Why Should Protestants Trust the Church Fathers?

[chero23]

I want to introduce my Protestant friends to the church Fathers (more specifically the early church fathers) but I am immediately confronted with the response “Well, that was back before they had the bible so you can’t trust what they’re teaching” Now I am well aware Saint Clement of Rome was ordained by St. Peter himself, and Polycarp was ordained by St. John the Apostle and St. Ignatius of Antioch was John’s disciple. Does someone have any other ways to introduce them to the Early Church Fathers that makes sense in the light of their ignorance of the Early church?

To me its simple. Because these men were taught by the apostles themselves, who were taught by Jesus Christ. Not like Paul tells Timothy and Titus, what you have learned from me, pass it to others. That is where Apostolic Succession comes in.

These men like I said were taught by the apostles, its just one of those things we have to trust, because Jesus left them in charge.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So is it Tradition or isn’t it? You said TRADITION and quoted him. Is it actually considered TRADITION as you say?

The baptism of infants is from Sacred Tradition. There is no explicit instruction concerning this doctrine in Scripture either way.

 

[Duane1966]

Right, there was diversity obviously. See Tertullian.

I think it’s interesting that Irenaeus said that Baptism makes one like “A newborn infant”.

I fail to see that in the quote by Irenaeus. Are we reading the same quote? No matter.

You are confusing Church Tradition, with individual tradition. Once again let us turn to that Council of Jerusalem in Acts. Some argued for circumcision, some against. The Church makes a ruling in favor of not circumcising the gentiles. Probably some that were in favor of circumcision left. Others that were in favor of circumcision, ** bent their wills to the Church, ** even though it went against a tradition they believed in. So then non circumcision became a ** Tradition.**

We know that Revelation almost didn’t make it into the NT. But when the Church compiled the NT, she ruled in favor of its addition. Those that were against Revelation, bent their wills to the Church, and accepted it as inspired. Should I, some 1700 years later say: "there were many bishops who didn’t think Revelation was inspired, so I can reject it, based on their tradition? What about other books that don’t fit MY theology?

When tradition clashes, as is the case with infant baptism, the Church MUST come up with a decision. She ruled in favor, and those that were opposed, bent their will. For it is never about our will, but the will of the Father.

Two questions for you.

1.) Circumcision was a must for all Jewish males by the eighth day. Why didn’t Jesus argue for believers circumcision?

My next question follows this passage from scripture.

** Saying on Children and the Kingdom.

15**People were bringing EVEN INFANTS to him that he might touch them,**and when the disciples saw this, they rebuked them.g16Jesus, however, called the children to himself and said, “Let the children come to me and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.17Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.” **

2.) How do we bring an infant to Jesus?

 

[SplendidSt]

I fail to see that in the quote by Irenaeus. Are we reading the same quote? No matter.

You are confusing Church Tradition, with individual tradition. Once again let us turn to that Council of Jerusalem in Acts. Some argued for circumcision, some against. The Church makes a ruling in favor of not circumcising the gentiles. Probably some that were in favor of circumcision left. Others that were in favor of circumcision, ** bent their wills to the Church, ** even though it went against a tradition they believed in. So then non circumcision became a ** Tradition.**

We know that Revelation almost didn’t make it into the NT. But when the Church compiled the NT, she ruled in favor of its addition. Those that were against Revelation, bent their wills to the Church, and accepted it as inspired. Should I, some 1700 years later say: "there were many bishops who didn’t think Revelation was inspired, so I can reject it, based on their tradition? What about other books that don’t fit MY theology?

When tradition clashes, as is the case with infant baptism, the Church MUST come up with a decision. She ruled in favor, and those that were opposed, bent their will. For it is never about our will, but the will of the Father.

Two questions for you.

1.) Circumcision was a must for all Jewish males by the eighth day. Why didn’t Jesus argue for believers circumcision?

My next question follows this passage from scripture.

** Saying on Children and the Kingdom.

15**People were bringing EVEN INFANTS to him that he might touch them,**and when the disciples saw this, they rebuked them.g16Jesus, however, called the children to himself and said, “Let the children come to me and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.17Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.” **

2.) How do we bring an infant to Jesus?

Preach !^ and everything just said

 

[dronald]

This specific verse and the passages that preceed it are referring to the old circumsision of the flesh, so yes, it’s out of context. Paul here is declaring how the Mosaic law cannot save. What you’ve in fact done is take the null and void Mosaic law and apply the non-efficacy of the Mosaic law to it’s New Testament fulfillment. Logically speaking, this is problematic.Your formulated argument goes as follows:

1.The Mosaic Law provides that (A)
2.(A) is not efficacious as infallibly indicated by Sacred Scripture.
3. (B) is the New Testament fulfillment of (A).
4. Therefore (B) is not efficacious

So you have it as such:

1.The Mosaic Law provides that (Circumcision)
2.(Circumcision) is not efficacious.
3. (Baptism) is the New Testament fulfillment of (Circumcision).
4. Therefore (Baptism) is not efficacious.

But let’s take that opinion to its logical conclusion:

1.The Mosaic Law provides that (The goat of atonement be sacrificed for the sins of Israel. Lev.16:29-34)
2.(This Mosaic sacrifice) is not efficacious as infallibly indicated by Sacred Scripture (Heb. 10:4).
3. (Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross) is the New Testament fulfillment of (The atonement goat).
4. Therefore (Jesus sacrifice) is not efficacious.

Which is absurd. So, your presumptions are logically inapplicable to the truth of the gospel.
This is an accurately formulated argument:

1.The Mosaic Law provides that (A)
2.(A) is not efficacious as infallibly indicated by Sacred Scripture.
3. The New Testament is efficacious.
4. (B) is the New Testament fulfillment of (A).
5. Therefore (B) is efficacious.
Put it together? What do you get?

1.The Mosaic Law provides that (Circumcision)
2.(Circumcision) is not efficacious as infallibly indicated by Sacred Scripture.
3. The New Testament is efficacious.
3. (Baptism) is the New Testament fulfillment of (Circumcision).
4. Therefore (Baptism) is efficacious.

So we have:

1.The Mosaic Law provides that (The goat of atonement be sacrificed for the sins of Israel. Lev.16:29-34))
2.(This Mosaic sacrifice) is not efficacious as infallibly indicated by Sacred Scripture.
3. The New Testament is efficacious.
3. (Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross) is the New Testament fulfillment of (The atonement goat).
4. Therefore (Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross) is efficacious.

You’re missing one extremely important component. You’re looking at OT circumcision as what would save us and NT Baptism as what now saves us; but look what Paul says:

Romans 4:10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.

11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well,

12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

You see, it is faith that saves us; not the circumcision or uncircumcision. It never was! And thus we are saved by grace through faith.

(P.s The other scripture you referenced does not say “it’s not the water that saves us but a clear conscience on Christ” it actually says: "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" 1 Peter 3:21

So Baptism doesn’t save us in that it removes dirt from the body (that would be ridiculous xD) but it saves us as an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. So Baptism saves us as an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ our Most Blessed Lord.

Which can’t be done by an infant; only as an adult.

 

[dronald]

The baptism of infants is from Sacred Tradition. There is no explicit instruction concerning this doctrine in Scripture either way.

You told me that Ambrose’s belief was rooted in Tradition but now you’re saying you disagree with part of what he believed. You’re being inconsistent.

You want to believe that all of the ECF’s believed as you do and you’ve refuted yourself by quoting Ambrose and then reneging. You say that infant Baptism is Tradition but that they won’t enter Heaven is not; so you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too by quoting Ambrose.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You’re missing one extremely important component. You’re looking at OT circumcision as what would save us and NT Baptism as what now saves us

Well, yeah since that is what the Bible says:

1 Peter 3:20-21
when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

There’s an obvious connect with the OT since the Bible says:

Col 2:11-12
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Baptism is the circumcision of Christ.

 

[dronald]

I fail to see that in the quote by Irenaeus. Are we reading the same quote? No matter.

You are confusing Church Tradition, with individual tradition. Once again let us turn to that Council of Jerusalem in Acts. Some argued for circumcision, some against. The Church makes a ruling in favor of not circumcising the gentiles. Probably some that were in favor of circumcision left. Others that were in favor of circumcision, ** bent their wills to the Church, ** even though it went against a tradition they believed in. So then non circumcision became a ** Tradition.**

We know that Revelation almost didn’t make it into the NT. But when the Church compiled the NT, she ruled in favor of its addition. Those that were against Revelation, bent their wills to the Church, and accepted it as inspired. Should I, some 1700 years later say: "there were many bishops who didn’t think Revelation was inspired, so I can reject it, based on their tradition? What about other books that don’t fit MY theology?

I don’t quite understand. Since we’re discussing ECF’s, please show me the first one to separate “Tradition” from “tradition”? Keep in mind that small letters didn’t come into existence until centuries after the Apostles.

Basically “Tradition” to you is just whatever the Catholic Church decides on. But then you must ask if such “Tradition” is really rooted in tradition when you’re up against history. That is; the Orthodox Church on supremacy of Peter, assumption of Mary, original sin, etc. And basically every other opinion on everything else from the ECF’s that contradicts your beliefs.

When tradition clashes, as is the case with infant baptism, the Church MUST come up with a decision. She ruled in favor, and those that were opposed, bent their will. For it is never about our will, but the will of the Father.

Two questions for you.

Then you must ask, what in the world happens to unbaptized infants? Ambrose thought one thing, what do you think?

1.) Circumcision was a must for all Jewish males by the eighth day. Why didn’t Jesus argue for believers circumcision?

My next question follows this passage from scripture.

Already explained with Romans 4. It was the Faith that was important.

I
** Saying on Children and the Kingdom.

15**People were bringing EVEN INFANTS to him that he might touch them,**and when the disciples saw this, they rebuked them.g16Jesus, however, called the children to himself and said, “Let the children come to me and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.17Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.” **

2.) How do we bring an infant to Jesus?

Great question, and I’m glad that God always gives us context. It’s passages like this and “Baptism now saves you” that get taken out of context when not read in whole.

How do we bring an infant to Christ? Raise them in Christ. You quoted it yourself. Jesus did not say “Do not hinder the infants from coming to me for unless you accept the kingdom of God like an infant you will not enter it.”

Rather He says, bring the Infants unto me for whoever does not accept as a child will not enter it.

Luke 18:17 Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.

Jesus is again explaining a conscience effort of accepting Christ as a child.

 

[dronald]

Well, yeah since that is what the Bible says:

1 Peter 3:20-21
when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

There’s an obvious connect with the OT since the Bible says:

Col 2:11-12
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Baptism is the circumcision of Christ.

Coincidentally I just pointed out the frequency this passage is taken out of context. I’ve already explained above.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t quite understand.

This should help.

INFANT BAPTISM PROVED FROM SCRIPTURE

Old Covenant

Genesis 17:9-14
9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

Leviticus 12:3
3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised.

These texts show the circumcision of eight-day-old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant.

Connection to New Covenant

Col 2:11-12
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Baptism is the new “circumcision of Christ” for all people of the New Covenant.

We are Born Again Through Baptism

John 3:3-5
In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.” 4"How can a man be born when he is old?" 5Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!” Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

Baptism Washes Away Actual Sins

Acts 22:16
And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’

Do Infants Need Baptism?

Job 14:1-4
1 "Man born of woman is of few days and full of trouble. 2 He springs up like a flower and withers away; like a fleeting shadow, he does not endure. 3 Do you fix your eye on such a one? Will you bring him before you for judgment? 4 Who can bring what is pure from the impure? No one!

Psalm 51:5
5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

We are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the need for baptism from the moment of conception.

Jesus Extols Child-like Faith

Matthew 18:2-5
2 He called a little child and had him stand among them. 3And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?

Jesus Receives Little Children and Infants

Matt 19:13-15
13Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. 14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” 15 When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.

Mark 10:13-16
13People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. 14When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” 16And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them.

Jesus says to let the children come to Him for the kingdom of God also belongs to them. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism.

Luke 18:15-17
15People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Church Begins to Preach Baptism

Acts 2:38-39
38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

Peter did not say, “Every one of you adults”; he said, “Every one of you” without qualification and added “the promise (of the Holy Spirit) is for you and your children”. Baptism and the Holy Spirit are frequently connected throughout the Bible (cf. Ez. 36:25-27, Mt. 3:16, Jn. 3:5).

Acts 10:47-48
Then Peter said, 47"Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." 48So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius which probably included infants and young children. There is not one word in this passage (or any other in scripture) about baptism being limited to adults.

Acts 16:15
13On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there. 14One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. 15When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home.

Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word “household” comes from the Greek word “oikos” which is a household that includes infants and children. Further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia’s faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents’ faith, not the children’s faith.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**The Baptism of infants **

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

1251 Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them.

1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole “households” received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You told me that Ambrose’s belief was rooted in Tradition but now you’re saying you disagree with part of what he believed. You’re being inconsistent.

No, I’m not. The Fathers weren’t right about everything. This is a misunderstanding on your part.

You want to believe that all of the ECF’s believed as you do

Again, this is incorrect. Some of them made errors that the Church rejected.

and you’ve refuted yourself by quoting Ambrose and then reneging.

No. I quoted Ambrose because he supported the point that I was making. I’m not a complete idiot. Partial idiot, maybe, but not complete.

You say that infant Baptism is Tradition but that they won’t enter Heaven is not; so you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too by quoting Ambrose.

Again, you have failed to understand that I can agree with one point in the passage while disagreeing with the other.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t quite understand. Since we’re discussing ECF’s, please show me the first one to separate “Tradition” from “tradition”? Keep in mind that small letters didn’t come into existence until centuries after the Apostles.

Neither did modern English. Big whoop.

Basically “Tradition” to you is just whatever the Catholic Church decides on. But then you must ask if such “Tradition” is really rooted in tradition when you’re up against history. That is; the Orthodox Church on supremacy of Peter, assumption of Mary, original sin, etc. And basically every other opinion on everything else from the ECF’s that contradicts your beliefs.

No, Sacred Tradition is the Word of God in oral form. Other tradition (small “t”) can be anything from eating fish on Fridays to having the Youth choir sing at the Sunday evening mass.

Then you must ask, what in the world happens to unbaptized infants? Ambrose thought one thing, what do you think?

I think God is merciful.

Great question, and I’m glad that God always gives us context. It’s passages like this and “Baptism now saves you” that get taken out of context when not read in whole.

Agreed. Catholics believe that Baptism saves because we are reading the Whole of Scripture and not just a few isolated verses.

 

[dronald]

This should help.

Come on now. I wouldn’t believe what I believe if I didn’t have a sound explanation for each and every one.

There’s really no sense trying to prove infant baptism from the Bible, because it’s not in there. Even the first point I brought up had Tertullian essentially say “instructions on baptism aren’t in the Bible, so we must go to tradition.” I then went onto show how whatever tradition Tertullian got on infant baptism as it relates Catholicism must be quite wrong, or simply opinion.

If you read Tertullian’s works then it’s quite impressive how much emphasis he put on tradition, and the One True Church against all heresies. You should read some of his works or even just the titles. Lol

Chapter 20. Christ First Delivered the Faith. The Apostles Spread It; They Founded Churches as the Depositories Thereof. That Faith, Therefore, is Apostolic, Which Descended from the Apostles, Through Apostolic Churches.

Chapter 21. All Doctrine True Which Comes Through the Church from the Apostles, Who Were Taught by God Through Christ. All Opinion Which Has No Such Divine Origin and Apostolic Tradition to Show, is Ipso Facto False.

Chapter 22. Attempt to Invalidate This Rule of Faith Rebutted. The Apostles Safe Transmitters of the Truth. Sufficiently Taught at First, and Faithful in the Transmission.

Etc. And yet this same man doesn’t agree with you on infant baptism. Did he not do his research enough? Obviously he would have looked into it and has an extremely early account.

No, I’m not. The Fathers weren’t right about everything. This is a misunderstanding on your part.

Again, this is incorrect. Some of them made errors that the Church rejected.

No. I quoted Ambrose because he supported the point that I was making. I’m not a complete idiot. Partial idiot, maybe, but not complete.

It’s fine. But I was speaking in regards to St. Ambrose who at first you truly did claim was speaking from “TRADITION”. But obviously he was not now…

So again, tradition, whether you spell it with a big T or not, means something passed throughout the Church that was always believed to be true. Obviously Ambrose thought his belief on infants was tradition, as did Tertullian and apparently neither of them were correct.

Again, you have failed to understand that I can agree with one point in the passage while disagreeing with the other.

Well yes, because it’s an odd thing to quote a passage one disagrees with in order to try and further one’s point.

Neither did modern English. Big whoop.

Your point?
My point is that when someone said or wrote “Tradition” they meant something other than little tradition or big Tradition. And if you believe otherwise, please show me an early example of defining the two based on capital or small letters.

The issue is that you won’t be able to, because anytime a Church Father spoke of tradition, he believed it was Apostolic.

No, Sacred Tradition is the Word of God in oral form. Other tradition (small “t”) can be anything from eating fish on Fridays to having the Youth choir sing at the Sunday evening mass.

The word “Tradition” however you want to spell it means something that’s always been believed and passed down.

I think God is merciful.

Do you really need to think? These are helpless babies.

Agreed. Catholics believe that Baptism saves because we are reading the Whole of Scripture and not just a few isolated verses.

Hey now, don’t take my point and twist it on me

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

St Gregory seemed to say that delay is preferable if no danger persists.

I think you’re right, and St. Gregory’s line of reasoning is correct in principle. The sacrament of baptism should not be administered carelessly since it is worse for those who fall away after baptism than if they had never been baptized at all. So it is best to have some guarantee that the one to be baptized will persevere and be brought up in the faith. This is also the mind of the Catholic Church today, as can be seen in canon law. The difference is only a minor one of practical application. St. Gregory seems to think that under ideal circumstances, it is best to defer baptism for three years until the child might have some memory of the sacrament and a stronger impression of it. However, he also says that infants should be baptized immediately if there is danger of death. The Catholic Church’s current practice agrees with this reasoning, but differs slightly in application. Taking the ever-present danger of death very seriously, the Catholic Church encourages baptism sooner in most cases.

Can. 867 §1 Parents are obliged to see that their infants are baptised within the first few weeks. As soon as possible after the birth, indeed even before it, they are to approach the parish priest to ask for the sacrament for their child, and to be themselves duly prepared for it.

§2 If the infant is in danger of death, it is to be baptised without any delay.

Nevertheless, baptism is not to be administered in all cases.

Can. 868 §1 For an infant to be baptised lawfully it is required:

1° that the parents, or at least one of them, or the person who lawfully holds their place, give their consent;

2° that there be a well-founded hope that the child will be brought up in the catholic religion. If such hope is truly lacking, the baptism is, in accordance with the provisions of particular law, to be deferred and the parents advised of the reason for this.

So if it is doubtful that an infant is going to persevere in the Catholic faith, he is not to be baptized. This is a matter of prudential judgment, weighing the risk between allowing a child to die without the grace of baptism, and allowing a child to grow up and fall away from the grace of baptism. It is better to die without the grace of baptism than it is to die after having received that grace and afterwards sinning gravely against it. Better yet to die with the grace of baptism, but the identity of the elect is known only to God.

Regarding your own personal views about infant baptism, you will find no patristic support except from Pelagius and his followers.

Augustine states very clearly that he was never prevented by his father; and his mother was extremely devout. Are you saying no Bishop at his time as a youth encouraged his mother to Baptize Augustine?

Augustine himself relates the reasons given for why it was delayed. And again, very clear that his dad wasn’t stopping it.

Augustine’s father was not neutral toward Christianity. Otherwise he would not say that his father did not “overcome” his mother’s influence. And even if his father was completely indifferent, having a non-practicing father more often than not results in the child’s falling away in adulthood. This article from Touchstone reports, “If the father is non-practicing and mother regular, only 2 percent of children will become regular worshippers, and 37 percent will attend irregularly. Over 60 percent of their children will be lost completely to the church.” This is exactly what happened with Augustine. He apostatized and joined a gnostic cult. His mother clearly feared that her influence would not be enough to keep him from mortal sin as a child and even to keep him a Christian, and she was right on both counts, which is why Augustine says, “she preferred that the unformed clay should be exposed to them rather than the image itself.” As he says, she would only have baptized him if she were certain that he was on his deathbed.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Tertullian does mention in a late writing that his views on Baptism are found only in Tradition and not in Scripture. Don’t you think his ‘opinions’ would have some earlier validity? The man would have known older Christians who would have held the same opinions. We can’t deny how early the tradition of delaying baptism is.

Well, the writing in which he is giving the example of baptismal tradition which is not explicitly contained in Scripture is an entirely different work (De Corona Militis) from the one where he advises delaying the baptism of infants (De Baptismo), and so it would be a stretch to say that he was offering his prudential judgment regarding the best time to administer baptism as if it were a dogma. And there is nothing in his words to suggest that he conceives of his words in this way. He neither denies the efficacy of infant baptism nor does he condemn as heretics or as violating tradition those who do baptize infants.

I have a question for you. What value does Christian tradition have for you? Evidently your own views are very different from the ancient authors you are quoting.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Ah…now I think I understand.

**Ambrose **

Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. No one is excepted, not [even] the infant. (Abraham 1:3:21 [A.D. 387])

No, I would not agree with “no exceptions”; however, the greater point is that Ambrose clearly held that infant baptism was not just permissible but essential.

So, quoting his position on that very precise point makes perfect sense.

The Church’s teaching is that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, whether in reality by participation in the sacrament or in will, by desire. Ambrose is often cited as a witness to the belief in baptism of desire based on his statement in his funeral oration for the Emperor Valentian that Valentian, though he never received the sacrament, “undoubtedly received that grace which he desired.” So when he says no one is excepted from the precept of baptism, Ambrose does not mean with regard to the reception of the sacrament, but the grace of the sacrament.

 

[SplendidSt]

Romans 4:10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.

11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well,

12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

You see, it is faith that saves us; not the circumcision or uncircumcision. It never was! And thus we are saved by grace through faith.

-insert giggle- I agree completely, and what is he talking about here? Abraham’s Circumcision, and what is that? Cutting off the foreskin. And what covenant is that? The old. and is it Baptism he’s talking about? No.
Brother, he’s not taling about Baptism here. He reaffirming what I just said before, that the OT law isn’t efficacious.

" Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,”
Which can’t be done by an infant; only as an adult.

The verse says Baptism saves you as an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Baptism does this. That’s what the verse says, and you betcha infants are baptized. Baptism “can’t be done by an infant” as a matter of fact, baptism isn’t something you "do” anyway. You can’t baptize yourself either, not even Jesus baptized himself, John the Baptist baptized him. That’s cause baptism is done on you, you can’t do it to yourself. You never know though, you could have very novel views I guess, the way protestantism works.

 

[SplendidSt]

The way protestantism works. You could argue that, gather up like-minded parishioners, call yourselves Autobaptists and and start your own congregation “1st Autobaptist Church of God” I mean, that’s how it usually starts.:tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

There’s really no sense trying to prove infant baptism from the Bible, because it’s not in there.

But it is not prohibited by Scripture, either.

It’s fine. But I was speaking in regards to St. Ambrose who at first you truly did claim was speaking from “TRADITION”. But obviously he was not now…

dronald, read this again:

Ambrose
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. No one is excepted, not [even] the infant. (Abraham 1:3:21 [A.D. 387])

Forget me. Does Ambrose believe that infants cannot enter heaven without baptism?

If so, then Ambrose, basing his views upon Tradition, is supporting infant baptism. And that is why I can use his quote to illustrate that infant baptism is obvious in the writings of the Fathers.

So again, tradition, whether you spell it with a big T or not, means something passed throughout the Church that was always believed to be true. Obviously Ambrose thought his belief on infants was tradition, as did Tertullian and apparently neither of them were correct.

Yes! You are correct…at least to a point. First, Tertullian became a Montanist, so he is not a Church Father; however, he provides valuable historical information. Ambrose and many other fathers were not 100% correct on every point of faith.

The Catholic Church has listened carefully to all of her sons and infallibly chosen which of the many ideas to accept. So, some ideas of the Fathers were rejected

The issue is that you won’t be able to, because anytime a Church Father spoke of tradition, he believed it was Apostolic.

But he may have been mistaken or simply offering his personal opinion on a matter that had not really been discussed previously. They couldn’t Google “hypostasis” back then.

Do you really need to think? These are helpless babies.

You asked, “What do you think?”

I responded, “I think…”.