I'm a bit short on time, so I'll keep my responses brief (for a change).
Who closed up shop and went home?So much for courage. Get a little ruffled under the feathers and some people close up shop and go home.
Here we go again. So you are now abandoning your earlier claims that you could "...produce the writings of Infant Baptism in the early writings from these earliest of Christians...", since it has now been shown that the earliest mention is roughly 200AD....there are all sorts of writings supporting the doctrine of Infant Baptism after 200AD. This being said, then there should be all sorts of Christians Apologists writing against such a doctrine.
I have to wonder if the only person to whom it appears as "mumbo jumbo" is yourself.Don’t give this circular mumbo jumbo talk.
You must have missed everything I've written about how I value the writings of the early church fathers. I place the same high value on theologians throughout history, from Origen and Ambrose and Jerome to Anselm and Abelard and Aquinas to Luther and Calvin and Grebel to Barth and Schleiermacher and Bonhoeffer and Niebuhr and Wright, and a great many others. I can read them, learn from them, be edified by them and not have to agree with everything they say.It appears that non-Christians lived only up until 200AD because they will give early Christian writings credibility until 200AD….everything after that was theological garbage, right?
It's not a matter of the inference not being strong enough. It's a matter of your completely missing the boat in terms of why Irenaeus wrote this. He wasn't writing about baptism. He was writing about the doctrine of recapitulation. Until you take some time to understand this doctrine, which was at the core or Irenaeus' theology, you will continue to misuse his words.As for finding Irenaeus not using the statement “Infant Baptism”, does the inference count with nearly the same verbiage using “…sanctifying infants”. It appears that this is not strong enough for you so then a I apologize, but to sanctify is to “to free from sin, purify” (Webster’s). Now, we can go into another arena as to whether or not Baptism saves (sin removal)? Catholics believe that Baptism does so, Protestants not so.
Here is the text you provided by Irenaeus:
Here, again, is noted historian Everett Ferguson's brief explanation:"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. 180]).
“The context of Irenaeus’ statement is his doctrine of recapitulation according to which Christ summed up all of humanity in himself. Involved in this conception for Irenaeus was the idea that Jesus passed through all the ages of life, sanctifying each. There is nothing specifically about baptism, but ‘born again’ makes one think of baptism. ‘Regeneration,’ a different word from what is used in the passage under consideration, regularly means baptism for Irenaeus” (Everett Ferguson: Early Christians Speak, p. 59).
Ferguson, in case you're not familiar with is work, is a Harvard PhD who is professor emeritus of Bible and distinguished scholar-in-residence at Abilene Christian University in Abilene, Texas, where he taught church history and Greek. He is the author of numerous works, including Backgrounds of Early Christianity, Early Christians Speak, and Inheriting Wisdom: Readings for Today from Ancient Christian Writers. He was also general editor of the two-volume Encyclopedia of Early Christianity.
In other words, he has a bit more credibility than you.
But anyone familiar with Irenaeus' theology would understand that he is not speaking about baptism in this quote, but about recapitulation.
Once again, you've completely missed the point. My intention was never to disqualify Origen. The guy was brilliant. My point was that you seem happy to cite him as one of your infallible church fathers when you have a quote by him which you think supports a Catholic teaching. Yet I wonder, if I were referencing Origen in support of a doctrine such as pre-existence or universal reconciliation, what would you say about him then? Apparently, in the eyes of the Catholic church, Origen was fallible enough to be anathematized. It seems then that he is only useful to you if a snippet of his writing can be used as a prooftext for some Catholic doctrine. In that case, he suddenly becomes a venerable church father and recipient of Apostolic authority.You state “…Origen, because of some of his teachings, was declared anathema by a local council in Constantinople in 545, and then had 15 anathemas pronounced against him and his teachings at the Fifth Ecumenical Council (aka the Second Council of Constantinople) in 553.” Excellent, while you are there are you going to bring up Tertullian, too? I have a better position thought with the logic you use above to throw out Origen’s comments/writings of 244AD. By the way, how come you use these councils as a defense but when these very councils also support Infant Baptism you decline their position?
OK, he was declared “anathema” (banned, excommunicated, outside the Church) in 545AD. Does that negate his writings while still part of the Church? “..because of some of his writings ” …which ones? He was contested for Allegorism in the interpretation of Scripture, Subordination of the Divine and Persons The theory of successive trials and a final restoration. Since you are so good at these early writings (late, may I add), then please quote the writings about Infant Baptism that he was declared anathema for?
What makes you think that we don't publish or spread our belief system? This is quite an assumption on your part. As far as empty rituals, we don't have any.There are many rituals in protestant churches today that fall under that definition. Unfortunately, you are a non-labeled Christian going to a home fellowship church that does not publish or spread their belief system. Therefore, it is nearly impossible to see what empty rituals you perform.
Plenty of people infer from scripture. The challenge is to infer correctly. A key part of this is the practice of exegesis (drawing the meaning out from scripture) rather than eisegesis (reading the meaning into scripture).Some of you find the need to use a standard of “Infant Baptism” word for word necessary. Those specific words can not be found until later in the early writings, sorry to disappoint you. Because you can not find the specific words “Trinity” does that stop you from believing that this doctrine is in the earliest writings? What about the specific age of reason/discernment to be able to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior? Where is that? That is no where in scripture. It is no where in the earliest of any Christian writings but you will believe it to your dying breath. Therefore, if you are able to use such scriptural inferences about such doctrine then can we infer the same from scripture about Infant Baptism? Are non-labeled Christians the only ones allowed to infer from scripture?
Here is a great example of eisegesis. You are reading into the text your 21st century assumptions of a family as Dad, Mom and kiddies. What do you know about the Greco-Roman structure of the oikos?In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. ….I know, I know, this is a stretch, a real scriptural inference, but heck let’s run with it, OK?
More eisegesis. More assumptions. "...we do not know...", "...they may have...", "Then again, they could have...", "More probably...", "...if there were exceptions...they would be explicit". This is what you are building your dogmatic assertions on?Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children; they may have been past the age of reason, rather than infants. Then again, they could have been babes in arms. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason/discernment in some of the households that were baptized, especially if one considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth control. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be explicit.
Who said anything about leaving?As for your leaving the site, that is fine, I enjoy the forum just as well without you.
Of course, at times you sound like you think you are God.
I think you are more interested in impressing yourself or those around you.
In that case, I must be easily impressed!
Thomas,
I found your posts very interesting and will respond as soon as I have time.