Was the Protestant Reformation, in a sense, good?

[Duane1966]

From biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a26.htm.

St. Irenaeus was the disciple of St. Polycarp, who was the disciple of the Apostle John himself (as well as an associate of the Apostle Philip). And, in AD 155, St. Polycarp said this at his execution:

"Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury. How can I blaspheme my King and Savior?" (Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp 9 c. AD 156)

Now, it is well documented that “The Martyrdom of Polycarp” was written the year after the saint’s execution; and so the quote above is extremely reliable. It is also well documented that Polycarp was 86 years old at the time of his death. Therefore, if the saint claims to have served Jesus for 86 years, it therefore follows that he was Baptized as an infant. And, in another place, we are told that Polycarp was Baptized by none other than the Apostle John! Therefore, at least in the case of St. John, we can show conclusively that the Apostles Baptized infants.

 

[Wannano]

Yes, not all of the Father’s writings reflect the fullness of the faith. There was also some movement to delay baptism as long as possible, so that more sins might be washed by it.


He seemed to be promoting more of a “believers baptism” (letting them choose for themselves). But Jesus taught that “salvation is of the Jews”, and all that is in the OT is a model for what was to come in the NT. This is why we understand baptism to replace circumcision.

Ultimately the matter was settled in the Council of Carthage.

Hi Guanophore, I need you to clarify something for me, maybe I am missing something.
In your post #212 you reply that believers baptism (that I had described) was a modern understanding and opposed to what was taught by the Apostles.
In #217 you say believers baptism is a modern evangelical invention that is not consistent with the historical record.
Then in #221 you say “yes, I agree, and I also see that the NT has believers baptism of adults”.

So are you referring to the NT times as “modern” or did you have a new revelation today that ,yes, the NT does tell of believers baptism of adults? Or what am I misunderstanding of your comments.

Ps also in the post above an early church father was promoting a believers baptism concept?

 

[Wannano]

From biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a26.htm.

St. Irenaeus was the disciple of St. Polycarp, who was the disciple of the Apostle John himself (as well as an associate of the Apostle Philip). And, in AD 155, St. Polycarp said this at his execution:

"Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury. How can I blaspheme my King and Savior?" (Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp 9 c. AD 156)

Now, it is well documented that “The Martyrdom of Polycarp” was written the year after the saint’s execution; and so the quote above is extremely reliable. It is also well documented that Polycarp was 86 years old at the time of his death. Therefore, if the saint claims to have served Jesus for 86 years, it therefore follows that he was Baptized as an infant. And, in another place, we are told that Polycarp was Baptized by none other than the Apostle John! Therefore, at least in the case of St. John, we can show conclusively that the Apostles Baptized infants.

Duane, I am not trying to make you mad but your last paragraph for me has the same determinations of logic that I hear from JW’s. Even words, therefore and show conclusively sound JW.

My own father is 94, he was baptized as an adult. He also claims to have served Jesus all his life so do we conclusively show that we should baptize only adults. I don’t get how Polycarp claiming to serve Jesus all his life dictates that he was baptized as an infant.

 

[Duane1966]

Duane, I am not trying to make you mad but your last paragraph for me has the same determinations of logic that I hear from JW’s. Even words, therefore and show conclusively sound JW.

My own father is 94, he was baptized as an adult. He also claims to have served Jesus all his life so do we conclusively show that we should baptize only adults. I don’t get how Polycarp claiming to serve Jesus all his life dictates that he was baptized as an infant.

Because in Catholicism (Polycarp was a Catholic), your service to the Lord begins at baptism.

 

[Wannano]

Because in Catholicism (Polycarp was a Catholic), your service to the Lord begins at baptism.

So very interesting, I understand that Constantine was not baptized until on his death bed. Does the Catholic Church take the stance that he never did serve the Lord?

 

[Duane1966]

So very interesting, I understand that Constantine was not baptized until on his death bed. Does the Catholic Church take the stance that he never did serve the Lord?

His official membership and service to the Lord began on his deathbed.

 

[guanophore]

Hi Guanophore, I need you to clarify something for me, maybe I am missing something.

In your post #212 you reply that believers baptism (that I had described) was a modern understanding and opposed to what was taught by the Apostles.
In #217 you say believers baptism is a modern evangelical invention that is not consistent with the historical record.
Then in #221 you say “yes, I agree, and I also see that the NT has believers baptism of adults”.

Sorry Wannano, I can see how I am causing confusion. All the baptisms of adults recorded in the NT and after that to the present day happen after the individual makes an individual profession of faith in Christ.

The modern innovation is the meaning or understanding of what is happening.

Baptism is an outward sign of an inward change.

Calvin taught that a person is regenerated BEFORE they were baptized, while the Apostles taught that they are regenerated DURING Baptism.

It is an identification with the body of Christ, the Church, confirming the repentance the Apostles preached.

The Apostles taught that baptism is what joins us to Christ, and makes us members of the One Body. Yes, it included “identification” but there are spiritual effects occurring above and beyond a public claim that one is a Christian. That was not part of the ancient understanding.

Also a confession of the name of Jesus.

Confessing = “calling upon His name” is a reference to the early Creed, or profession of faith. The Apostles taught that we are born from above with water and Spirit in Baptism.

Young children or infants that happen to die are in the complete presence of Christ because they are innocent until they come to the individual realization that they are no longer innocent. Of such is the kingdom of heaven.

This statement is not conisistent with what the Apostles believed and taught. It cannot be supported by Scripture, either. They are not guilty of any personal sin, but they are still suffering with original sin.

Ps also in the post above an early church father was promoting a believers baptism concept?

I think so. Tertullian wrote that he wanted children to reach the age of reason, and choose baptism.

I am not trying to make you mad but your last paragraph for me has the same determinations of logic that I hear from JW's. Even words, therefore and show conclusively sound JW.

These differences are legitimate topics of discussion here.

My own father is 94, he was baptized as an adult. He also claims to have served Jesus all his life so do we conclusively show that we should baptize only adults. I don’t get how Polycarp claiming to serve Jesus all his life dictates that he was baptized as an infant.

How can your father say he served Jesus all his life, if he was not baptized until he was an adult? Could he not have had a tumultuous adolescence like many of us?

Polycarp understood baptism to be regenerational, and incorporating him into Christ. He could not have done much “service” until he was old enough, but from the time he understood that he was born again in baptism until his martyrdom at 86 he is confessing that he never left the faith.

So very interesting, I understand that Constantine was not baptized until on his death bed. Does the Catholic Church take the stance that he never did serve the Lord?

There are people that serve the Lord and have not been baptized. We call it a baptism of desire. He wanted to wait because the Church taught that baptism washes away all sin, original and personal. The soul is completely purified and cleansed, with no stain of any sin, so the soul that has just been baptized goes directly to heaven if one dies.
It is a dangerous practice, though, especially for a soldier as one can die without a chance to be baptized.

Constantine was as much persuaded by Arianism as he was Catholicism, and if the Council of Nicea had gone with Arianism, he would not have any complaint. So it is questionable if he could make the profession of faith required for Baptism prior to that time. He was espousing beliefs that were considered heretical.

 

[susanlo]

I think I am missing your point here?

Origen is not using purification as a reason to support why it is sinful to bring life into this world. He is using purification as testimony that children come into the world in a fallen state.

Jesus was born under the Law, and did all things in accordance with the Law, but this does not mean he had the stain of original sin.

What Origen is referencing is the belief in original sin prior to the time of Christ, prior to baptism, which the Apostles’ taught washes it away.

What is it you think is different about Origen’s knowledge, and ours?

I find Origen’s writing on this topic unusual. He does seem to say that babies come into the world in a fallen state. He is basing this on Leviticus 12 where women have to take a sacrifice to be purified after childbirth. This is the same thing women must do in Leviticus 15 after each monthly cycle too. Judaism doesn’t have the concept of original sin and doesn’t believe that babies are born in a fallen state, though. I believe in Judaism the child becomes accountable for their own sin at the age of 13. I don’t believe these sacrifices were to atone for the sin of the baby being born. It was a ritual purification.

Anyway, it is different than the concept of today because he is using this to say that Jesus was born in a fallen state and that is why Mary had to take the offering to the temple. This is in the Homily on Luke #14.

Do you think it was wrong for the Jews to circumcize theri children, since they did not get a chance to choose? Should they not have circumcised Jesus?

This is commanded in Leviticus 12. It was only for boys and it says specifically to do on the 8th day of life. This was part of being in a Jewish household.
Those who practice believer’s baptism do not compare circumcision to baptism. I had never learned that it compared to anything in the OT per se, but I have recently read about it being compared to the ceremonial washings that were required when one was unclean and wanted to be made clean and return to the Temple (God’s presence) again.

Do you think there is a reason we should think that these households did not include children?

We don’t know who was in the household. 2 of the 4 households noted that all were believers - this pronouncement would exclude very young children. One household contained a working woman, but it doesn’t exclude the possibility of children. One is non-specific.
I have also seen Cornelius’ household used for an example of baptism. (Acts 10) This doesn’t state that the whole household was baptized. It said that the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the message as evidenced by the family speaking in tongues. It doesn’t say if they baptized any infants who were unable to display signs of receiving the Holy Spirit.

One of the earliest writings, the Didache, required that the one being baptized, along with the baptizer, fast for 1-2 days. It doesn’t make exceptions for the infants of the household. There is other evidence that infants were not baptized at first. Over the early centuries it began to become common and accepted.

 

[guanophore]

I find Origen’s writing on this topic unusual. He does seem to say that babies come into the world in a fallen state. He is basing this on Leviticus 12 where women have to take a sacrifice to be purified after childbirth. This is the same thing women must do in Leviticus 15 after each monthly cycle too. Judaism doesn’t have the concept of original sin and doesn’t believe that babies are born in a fallen state, though. I believe in Judaism the child becomes accountable for their own sin at the age of 13. I don’t believe these sacrifices were to atone for the sin of the baby being born. It was a ritual purification.

I think in this passage he does seem to be saying that, but this is not the entire basis of his thinking on original Fathers were strongly impacted by the NT teachings, even though it was centuries before the NT was officially defined. Paul’s teachings on the “old man” and the “flesh” were a lense through which all the Fathers interpreted the OT passages. For example, Psalm 51:5 states “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.”

Ephesians 2:3 says that we are all “by nature children of wrath.” If we are all “by nature children of wrath,” it can only be because we are all by nature sinners — for God does not direct His wrath towards those who are not guilty. God did not create the human race sinful, but upright. Adam and Eve were created without sin, but through Adam, the whole human race fell into sin (a fallen state).

Anyway, it is different than the concept of today because he is using this to say that Jesus was born in a fallen state and that is why Mary had to take the offering to the temple. This is in the Homily on Luke #14.

I think it is a reference to what might be a more Jewich and Easter Christian way to describe Original Sin, which is that we are all born into a fallen world, and we suffer the consequences of the choices of Adam and Eve. For example, Jesus suffered physically just as all human do, but it was not God’s intention that mankind should suffer in this way.

I agree with you about ritual purification. I think that the purification offerings had more to do with teaching people the importance of blood being the source of life to people in anticipation of the blood sacrifice of Christ.

This is commanded in Leviticus 12. It was only for boys and it says specifically to do on the 8th day of life. This was part of being in a Jewish household.

I think the early Christians (all of whom were Jews in the beginning), understood that children born into the household were to be raised in the faith of the parents. Since they were accustomed for milennia doing this through circumcision and redemption of the children, it would seem normal for them.

Those who practice believer’s baptism do not compare circumcision to baptism. I had never learned that it compared to anything in the OT per se, but I have recently read about it being compared to the ceremonial washings that were required when one was unclean and wanted to be made clean and return to the Temple (God’s presence) again.

Yes, this is what I meant earlier in the thread when I said that the modern notion of believers baptism is quite unlike what the early church believed and taught. Even the original reformers baptized infants, but as Sola Scriptura persisted, and more Christians were separated from the historical roots of the faith, these new ideas developed that are quite different.

Adherents to modern ideas of “beleivers baptism” read over certain new testament passages that support the Apostolic understanding, such as 1 Peter 3:21

“…who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21Corresponding to that,** baptism now saves you**-- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…”

This concept of being saved by God “through” the water is one of the fundamental aspects of the Apostolic preaching on baptism. Modern evangelicals have begun to lose the regenerational aspects of baptism, and see it only as a symbolic gesture, lacking the power of God within it. But the Apostles’ taught that "in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.…"Col 2:11.

 

[guanophore]

I have also seen Cornelius’ household used for an example of baptism. (Acts 10) This doesn’t state that the whole household was baptized. It said that the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the message as evidenced by the family speaking in tongues. It doesn’t say if they baptized any infants who were unable to display signs of receiving the Holy Spirit.

Yes, but it would be contrary to the normal line of thinking for any family to enter into a new way of life without including their children. Since the Apostles understood baptism to be a circumcusion of the heart done by the Holy Spirit, it would not have made sense to withold if from children.

One of the earliest writings, the Didache, required that the one being baptized, along with the baptizer, fast for 1-2 days. It doesn’t make exceptions for the infants of the household. There is other evidence that infants were not baptized at first. Over the early centuries it began to become common and accepted.

Yes, children and the elderly were always exempted from fasting, but I think that infant baptism was the norm from the beginning because the faith came into the world through the Jews, and it was normative for them to bring their children to God in ritual.

Origen wrote that “according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants” (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, “The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]). These writings are supported by the Sacred Traditions, preserved in the prayers and liturgy of the Church, which show that infant baptisms have always been the practice.

Consider, too, that Fathers raised in Christian homes. (such as Irenaeus) would hardly have upheld infant baptism as apostolic if their own baptism had been deferred until the age of reason.

For example, infant baptism is assumed in Irenaeus’ writings when he affirms that regeneration happens in baptism, and that Jesus came so even infants could be regenerated. Since he was born in a Christian home in Smyrna around the year 140, this means he was probably baptized around 140. He was also probably baptized by the bishop of Smyrna who at that time was Polycarp, a personal disciple of the apostle John, who had died only a few decades before.


Irenaeus

“And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan” [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: “Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” [John 3:5]… (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190])

He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age. (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189])

The reference to Naaman dipping in the Jordan brings to mind the ritual washings you mentioned.

Most scholars would say that the story of Naaman was a foreshadowing that the “waters of life” that were later known as baptism would originate in the nation of Israel (“salvation is of the Jews”) where it was customary to bring children into the faith.

 

[rcwitness]

1 Corinthians 7:14

For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy.

What, other than Original Sin, would cause children to be unclean?

 

[rcwitness]

Cyprian of Carthage

“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Letters*64:2 [A.D. 253]).

Cyprian references a Council for support, here.

 

[Duane1966]

This is commanded in Leviticus 12. It was only for boys and it says specifically to do on the 8th day of life. This was part of being in a Jewish household.
Those who practice believer’s baptism do not compare circumcision to baptism. I had never learned that it compared to anything in the OT per se, but I have recently read about it being compared to the ceremonial washings that were required when one was unclean and wanted to be made clean and return to the Temple (God’s presence) again.

And yet Colossians 2 directly compares circumcision to baptism, and also shows that baptism regenerates:

In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, HAVING BEEN BURIED WITH HIM IN BAPTISM and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. (Colossians 2:11-12; NIV)

One of the earliest writings, the Didache, required that the one being baptized, along with the baptizer, fast for 1-2 days. It doesn’t make exceptions for the infants of the household.

This passage clearly addresses converts.

There is other evidence that infants were not baptized at first. Over the early centuries it began to become common and accepted.

Great. Please post it.

 

[Wannano]

I think in this passage he does seem to be saying that, but this is not the entire basis of his thinking on original Fathers were strongly impacted by the NT teachings, even though it was centuries before the NT was officially defined. Paul’s teachings on the “old man” and the “flesh” were a lense through which all the Fathers interpreted the OT passages. For example, Psalm 51:5 states “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.”

Ephesians 2:3 says that we are all “by nature children of wrath.” If we are all “by nature children of wrath,” it can only be because we are all by nature sinners — for God does not direct His wrath towards those who are not guilty. God did not create the human race sinful, but upright. Adam and Eve were created without sin, but through Adam, the whole human race fell into sin (a fallen state).

I think it is a reference to what might be a more Jewich and Easter Christian way to describe Original Sin, which is that we are all born into a fallen world, and we suffer the consequences of the choices of Adam and Eve. For example, Jesus suffered physically just as all human do, but it was not God’s intention that mankind should suffer in this way.

I agree with you about ritual purification. I think that the purification offerings had more to do with teaching people the importance of blood being the source of life to people in anticipation of the blood sacrifice of Christ.

I think the early Christians (all of whom were Jews in the beginning), understood that children born into the household were to be raised in the faith of the parents. Since they were accustomed for milennia doing this through circumcision and redemption of the children, it would seem normal for them.

Yes, this is what I meant earlier in the thread when I said that the modern notion of believers baptism is quite unlike what the early church believed and taught. Even the original reformers baptized infants, but as Sola Scriptura persisted, and more Christians were separated from the historical roots of the faith, these new ideas developed that are quite different.

Adherents to modern ideas of “beleivers baptism” read over certain new testament passages that support the Apostolic understanding, such as 1 Peter 3:21

“…who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21Corresponding to that,** baptism now saves you**-- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…”

This concept of being saved by God “through” the water is one of the fundamental aspects of the Apostolic preaching on baptism. Modern evangelicals have begun to lose the regenerational aspects of baptism, and see it only as a symbolic gesture, lacking the power of God within it. But the Apostles’ taught that "in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.…"Col 2:11.

Hi Guano, in 1 Peter 3:21 was does the portion that says “not the removal of dirt from the flesh” mean to you?

 

[Duane1966]

Hi Guano, in 1 Peter 3:21 was does the portion that says “not the removal of dirt from the flesh” mean to you?

I will jump in here. The ritual hand-washing to remove dirt that was seen when Jesus ate with the Pharisee is also known as baptism. Same word is used in the Greek. So Peter is saying this baptism doesn’t remove dirt like the ritual hand-washing baptism, it does much more,it regenerates and saves, like Noah’s ark through the waters of the flood.

 

[Wannano]

I will jump in here. The ritual hand-washing to remove dirt that was seen when Jesus ate with the Pharisee is also known as baptism. Same word is used in the Greek. So Peter is saying this baptism doesn’t remove dirt like the ritual hand-washing baptism, it does much more,it regenerates and saves, like Noah’s ark through the waters of the flood.

It is obvious I am not a theologian or know Greek so I will stumble along here humbly!
Does the word repent used by the Apostles as in “repent and be baptized” have any formation from the same Greek word for the hand washing ritual?

 

[guanophore]

Hi Guano, in 1 Peter 3:21 was does the portion that says “not the removal of dirt from the flesh” mean to you?

This is a good question, and I think makes a reference to some of the ritual cleansing frequently used by the Jews at the time. But Peter is saying that Baptism is not intended to be a bath for the purpose of becoming physically clean, but spiritually clean. Similar to what Paul writes

"But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, 5He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,…Titus 3:5

Baptism is a washing with water that is spiritually rejenerative, becuase during it, the Holy Spirit circumcises the heart.

It is obvious I am not a theologian or know Greek so I will stumble along here humbly!
Does the word repent used by the Apostles as in “repent and be baptized” have any formation from the same Greek word for the hand washing ritual?

This is another good question. I think how this word is used must come from the roots of the preaching of John the Baptist.

1Now in those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, 2"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."…Matt. 3:1

The Gk. Μετανοεῖτε to change one’s mind (reverse course) is consistently used by Jesus, then by the apostles.

I know the word that seems to refer to ritual hand washing in Heb. 9:10 is also βαπτισμοῖς,

Christian baptism has always been described using the word βαπτίζει (baptizei)

Matthew 3:6
Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.(ἐβαπτίζοντο)

 

[Wannano]

Sorry Wannano, I can see how I am causing confusion. All the baptisms of adults recorded in the NT and after that to the present day happen after the individual makes an individual profession of faith in Christ.

******* So then in the Catholic understanding does not the individual profession of faith in Christ (repentance ?) mean that person now “believeth in Him” ?

The modern innovation is the meaning or understanding of what is happening.

Calvin taught that a person is regenerated BEFORE they were baptized, while the Apostles taught that they are regenerated DURING Baptism.

*******Did not the Apostles instruct to repent, believe and be baptized? If all we have to do to be a Christian is be baptized then it seems a pretty easy road.

The Apostles taught that baptism is what joins us to Christ, and makes us members of the One Body. Yes, it included “identification” but there are spiritual effects occurring above and beyond a public claim that one is a Christian. That was not part of the ancient understanding.

Confessing = “calling upon His name” is a reference to the early Creed, or profession of faith. The Apostles taught that we are born from above with water and Spirit in Baptism.

*******I have been taught that confessing the name of Jesus is more than reciting a creed in a service containing the body of believers. To confess the name of Jesus to the world at large inthe workplace and in all interacting and dealings not being ashamed of being identified with Him means He will also confess my name before the Father in heaven.

This statement is not conisistent with what the Apostles believed and taught. It cannot be supported by Scripture, either. They are not guilty of any personal sin, but they are still suffering with original sin.

*******I guess we have differing opinions. Yes, we are born with a sinful nature but how can the individual be responsible for that until he gets old enough to understand he even has one and then sees his need for a Redeemer?

I think so. Tertullian wrote that he wanted children to reach the age of reason, and choose baptism.

These differences are legitimate topics of discussion here.

My own father is 94, he was baptized as an adult. He also claims to have served Jesus all his life so do we conclusively show that we should baptize only adults. I don’t get how Polycarp claiming to serve Jesus all his life dictates that he was baptized as an infant.

How can your father say he served Jesus all his life, if he was not baptized until he was an adult? Could he not have had a tumultuous adolescence like many of us?

******He was baptized upon his confession of faith at an early age. I am sure he had his moments not like many of us but rather like all of us including Polycarp.

Polycarp understood baptism to be regenerational, and incorporating him into Christ. He could not have done much “service” until he was old enough, but from the time he understood that he was born again in baptism until his martyrdom at 86 he is confessing that he never left the faith.

******This is my father’s story as well, only difference is my father was baptized after he realized the need for personal repentance. How that is not Biblical baffles me.

There are people that serve the Lord and have not been baptized. We call it a baptism of desire. He wanted to wait because the Church taught that baptism washes away all sin, original and personal. The soul is completely purified and cleansed, with no stain of any sin, so the soul that has just been baptized goes directly to heaven if one dies.
It is a dangerous practice, though, especially for a soldier as one can die without a chance to be baptized.

*******If a person can be saved by the “baptism of desire” what is dangerous about the practice sited above?

Constantine was as much persuaded by Arianism as he was Catholicism, and if the Council of Nicea had gone with Arianism, he would not have any complaint. So it is questionable if he could make the profession of faith required for Baptism prior to that time. He was espousing beliefs that were considered heretical.

*******Was he dealt with as a heretic? why not?

 

[Wannano]

This is a good question, and I think makes a reference to some of the ritual cleansing frequently used by the Jews at the time. But Peter is saying that Baptism is not intended to be a bath for the purpose of becoming physically clean, but spiritually clean. Similar to what Paul writes

"But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, 5He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,…Titus 3:5

Baptism is a washing with water that is spiritually rejenerative, becuase during it, the Holy Spirit circumcises the heart.

This is another good question. I think how this word is used must come from the roots of the preaching of John the Baptist.

1Now in those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, 2"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."…Matt. 3:1

The Gk. Μετανοεῖτε to change one’s mind (reverse course) is consistently used by Jesus, then by the apostles.

I know the word that seems to refer to ritual hand washing in Heb. 9:10 is also βαπτισμοῖς,

Christian baptism has always been described using the word βαπτίζει (baptizei)

Matthew 3:6
Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.(ἐβαπτίζοντο)

One thing you can clarify for me…Matt. 3:6 is referring to John’s baptism. How does the Catholic Church see John’s baptism? His message was repent and be baptized. The verse says confessing their sins they were baptized. Did his baptism have the same effect as Catholics see baptism having today? I mean specifically were the people saved by and during his baptism?

 

[Wannano]

1 Corinthians 7:14

For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy.

What, other than Original Sin, would cause children to be unclean?

I believe in Jewish thought the answer is having both parents unconsecrated.