes into detail how an adult ought to be Baptized.

 

[SoMissCatholic]

PRmerger;12046465:

dronald;12046295:

Yes, but again like Origen, Tertullian claimed to get his beliefs on Baptism from Tradition.

He can’t claim that he got his incorrect beliefs on Baptism from Tradition.

Unless you can point to something in Tradition which articulated his erroneous belief?He certainly did claim so, as do others. You’ll certainly pick the ones who draw the same conclusions as you as being the ones who really drew from Tradition.

If you are using what you stated in post #194 as the basis for your claim that Tertullian claimed his support for delaying baptism was based on Tradition, then I think your claim is misleading (presumably unintentionally so ).

First, you quote from The Chaplet Chapter 3 in which Tertullian mentions certain practices included in the baptismal rite in connection with a discussion on sacred Tradition:

Origen eh? About fifty years before that we have Tertullian make the same claim that what he received was passed down; and also relates this to Baptism:

The Chaplet Chapter 3
If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed it.** For how can anything come into use, if it has not first been handed down?** Even in pleading tradition, written authority, you say, must be demanded. Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should not be admitted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be admitted, if no cases of other practices which, without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone, and the countenance thereafter of custom, affords us any precedent.** To deal with this matter briefly, I shall begin with baptism**. When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel.

But then you switch to a completely different work of Tertullian’s, On Baptism, and quote from Chapter 18 of that work to show his belief that baptism should be delayed:

And of course his beliefs on Baptism are as follows:

***But they whose office it is, know that baptism is not rashly to be administered. *Give to every one who begs you, has a reference of its own, appertaining especially to almsgiving. On the contrary, this precept is rather to be looked at carefully…
…. And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; ****principally, however, in the case of little children. **For why is it necessary— if (baptism itself) is not so necessary — that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, Forbid them not to come unto me. Let them come, then, while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ.
Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the remission of sins? More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to ask for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given to him that asks.

And he ends with a very firm:

If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay

The fact that Tertullian mentions certain baptismal practices in connection with sacred Tradition in one work does not in any way imply that the beliefs he expressed in On Baptism regarding delaying baptism until a later age are supposedly passed down from sacred Tradition. Indeed, as this discussion shows, the most that can be said about the views espoused in On Baptism is that they reflect Tertullian’s suggestions as to what he believes is the best approach to administering the sacrament. He in no way ever claims that said beliefs are a product of sacred Tradition.

Also, the above linked discussion includes the statement from a Protestant chaplain that “In fact, the North African church believed that if one sinned after baptism that salvation was lost!!” Now, I’m not sure where he got that information from, but it adds support to PRmerger’s claim that Tertullian’s views on delaying baptism were informed by an erroneous understanding of Catholic theology.

 

[benhur]

The latter.

Of course, the former is also a good paradigm to espouse. But I don’t believe you’ve attempted to speak for me.

how were folks justifeid then, born of the spirit in other covenants ?

 

[benhur]

You’ve touched on the key to the main objection other Christians have to infant Baptism in the Catholic Church, when you mentioned Confirmation (in bold). Confirmation is the Sacrament that young teens receive, where they are Confirmed in the Faith. They renew their vow of commitment to believe in, and follow, the Faith that they received in their Baptism! Confirmation is also where they receive the gift of the Holy Spirit through the imposition of hands, by the Bishop. So, all of the objections that these babies aren’t capable of making that commitment are completely nullified by the Sacrament of Confirmation. It fills up all of the implied voids that are claimed to be missing.

Thank you for added (name removed by moderator)ut. I would still say the main objection has not been met, that one is already indwelt by the spirit of God thru infant baptism is assumed when it might not be true, giving false assurance. But yes I understand confirmation is a chance to make for themselves a commitment, but their assumption is that they are already born again, indwelt , and are now to receive the baptism/gift of the Holy Ghost. Again, I could accept infant baptism if it were more of a dedication, a sanctifying grace, but not for justification, not for regeneration purposes. A bit like Tertullian’s objection the post before . Actually when did confirmation tradition begin ? Apparently was not around his time.

 

[Telstar]

If you are using what you stated in post #194 as the basis for your claim that Tertullian claimed his support for delaying baptism was based on Tradition, then I think your claim is misleading (presumably unintentionally so ).

First, you quote from The Chaplet Chapter 3 in which Tertullian mentions certain practices included in the baptismal rite in connection with a discussion on sacred Tradition:

But then you switch to a completely different work of Tertullian’s, On Baptism, and quote from Chapter 18 of that work to show his belief that baptism should be delayed:

The fact that Tertullian mentions certain baptismal practices in connection with sacred Tradition in one work does not in any way imply that the beliefs he expressed in On Baptism regarding delaying baptism until a later age are supposedly passed down from sacred Tradition. Indeed, as this discussion shows, the most that can be said about the views espoused in On Baptism is that they reflect Tertullian’s suggestions as to what he believes is the best approach to administering the sacrament. He in no way ever claims that said beliefs are a product of sacred Tradition.

Exactly. His entire discourse on infant Baptism is an expression of his own opinion. He never mentions Apostolic Tradition as a source for it.

Also, the above linked discussion includes the statement from a Protestant chaplain that “In fact, the North African church believed that if one sinned after baptism that salvation was lost!!” Now, I’m not sure where he got that information from, but it adds support to PRmerger’s claim that Tertullian’s views on delaying baptism were informed by an erroneous understanding of Catholic theology.

I think he’s referring to a heresy that developed in some of the churches in Africa that said heretics had to be re-baptized when they came back to the Church, because they were considered to be “no longer Catholic”. But, that was later denounced by Rome as a heretical practice. Instead, they only had to receive the imposition of hands by the Bishop, to reconfirm them in the Faith.

 

[benhur]

Telstar:
They renew their vow of commitment to believe in, and follow, the Faith that they received in their Baptism!Not to be picky but they do or do not renew their vow from infancy ? Did the infant take the vow? I thought godparents took the vow for the infant. Is that the teaching, that a soul receives faith at infant baptism ?.. I would think confirmation is affirming faith for the first time, for oneself, thru a rite/sacrament. If so, it is a bit like declaring that Christ is your Lord and Savior like the topic thread, though though thru a rite.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Not to be picky but they do or do not renew their vow from infancy ? Did the infant take the vow? I thought godparents took the vow for the infant. Is that the teaching, that a soul receives faith at infant baptism ?.. I would think confirmation is affirming faith for the first time, for oneself, thru a rite/sacrament. If so, it is a bit like declaring that Christ is your Lord and Savior like the topic thread, though though thru a rite.

The early Church practiced the same way the Eastern Catholic and other Eastern Churches practice to this day - namely: baptism, chrismation/confirmation, and Eucharist all at once for all new initiates, including infants. This rite of penance thru a blessing from the bishop is basically absolution.

 

[Telstar]

Thank you for added (name removed by moderator)ut. I would still say the main objection has not been met, that one is already indwelt by the spirit of God thru infant baptism is assumed when it might not be true, giving false assurance.

When I read your post, your reference to ‘confirmation’ caught my eye, so I felt obliged to respond.

Below is the definition of Baptism from the New Advent, which will address the concerns regarding the indwelling of the Holy Ghost:

Definition
The Roman Catechism (Ad parochos, De bapt., 2, 2, 5) defines baptism thus: Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration by water in the word (per aquam in verbo). St. Thomas Aquinas (III:66:1) gives this definition: “Baptism is the external ablution of the body, performed with the prescribed form of words.”

Later theologians generally distinguish formally between the physical and the metaphysical defining of this sacrament. By the former they understand the formula expressing the action of ablution and the utterance of the invocation of the Trinity; by the latter, the definition: “Sacrament of regeneration” or that institution of Christ by which we are reborn to spiritual life.

The term “regeneration” distinguishes baptism from every other sacrament, for although penance revivifies men spiritually, yet this is rather a resuscitation, a bringing back from the dead, than a rebirth.** Penance does not make us Christians;** on the contrary, it presupposes that we have already been born of water and the Holy Ghost to the life of grace, while baptism on the other hand was instituted to confer upon men the very beginnings of the spiritual life, to transfer them from the state of enemies of God to the state of adoption, as sons of God.

The definition of the Roman Catechism combines the physical and metaphysical definitions of baptism. … Baptism is, therefore, the sacrament by which we are born again of water and the Holy Ghost, that is, by which we receive in a new and spiritual life, the dignity of adoption as sons of God and heirs of God’s kingdom.

But yes I understand confirmation is a chance to make for themselves a commitment, but their assumption is that they are already born again, indwelt , and are now to receive the baptism/gift of the Holy Ghost. Again, I could accept infant baptism if it were more of a dedication, a sanctifying grace, but not for justification, not for regeneration purposes. A bit like Tertullian’s objection the post before . Actually when did confirmation tradition begin ? Apparently was not around his time.

The definition of Baptism clearly shows the actions performed by God on the soul that is Baptized. Can you say for sure that God would absolutely refuse to apply those gifts to the soul of a child that has been freely offered to Him, by his faithful Christian parents? I don’t think so.

Confirmation is another Sacrament that can be traced back to the Gospels.

Confirmation

A sacrament in which the Holy Ghost is given to those already baptized in order to make them strong and perfect Christians and soldiers of Jesus Christ.

It has been variously designated: bebaiosis or confirmatio, a making fast or sure; teleiosis or consummatio, a perfecting or completing, as expressing its relation to baptism. With reference to its effect it is the “Sacrament of the Holy Ghost”, the “Sacrament of the Seal” (signaculum, sigillum, sphragis). From the external rite it is known as the “imposition of hands” (epithesis cheiron), or as “anointing with chrism” (unctio, chrismatio, chrisma, myron). The names at present in use are, for the Western Church, confirmatio, and for the Greek, to myron.

Confirmation in the Bible

We read in the Acts of the Apostles (8:14-17) that after the Samaritan converts had been baptized by Philip the deacon, the Apostles "sent unto them Peter and John, who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost; for he was not yet come upon any of them, but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost."

Again (19:1-6): St. Paul “came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples; and he said to them: Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? But they said to him: We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost. And he said: In what then were you baptized? Who said: In John’s baptism. Then Paul said: John baptized the people with the baptism of penance . . . Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had imposed his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied”.

From these two passages we learn that in the earliest ages of the Church there was a rite, distinct from baptism, in which the Holy Ghost was conferred by the imposition of hands (dia tes epitheseos ton cheiron ton Apostolon), and that the power to perform this ceremony was not implied in the power to baptize.

 

[Telstar]

Not to be picky but they do or do not renew their vow from infancy ? Did the infant take the vow? I thought godparents took the vow for the infant. Is that the teaching, that a soul receives faith at infant baptism ?.. I would think confirmation is affirming faith for the first time, for oneself, thru a rite/sacrament. If so, it is a bit like declaring that Christ is your Lord and Savior like the topic thread, though though thru a rite.

In Baptism, the vow is taken for them as if they had taken it, themselves. In Confirmation, they take the vows again, to reaffirm that they agree with their Godparents’ actions on their behalf.