God is green

[Guest]

Dear Paidion,

If I produce the writings of Infant Baptism in the early writings from these earliest of Christians, will you then deny them? How will you deal with them if you can see that such Christians believed/practiced Infant Baptism?

I see the non-labeled Christians denying them on the basis of something like this "Oh they were Catholics so they had already started perverting scripture and Christian doctrine. I see myself never getting across any point, ie, the reason I post to the "forum" because my emails returned are so positive.

Christ's Peace, Catholic Steve

[Guest]

If I produce the writings of Infant Baptism in the early writings from these earliest of Christians, will you then deny them?

Even if there is the possibility that someone else might try to deny them (although I doubt Paidion would), I for one certainly would like to read them. Could you post some quotes from the writings that Paidion mentioned about infant baptism? I would really like to read them -- quoting, or giving page numbers in specific works are helpful for someone like me - it would take years for me to read every early Christian work. Thanks!

-Rachel

[Guest]

Hi Rae and Paidion,

One can find references by some early church fathers, beginning about 150-200 years after Christ, to infant baptism. I can provide some of these references if CatholicSteve isn't able to.

A couple of points, however:

* Some of the references commonly given in support of infant baptism -- especially the earliest ones like Polycarp and Justin Martyr in the 150's and also those from scripture -- tend to rely heavily on assumptions (in other words, eisegesis) and don't mention baptism of infants at all.

* Later references, such as Hippolytus of Rome and Origen in the early 200's are explicit in their support for infant baptism.

What this means is that in the writings of the early church fathers one can easily trace an evolution of thought and practice regarding baptism. The Apostles baptized immediately after conversion (Acts 2:38, Acts 8:12, Acts 8:36-38, Acts 9:17-18, Acts 10:44-48, Acts 16:30-33) and there is no evidence that they baptized infants. After the Apostles, baptism began to be delayed, sometimes for many years after conversion. This was because a teaching developed that at baptism all of one's sins up to that point were forgiven (so why not hold out to get the most bang for your baptism buck). Out of this developed the doctrine of baptismal regeneration: the teaching that baptism, not belief, was the mechanism for salvation. The next logical step was to apply this mechanism of salvation by baptism to infants, since baptism had now replaced belief.

So, the fact that Origen wrote in favor of infant baptism in 240 AD or Cyprian did in 250 AD doesn't really tell us anything except that the doctrine developed by that time. It only becomes applicable to us if it is married to the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession of infallibility. If one reads Origen or Cyprian or Tertullian or any of the other early church fathers in detail, one soon discovers that they were quite fallible.

CatholicSteve,

I ask for the third time: According to Catholic doctrine, what happens to a baby if it dies before being baptized? Does it go to Heaven or Hell?

[Guest]

Out of this developed the doctrine of baptismal regeneration: the teaching that baptism, not belief, was the mechanism for salvation. The next logical step was to apply this mechanism of salvation by baptism to infants, since baptism had now replaced belief.

Not exactly. Both faith and baptism are necessary , according to: Mark 16: 16 and Colossians 2:11-12 Baptism has never replaced faith , both work together.

As a believer in infant baptism , though not a catholic , I base it on the following:

A belief in original sin , that is that an infant has something to be saved from even though they have not themselves sinned. Baptism saves , and is an act of God not dependent on the condition of the person receiving it. The age , amount of faith , or knowledge is not important. Titus 3:5-6 Acts 2:38-39 It is a means of receiving the grace of God , though not the only one.


Baptism is how God miraculously delivers a person from sin, death, and the devil; gives new life; and brings one into Christ’s kingdom forever Martin Luther

However , as a part of this , is the belief that salvation may be lost through lack of belief , faith may die. Baptism , by imparting the Holy Spirit , is the beginning of faith. (Faith comes from God not from ourselves) .

What I reject is , "It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith " , it is much more than a ritual symbolizing an already achieved salvation. Or that there is such a thing as an age of accountability. This seems to tie baptism in with the practice of Bar Mitzvah.



Thomas

By the way I do not believe that an unbaptized infant will go to Hell , but then neither do the catholics (officially).

[Guest]

So, the fact that Origen wrote in favor of infant baptism in 240 AD or Cyprian did in 250 AD doesn't really tell us anything except that the doctrine developed by that time.

I have read Cyprian's statements about infant baptism, but have been unable to find any reference to it by Origen. Mort, I would be pleased if you should post a reference from Origen. I don't think we have to wait for Catholic Steve in this regard.

[Guest]

Thomas,

Can you show from scripture your basis your rejection of the statement below? My brother-in-law & I are having a similar discussion.

What I reject is , "It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith " , it is much more than a ritual symbolizing an already achieved salvation.

[Guest]

Amazing! The thread has been a constant "show me the early Christian writings" but the non-labeled Christians deny the need to find them or produce them. Then when I have them locked and loaded for my next post, what do I get?! If they do not like the thread then start another thread under "God is my interpretation" and let everyone read your opinion on that.

WOW! All sorts of things about Cyprian, Origen, these early Christians, those early Christians but we can not rely on them for this, or that...blah, blah, blah. Where the heck were you when the thread was SHOW ME THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN WRITINGS THAT DENY CATHOLIC CHRISTAIN DOCTRINE.

Holy smolly, bless my souly, Well you are answering your own questions my non-labeled Christian friends. Go to those writings that you seem to know where they are and tell me what they say about you very questions.

My job is to continue on with my discussion of Infant Baptism and the last time I read anything was that no one could find anything (until just a moment ago). Therefore, I hope to have a bunch of those writings so the non-labeled Christians can deny them.

Catholic Steve

[Guest]

Hi Thomas,

Thanks for your reply and clarification. I should reiterate that I was speaking, in the statement of mine that you quoted, about beliefs surrounding baptism in the 3rd, 4th and 5th century. My statement was not meant to describe contemporary beliefs.

For example, we know that Constantine delayed his baptism until on his deathbed. Constantius II, Theodosius I, Ambrose and many others also delayed baptism until late in life. During this period in history, Christians were expected live pure lives after baptism. It was believed that the slate of past sins was wiped clean at baptism, so many held out as long as possible.

I can appreciate your statement that "Both faith and baptism are necessary" and understand that that is a common view in Christendom. I do not agree with this view, however.

If I understand you correctly, you are positing that salvation initially occurs via baptism but that it must be followed (eventually) by faith lest the salvation "wears off" (my way of putting it, not yours!). This strikes me as putting the cart before the horse. The examples throughout the Book of Acts are that baptism follows belief.

There is also a disturbing ramification to the idea that baptism can effectively precede faith. Such a view was proposed by Augustine and resulted in abuses like Charlemagne's forced baptisms of conquered peoples, the forced baptisms of Jews by the Catholic church, etc.

By the way I do not believe that an unbaptized infant will go to Hell, but then neither do the catholics (officially).

If an infant who is unbaptized does not go to Hell, it begs the question, "Then why bother baptizing infants?"

The Catholic view on whether unbaptized infants go to Heaven or Hell has varied depending on the time in history. Back in Augustine's day and for many centuries after, the dominant view was that unbaptized babies went to Hell. As repugnant as this doctrine is, at least it is consistent with the doctrine of Original Sin (which I consider to be another repugnant doctrine). Somewhere around the 14th century this view was softened and the concept of Limbo (a not-quite-Heaven for babies) was introduced (and, of course, claimed by the Catholic church to have been there all along). More recently, the Catholic church's position has been shifting towards your view that unbaptized infants will go to Heaven. This again begs the question of why bother...


Paidion,

I have read Cyprian's statements about infant baptism, but have been unable to find any reference to it by Origen. Mort, I would be pleased if you should post a reference from Origen. I don't think we have to wait for Catholic Steve in this regard.

I'm aware of three statements attributed to Origen in support of infant baptism.

The first is in his Homilies on Leviticus 8:3

"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."

The second is in his Commentary on Romans 5

“The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit”

The third is in his Homily on Luke 14:5

"Infants are baptized for the remission of sins ... That is the reason why infants too are baptized."

However, having said that, it is worth pointing out that it has long been disputed how much of the words attributed to Origen actually came from Origen. The only references to infant baptism in Origen's work come from the Latin translations. There is no mention of infant baptism in Origen's extant Greek works. Many of Origen's works were translated into Latin by Jerome and Ruffinus in the late 4th/early 5th century. Ruffinus in particular is believed to have played fast and loose with Origen's words and was known for interpolating his own views into his translations of other's work. The great Catholic theologian Erasmus supposedly stated angrily that a reader is never sure whether he is reading Origen or Ruffinus.

Among the problems with relying too heavily upon the writings of early church fathers is that they were very fallible men with biases and limited information sources, their works are not inspired scripture and their writings were not treated with the same meticulous care and preservation that the scriptural texts were.

[Guest]

Mort wrote:

The third is in his Homily on Luke 14:5
Quote:
"Infants are baptized for the remission of sins ... That is the reason why infants too are baptized."

However, having said that, it is worth pointing out that it has long been disputed how much of the words attributed to Origen actually came from Origen. The only references to infant baptism in Origen's work come from the Latin translations.

Are you sure on this one Mort? Noted early Church historian Everett Ferguson, in his book "Early Christians Speak", while noting that Origen's Latin translators "were not always faithful", says the quote in "Homilies on Luke" survives in Greek as follows:

I take this occasion to discuss something which our brothers often talk about. Infants are baptized for the remission of sins. Of what kinds? Or when did they sin? But since "No one is exempt from stain," one removes the stain by the mystery of baptism. For this reason infants also are baptized.

In his commentary on "The beginning of Infant Baptism", Ferguson says:

Origen provides evidence that the practice preceeded the theological justification. The sequence was infant baptism then the doctrine of infant sinfulness, and not a doctrine of original sin leading to the practice of infant baptism. The reasons for baptizing a child were being discussed. The child did not have sins of his own. Origen's answer was that a stain attaches to birth. This is not yet a doctrine of original sin (that is, the inheritance of the guilt of Adam's transgression), for Origen in the homily on Luke 14.3 contrasts sin and stain and says the latter attached to Jesus by reason of His taking a human body (and so the necessity of purification in Luke 2:22).

There is not one example of infant baptism or precept for it in the entire New Testament, or is it even mentioned. When people read into the accounts of "household baptism" their ideas that infants must be included they overlook the social culture of the east. Unmarried children commonly remained in the home as adults, as they do to this day in many lands. When you read that the whole household was baptized, and that all those baptized "rejoiced", that should give pause to thinking infants were included.

Ferguson's book is available at Amazon; highly recommended. He is held in highest regard on early church history.

[Guest]

Hi Homer,

Good catch, I must have been mistaken on that one. I didn't realize that Origen's "Homilies on Luke" was extant in the Greek, at least beyond some fragments. But I would certainly bow to as reputable a source as Everett Ferguson.