Why Should Protestants Trust the Church Fathers?

[Randy_Carson]

John Chrysostom

“You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members” (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

"They are citizens of the Church who were wandering in error. They have their lot in RIGHTEOUSNESS who were in the confusion of sin. For not only are they free, but HOLY also; not only holy, but RIGHTEOUS too; not only righteous, but SONS also; not only sons, but HEIRS as well; not only heirs, but BROTHERS even of Christ; not only brothers of Christ, but also co-heirs; not only co-heirs, but His very members; not only His members, but a temple too; not a temple only, but likewise the instruments of the SPIRIT. You see how many are the benefits of BAPTISM, and some think its heavenly GRACE consists ONLY in the remission of sins; but we have enumerated TEN honors. For this reason we baptize even INFANTS, though they are not defiled by sin [or do not have sins]: so that there may be given to them HOLINESS, RIGHTEOUSNESS, ADOPTION, INHERITANCE, BROTHERHOOD with Christ, and that they may be His MEMBERS. (from Baptismal Catecheses 2:4)

Council of Carthage (418 AD)

"If any man says that newborn children need not be baptized . . . let him be anathema."

Augustine

What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond. (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400])

“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

“Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born” (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).

This is the meaning of the great sacrament of baptism, which is celebrated among us: all who attain to this grace die thereby to sin—as he himself [Jesus] is said to have died to sin because he died in the flesh (that is, ‘in the likeness of sin’)—and they are thereby alive by being reborn in the baptismal font, just as he rose again from the sepulcher. This is the case no matter what the age of the body. For whether it be a newborn infant or a decrepit old man—since no one should be barred from baptism—just so, there is no one who does not die to sin in baptism. Infants die to original sin only; adults, to all those sins which they have added, through their evil living, to the burden they brought with them at birth. (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love 13[41] [A.D. 421]).

If you wish to be a Christian, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin.

Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without participation in His sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they cannot possibly be vivified in Christ.

For from the infant newly born to the old man bent with age, as there is none shut out from baptism, so there is none who in baptism does not die to sin (Enchiridion; ch. 43).

Who is so wicked as to want to exclude infants from the kingdom of heaven by prohibiting their being baptized and born again in Christ?

 

[dronald]

B]TRADITION

So no?

Hippolytus (170-236 AD)

“And first baptize the little ones; and if they can speak for themselves, they shall do so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for them.” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Full:

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.

If 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.
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. …Let those who are to be baptized be instructed that they bathe and wash on the fifth day
of the week. If a woman is in the manner of women, let her be set aparta and receive
baptism another day….
…Those who are to receive baptism shall fast on the Preparation of the Sabbath
The children shall be
baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there
are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or
someone else from their family.

Nothing of infants. All of the instructions point to people who know what they’re doing.

Origen

“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

So you accept this by Origen but not by Tertullian who came earlier and also was never given the title of Saint?

Council of Carthage (254 AD)

“We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God… especially infants. . . those newly born.”

Cyprian

“Should we wait until the eighth day as did the Jews in circumcision? No, the child should be baptized as soon as it is born.” (To Fidus 1: 2).

“In respect of the case of infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man… Spiritual circumcision ought not to be hindered by carnal circumcision… we ought to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins - that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another” (Letter 58 to Fidus).

“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]).

“If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” (ibid., 64:5).

Pope Sircius

“…we desire that infants who, on account of their age, cannot yet speak, or those who, in any necessity, are in want of the water of holy Baptism, be succored with all possible speed, for fear that if those who leave this world should be deprived of the life of the Kingdom for having been refused the source of salvation which they desired, this may lead to the ruin of our souls.” (Letter to Bishop Himerius, [A.D.385]).

Cyprian was obviously an advocate for infant baptism.

 

[dronald]

**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])

So it’s official that you believe infants cannot go to Heaven, correct? If you don’t believe this then why quote?

Gregory of Nazianzen

“Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!” (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).

“‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly *, if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated” (ibid., 40:28).

(cont.)*
Writing in the year 340 Gregory gives his advice:

Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzus Oration 40:XXVIII. Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for Baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious neither of the loss nor of the grace? Are we to baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitiated.
A proof of this is found in the Circumcision on the eighth day, which was a sort of typical seal, and was conferred on children before they had the use of reason. And so is the anointing of the doorposts, Exodus 12:22 which preserved the firstborn, though applied to things which had no consciousness. **But in respect of others I give my advice to wait till the end of the third year, or a little more or less, when they may be able to listen and to answer something about the Sacrament; that, even though they do not perfectly understand it, yet at any rate they may know the outlines; and then to sanctify them in soul and body with the great sacrament of our consecration. **For this is how the matter stands; at that time they begin to be responsible for their lives, when reason is matured, and they learn the mystery of life (for of sins of ignorance owing to their tender years they have no account to give), and it is far more profitable on all accounts to be fortified by the Font, because of the sudden assaults of danger that befall us, stronger than our helpers.

Also, Gregory’s father was ordained a bishop the same time that Gregory was born. Please explain to me why he was not Baptized as an infant.

Even Augustine in Confessions (who was a huge advocate for infant Baptism) reiterates the practice of not Baptizing infants for the same reason Tertullian did; although he was against it:

17 "Even as a boy I had heard of eternal life promised to us through the humility of the Lord our God, who came down to visit us in our pride, and I was signed with the sign of his cross, and was seasoned with his salt even from the womb of my mother, who greatly trusted in thee. Thou didst see, O Lord, how, once, while I was still a child, I was suddenly seized with stomach pains and was at the point of death–thou didst see, O my God, for even then thou wast my keeper, with what agitation and with what faith I solicited from the piety of my mother and from thy Church (which is the mother of us all) the baptism of thy Christ, my Lord and my God. The mother of my flesh was much perplexed, for, with a heart pure in thy faith, she was always in deep travail for my eternal salvation. If I had not quickly recovered, she would have provided forthwith for my initiation and washing by thy life-giving sacraments, confessing thee, O Lord Jesus, for the forgiveness of sins. So my cleansing was deferred, as if it were inevitable that, if I should live, I would be further polluted; and, further, because the guilt contracted by sin after baptism would be still greater and more perilous.

Thus, at that time, I “believed” along with my mother and the whole household, except my father. But he did not overcome the influence of my mother’s piety in me, nor did he prevent my believing in Christ, although he had not yet believed in him. For it was her desire, O my God, that I should acknowledge thee as my Father rather than him. In this thou didst aid her to overcome her husband, to whom, though his superior, she yielded obedience. In this way she also yielded obedience to thee, who dost so command.

1. I ask thee, O my God, for I would gladly know if it be thy will, to what good end my baptism was deferred at that time? Was it indeed for my good that the reins were slackened, as it were, to encourage me in sin? Or, were they not slackened? If not, then why is it still dinned into our ears on all sides, “Let him alone, let him do as he pleases, for he is not yet baptized”? In the matter of bodily health, no one says, “Let him alone; let him be worse wounded; for he is not yet cured”! How much better, then, would it have been for me to have been cured at once–and if thereafter, through the diligent care of friends and myself, my soul’s restored health had been kept safe in thy keeping, who gave it in the first place! This would have been far better, in truth. But how many and great the waves of temptation which appeared to hang over me as I grew out of childhood! These were foreseen by my mother, and she preferred that the unformed clay should be risked to them rather than the clay molded after Christ’s image.

---

As you can see, this was common thought.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Tertullian - On Baptism - Chapter 18

“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: Give not the holy thing to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine; Matthew7:6 and, Lay not hands easily on any; share not other men’s sins. If Philip so easily baptized the chamberlain, let us reflect that a manifest and conspicuous evidence that the Lord deemed him worthy had been interposed. Acts8:26-40 The Spirit had enjoined Philip to proceed to that road: the eunuch himself, too, was not found idle, nor as one who was suddenly seized with an eager desire to be baptized; but, after going up to the temple for prayer’s sake, being intently engaged on the divine Scripture, was thus suitably discovered— to whom God had, unasked, sent an apostle, which one, again, the Spirit bade adjoin himself to the chamberlain’s chariot. The Scripture which he was reading falls in opportunely with his faith: Philip, being requested, is taken to sit beside him; the Lord is pointed out; faith lingers not; water needs no waiting for; the work is completed, and the apostle snatched away. But Paul too was, in fact, ‘speedily’ baptized: for Simon, his host, speedily recognized him to be an appointed vessel of election. God’s approbation sends sure premonitory tokens before it; every petition may both deceive and be deceived. 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. For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred— in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom— until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.”​

Tradition?

Regarding what in particular? Obviously the practices he describes is tradition. Baptism was instituted by Christ for the remission of sins and the infusion of newness of life. Baptism has always been practiced by the Church. That baptism should not be given without discernment? The Church has always taught that those who wish to be baptized should be suitably disposed and instructed beforehand. Tertullian counsels against baptizing the young, but he doesn’t claim that such an opinion is tradition or current practice. His opinion stems from his views regarding repentance after sin, since an infant who was then baptized and fell into sin when they were older and culpable would have used up their one chance for baptism and been left without remedy. Of course that’s a distorted view since the parents or sponsors pledge to bring up the child in the faith, but if there is reason that the children will not have a Christian upbringing, they are not baptized.

I think some people are approaching the church fathers from the mistaken perspective that Catholics believe that everything a church father says is inerrant. Catholic belief does not rest in the teaching of any private individual, but in the teaching of the Church, which is infallible. All men can error in their private writings. And though we can distinguish between different writings according to the details of the composition and the dignity of the author, it cannot be assumed a priori that such private writings are without error. But when the fathers of the Church unanimously teach, along with the Scriptures, that baptism is regenerative, I think that ought to make Baptists and like-minded Protestants question whether they, a minority, got it right centuries after Christ when everyone before them was in error, believing superstitiously that water could take away sins. Furthermore, in addition to belief, the Church fathers are reliable witnesses of what the Church practices, especially regarding things like the mass and the sacraments. A better question is not so much whether Father X said something in conflict with Catholic teaching on some particular point (especially when they are a notorious heretic who joined what was in my opinion one of the most ridiculous sects), but rather whether what you are practicing conforms at all to the Church that they belonged to.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

So it’s official that you believe infants cannot go to Heaven, correct? If you don’t believe this then why quote?

Writing in the year 340 Gregory gives his advice:

Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzus Oration 40:XXVIII. Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for Baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious neither of the loss nor of the grace? Are we to baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitiated.
A proof of this is found in the Circumcision on the eighth day, which was a sort of typical seal, and was conferred on children before they had the use of reason. And so is the anointing of the doorposts, Exodus 12:22 which preserved the firstborn, though applied to things which had no consciousness. **But in respect of others I give my advice to wait till the end of the third year, or a little more or less, when they may be able to listen and to answer something about the Sacrament; that, even though they do not perfectly understand it, yet at any rate they may know the outlines; and then to sanctify them in soul and body with the great sacrament of our consecration. **For this is how the matter stands; at that time they begin to be responsible for their lives, when reason is matured, and they learn the mystery of life (for of sins of ignorance owing to their tender years they have no account to give), and it is far more profitable on all accounts to be fortified by the Font, because of the sudden assaults of danger that befall us, stronger than our helpers.

Also, Gregory’s father was ordained a bishop the same time that Gregory was born. Please explain to me why he was not Baptized as an infant.

Even Augustine in Confessions (who was a huge advocate for infant Baptism) reiterates the practice of not Baptizing infants for the same reason Tertullian did; although he was against it:

17 "Even as a boy I had heard of eternal life promised to us through the humility of the Lord our God, who came down to visit us in our pride, and I was signed with the sign of his cross, and was seasoned with his salt even from the womb of my mother, who greatly trusted in thee. Thou didst see, O Lord, how, once, while I was still a child, I was suddenly seized with stomach pains and was at the point of death–thou didst see, O my God, for even then thou wast my keeper, with what agitation and with what faith I solicited from the piety of my mother and from thy Church (which is the mother of us all) the baptism of thy Christ, my Lord and my God. The mother of my flesh was much perplexed, for, with a heart pure in thy faith, she was always in deep travail for my eternal salvation. If I had not quickly recovered, she would have provided forthwith for my initiation and washing by thy life-giving sacraments, confessing thee, O Lord Jesus, for the forgiveness of sins. So my cleansing was deferred, as if it were inevitable that, if I should live, I would be further polluted; and, further, because the guilt contracted by sin after baptism would be still greater and more perilous.

Thus, at that time, I “believed” along with my mother and the whole household, except my father. But he did not overcome the influence of my mother’s piety in me, nor did he prevent my believing in Christ, although he had not yet believed in him. For it was her desire, O my God, that I should acknowledge thee as my Father rather than him. In this thou didst aid her to overcome her husband, to whom, though his superior, she yielded obedience. In this way she also yielded obedience to thee, who dost so command.

1. I ask thee, O my God, for I would gladly know if it be thy will, to what good end my baptism was deferred at that time? Was it indeed for my good that the reins were slackened, as it were, to encourage me in sin? Or, were they not slackened? If not, then why is it still dinned into our ears on all sides, “Let him alone, let him do as he pleases, for he is not yet baptized”? In the matter of bodily health, no one says, “Let him alone; let him be worse wounded; for he is not yet cured”! How much better, then, would it have been for me to have been cured at once–and if thereafter, through the diligent care of friends and myself, my soul’s restored health had been kept safe in thy keeping, who gave it in the first place! This would have been far better, in truth. But how many and great the waves of temptation which appeared to hang over me as I grew out of childhood! These were foreseen by my mother, and she preferred that the unformed clay should be risked to them rather than the clay molded after Christ’s image.

---

As you can see, this was common thought.

Why are you so fixated on this subject? Though there were people who decided to excessively defer baptism, that is not a contradiction of Catholic doctrine, nor does it establish a normative practice.

Catholics do not believe that infants cannot go to heaven, only that unbaptized infants cannot go to heaven.

It may have been common though in various times and places by individuals that baptism should be put off unduly, but that has never been the teaching of the Church. I have not undertaken any serious study to see exactly how widespread such attitudes are. The reasoning behind that view is not illogical, but it is definitely dangerous. St. Gregory Nazianzen says in the oration you quote, that it would be very bad to be caught without being baptized. So someone may decide it is prudent to defer baptism for a time, but it id always necessary to consider whether that is a worthwhile gamble.

Furthermore, at least in Augustine’s case, it is not even contrary to the ordinary standards of today for his baptism to be deferred. His father Patricius was a pagan, and Augustine definitely did not have anything close to a rock-solid Christian upbringing.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So no?

I gave you a boatload of quotes from the ECF’s advocating infant baptism and from them, you can see that the Tradition of baptizing infants was apostolic in origin.

Do you have any other question at this point?

 

[dronald]

I gave you a boatload of quotes from the ECF’s advocating infant baptism and from them, you can see that the Tradition of baptizing infants was apostolic in origin.

Do you have any other question at this point?

And you even quoted Ambrose, which I find odd because I don’t even know if you believe what Ambrose taught, do you?

 

[dronald]

Regarding what in particular? Obviously the practices he describes is tradition. Baptism was instituted by Christ for the remission of sins and the infusion of newness of life. Baptism has always been practiced by the Church. That baptism should not be given without discernment? The Church has always taught that those who wish to be baptized should be suitably disposed and instructed beforehand. Tertullian counsels against baptizing the young, but he doesn’t claim that such an opinion is tradition or current practice. His opinion stems from his views regarding repentance after sin, since an infant who was then baptized and fell into sin when they were older and culpable would have used up their one chance for baptism and been left without remedy. Of course that’s a distorted view since the parents or sponsors pledge to bring up the child in the faith, but if there is reason that the children will not have a Christian upbringing, they are not baptized.

I think some people are approaching the church fathers from the mistaken perspective that Catholics believe that everything a church father says is inerrant. Catholic belief does not rest in the teaching of any private individual, but in the teaching of the Church, which is infallible. All men can error in their private writings. And though we can distinguish between different writings according to the details of the composition and the dignity of the author, it cannot be assumed a priori that such private writings are without error. But when the fathers of the Church unanimously teach, along with the Scriptures, that baptism is regenerative, I think that ought to make Baptists and like-minded Protestants question whether they, a minority, got it right centuries after Christ when everyone before them was in error, believing superstitiously that water could take away sins. Furthermore, in addition to belief, the Church fathers are reliable witnesses of what the Church practices, especially regarding things like the mass and the sacraments. A better question is not so much whether Father X said something in conflict with Catholic teaching on some particular point (especially when they are a notorious heretic who joined what was in my opinion one of the most ridiculous sects), but rather whether what you are practicing conforms at all to the Church that they belonged to.

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.

 

[dronald]

Catholics do not believe that infants cannot go to heaven, only that unbaptized infants cannot go to heaven.

If you say so.

It may have been common though in various times and places by individuals that baptism should be put off unduly, but that has never been the teaching of the Church. I have not undertaken any serious study to see exactly how widespread such attitudes are. The reasoning behind that view is not illogical, but it is definitely dangerous. St. Gregory Nazianzen says in the oration you quote, that it would be very bad to be caught without being baptized. So someone may decide it is prudent to defer baptism for a time, but it id always necessary to consider whether that is a worthwhile gamble.

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

Furthermore, at least in Augustine’s case, it is not even contrary to the ordinary standards of today for his baptism to be deferred. His father Patricius was a pagan, and Augustine definitely did not have anything close to a rock-solid Christian upbringing.

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.

 

[Randy_Carson]

And you even quoted Ambrose, which I find odd because I don’t even know if you believe what Ambrose taught, do you?

What do you believe I would reject?

 

[Duane1966]

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.

Yes, but is the tradition because people wanted to wash away their children’s sins at a later date? In other words, did people delay baptizing their infants because they felt it would be better to have the soul cleansed either: A) after the temptations and stupidity of youth, or B) right before dying, or both?

The following is from Catholic.com

Consider, too, that Fathers raised in Christian homes (such as Irenaeus) would hardly have upheld infant baptism as apostolic if their own baptisms had been deferred until the age of reason.For example, infant baptism is assumed in Irenaeus’ writings below (since he affirms both that regeneration happens in baptism, and also 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 at that time—Polycarp, a personal disciple of the apostle John, who had died only a few decades before.**Irenaeus"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 Heresies2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).*

 

[Ignatius]

Does someone have any other ways to introduce them to the Early Church Fathers that makes sense

One good reason is because they are the ones who passed on the teachings that Jesus gave and were passed down through the fathers for centuries before the 27 Book Canon of the New Testament was Canonized. IOW, it is through these very church fathers that we have The New Testament Scriptures, for which the Protestants should be very thankful.

It might be important that they know that King James lived in the 17th century, that is almost 1700 years after Christ, so the are probably unaware that the Scripture was preserved and handed on the Scripture for 1700 years by The Catholic Church.

 

[dronald]

What do you believe I would reject?

What he wrote that you quoted. Do you or don’t you?

 

[dronald]

Yes, but is the tradition because people wanted to wash away their children’s sins at a later date? In other words, did people delay baptizing their infants because they felt it would be better to have the soul cleansed either: A) after the temptations and stupidity of youth, or B) right before dying, or both?

Right, there was diversity obviously. See Tertullian.

The following is from Catholic.com

Consider, too, that Fathers raised in Christian homes (such as Irenaeus) would hardly have upheld infant baptism as apostolic if their own baptisms had been deferred until the age of reason.For example, infant baptism is assumed in Irenaeus’ writings below (since he affirms both that regeneration happens in baptism, and also 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 at that time—Polycarp, a personal disciple of the apostle John, who had died only a few decades before.**Irenaeus"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 Heresies2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).*

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

 

[SplendidSt]

So no?
The children shall be
baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there
are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or
someone else from their family.

Nothing of infants. All of the instructions point to people who know what they’re doing.

I’m sorry to say, but that’s just completely inaccurate. Children and little ones who cannot answer for themselves are synonomous with infants. Given the fact also the Bible never says Baptism is only for adults, your claim is disproven as demonstrated by the clear example of our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ himself whom after "they were bringing even infants” to Jesus, he said to them “Let the children come to me . . . for to such belongs the kingdom of God.” in Luke 18:15-16.
the Greek words in reference to these children is literally translated as infants. Point blank. No wonder the church Fathers supported infant baptism.

Baptism is the Christian rite of initiation and the New Testament fulfilment of circumcision. Saint Paul inspired by the Holy Spirit calls it “the circumcision of Christ,” and says to us: “In him you were also circumcised with…the circumcision of 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” (Col 2:11–12). Circumcision was not only given to converts to Judaism who already had the faith, but also to infants who would be rasied in the faith by believing parents. This is what happens in Baptism as well. To put it frankly, your opinion is the novel one here.

 

[Church_Militant]

This may help in that it ties in both the ECF and scripture in support of church teaching. The Case For Infant Baptism

 

[Randy_Carson]

What he wrote that you quoted. Do you or don’t you?

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.

 

[dronald]

I’m sorry to say, but that’s just completely inaccurate. Children and little ones who cannot answer for themselves are synonomous with infants.

No. Gregory clearly gives his advice that it is better to wait three years so they can even “Answer something” about the Sacrament. There is nothing wrong with a parent speaking on their behalf. And again, Gregory said they ought to be Baptized if danger persists.

Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzus Oration 40:XXVIII. Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for Baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious neither of the loss nor of the grace? Are we to baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitiated.
A proof of this is found in the Circumcision on the eighth day, which was a sort of typical seal, and was conferred on children before they had the use of reason. And so is the anointing of the doorposts, Exodus 12:22 which preserved the firstborn, though applied to things which had no consciousness. **But in respect of others I give my advice to wait till the end of the third year, or a little more or less, when they may be able to listen and to answer something about the Sacrament; that, even though they do not perfectly understand it, yet at any rate they may know the outlines; **and then to sanctify them in soul and body with the great sacrament of our consecration. For this is how the matter stands; at that time they begin to be responsible for their lives, when reason is matured, and they learn the mystery of life (for of sins of ignorance owing to their tender years they have no account to give), and it is far more profitable on all accounts to be fortified by the Font, because of the sudden assaults of danger that befall us, stronger than our helpers."

Given the fact also the Bible never says Baptism is only for adults, your claim is disproven as demonstrated by the clear example of our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ himself whom after "they were bringing even infants” to Jesus, he said to them “Let the children come to me . . . for to such belongs the kingdom of God.” in Luke 18:15-16.

Actually the opposite. Because of this we should know that infants go to Heaven regardless of Baptism **because such belongs the Kingdom of God. **Any other opinion is just silly.

Baptism is the Christian rite of initiation and the New Testament fulfilment of circumcision. Saint Paul inspired by the Holy Spirit calls it “the circumcision of Christ,” and says to us: “In him you were also circumcised with…the circumcision of 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” (Col 2:11–12). Circumcision was not only given to converts to Judaism who already had the faith, but also to infants who would be rasied in the faith by believing parents. This is what happens in Baptism as well. To put it frankly, your opinion is the novel one here.

Circumcision was also only given to females, but assuming you’re correct Paul also says:

1 Corin 7:19 For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.

But even if you believe that’s out of context and it’s not the water that saves us but a clear conscience on Christ; read the whole thing! It’s clearly not about infants but people who accepted Christ:

8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits { Or b elementary principles b; also verse 20 } of the world, and not according to Christ.

9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,

10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.

11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,

12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also** raised with him through faith** in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,

14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

 

[dronald]

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.

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

 

[SplendidSt]

Circumcision was also only given to females, but assuming you’re correct Paul also says:

1 Corin 7:19 For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.

But even if you believe that’s out of context and ; read the whole thing! It’s clearly not about infants but people who accepted Christ:.

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.

So, the church’s position works and is logical. As you know, the Sacrament of Baptism isn’t a mere man made tradition. The God man Jesus Christ instituted it at his ascension. Jesus established this Sacrament, not mere man (unless you wish to argue Jesus was a merely a man and not also fully God himself)

(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.