God is green

[Guest]

Dear Forum Readers,

I think the post request was “Show me the Evidence”. That reminds me of Cuba Gooding yelling at Tom Cruise “Show Me the Money”! I guess I can do so. One for the money, two for the show, three to get ready so go, man, go!

What a scriptural ride this has been through what God promised and what He maintained through the Old and into the New. How about some writings from some of those earliest Christians? Maybe some had yet to place a label on themselves and maybe some that actually placed the “Catholic” label on themselves. CATHOLIC is from the Greek word roots to mean "according to (kata ) the whole (holos)…. kataholos, or more colloquially, "universal." At the beginning of the second century, we find in the letters of Ignatius the first surviving use of the term "Catholic" in reference to the Church.) label on themselves because there were several non-Christian heretical groups forming but still calling themselves CHRISTAIN, ie, the need for a label. So let’s see what some of these early Christians wrote about Infant Baptism.

In doing so I have placed writings of some early Christian writing regarding what Baptism was to these Christians. In them you will notice there is no inference to age restrictions. Unfortunately, some of these writings also state that baptism washes away sin which also flies in the face of Protestants.


The Letter of Barnabas (74AD)

"Regarding [baptism], we have the evidence of Scripture that Israel would refuse to accept the washing which confers the remission of sins and would set up a substitution of their own instead [Ps. 1:3–6]. Observe there how he describes both the water and the cross in the same figure. His meaning is, ‘Blessed are those who go down into the water with their hopes set on the cross.’ Here he is saying that after we have stepped down into the water, burdened with sin and defilement, we come up out of it bearing fruit, with reverence in our hearts and the hope of Jesus in our souls" (Letter of Barnabas 11:1–10 [A.D. 74]).


Hermas (80AD)
[A Christian of Rome (Romans 16:14 “Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas and the brothers with them.]
[Written in the Muratorian fragment is a list written c. 170, that is the earliest canon of New Testament writings. The Muratorian fragment identifies Hermas, the author of The Shepherd: “But Hermas wrote The Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the chair of the church of the city of Rome…” Also written in a poem written against Marcion from the 3rd/4th century, by a writer adopting the name and persona of Tertullian, states “Then, after him, Pius, whose brother according to the flesh was Hermas, the angelic shepherd, because he spoke the words given to him.”]
"‘I have heard, sir,’ said I, ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is’" (The Shepherd 4:3:1–2 [A.D. 80]).


Ignatius of Antioch (110AD) (“CATHOLIC” = kata holos)
[A student of the Apostle John. In route to his martyrdom in Rome, Ignatius wrote a series of letters which have been preserved as an example of the theology of the earliest Christians. Important topics addressed in these letters include ecclesiology, the sacraments, and the role of bishops. He wrote seven important historical letters to the early Christian Church in 1)To the Ephesians, 2) To the Magnesians, 3) To the Trallians, 4) To the Romans, 5) To the Philadephians, 6) To the Smyrnaeans, 7) To Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna]
"Let none of you turn deserter. Let your baptism be your armor; your faith, your helmet; your love, your spear; your patient endurance, your panoply [protective armor]" (Letter to Polycarp 6, [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus (180AD)
[His writings were formative in the early development of Christian theology, a notable early Christian apologist and also a student of Polycarp, who was said to be a student of John the Evangelist. Possibly most noted for his writing Adversus Haereses ("Against Heresies"). Book I talks about the Valentinian Gnostics and their predecessors, who go as far back as the magician Simon Magus. Book II provides rational proof that Valentinianism contains no merit in terms of its doctrines. Book III shows that these doctrines are false by providing evidence from the Gospels. Book IV consists of Jesus' sayings, and stresses the unity of the Old Testament and the Gospel. The final volume, Book V, focuses on more sayings of Jesus plus the letters of Paul the Apostle.[1] One of the main reasons for the purpose of Against Heresies was to refute the teachings of various Gnostic groups in the 2nd Century and to defend the four main Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John in the New Testament in 170AD]
"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]).


Clement of Alexandria (191AD)
[One of the first members of the Church at Alexandria to be more than a name, and one of its most distinguished teachers. He wrote the trilogy composed of: the Protrepticus ("Exhortation to the Greeks"), the Paedagogus ("Instructor") & the Stromata ("Miscellanies"). Said to be one of the boldest literary undertaking in the history of the Church, since in it Clement for the first time attempted to set forth Christianity for the faithful in the traditional forms of secular literature. Besides the great trilogy, the only complete work preserved is the treatise "Who is the Rich Man that Shall Be Saved?" based on Mark 10:17-31, and laying down the principle that not the possession of riches but their misuse is to be condemned.]
"When we are baptized, we are enlightened. Being enlightened, we are adopted as sons. Adopted as sons, we are made perfect. Made perfect, we become immortal . . . and ‘sons of the Most High’ [Ps. 82:6]. This work is variously called grace, illumination, perfection, and washing. It is a washing by which we are cleansed of sins, a gift of grace by which the punishments due our sins are remitted, an illumination by which we behold that holy light of salvation" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:26:1 [A.D. 191]).


Hippolytus of Rome (215 AD)

[One of the most prolific writers of the early Church, studied under Irenaeus. Hippolytus's voluminous writings, which for variety of subject can be compared with those of Origen, embrace the spheres of exegesis, homiletics, apologetics and polemic, chronography, and ecclesiastical law. He wrote polemical works directed against the pagans, the Jews and heretics. The most important of these polemical treatises is the Refutation of all Heresies]

"Where there is no scarcity of water the stream shall flow through the baptismal font or pour into it from above; but if water is scarce, whether on a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available. Let them remove their clothing. Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).


Origen (244 AD)

[Was an early Christian scholar, theologian. His writings are important as one of the first intellectual attempts to describe Christianity. According to Epiphanius[5] Origen wrote about 6,000 works]

"...According to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism would seem superfluous." (Homilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11,[244 AD)

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries [sacraments], knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 244]).


Cyprian (251 AD)

[An important early Christian writer. He was a pagan converted to Christianity and eventually died a martyr at Carthage. Known for his fights over the efficacy of baptism when it was administered by heretics.]

" But if anything could hinder men from obtaining grace, their more heinous sins might rather hinder those who are mature and grown up and older. But again, if even to the greatest sinners, and to those who had sinned much against God, when they subsequently believed, remission of sins is granted and nobody is hindered from baptism and from grace how much rather ought we to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam ….. 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" (Letter to Fidus 64:2 [A.D. 251]).

"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).


Council of Carthage (253AD)
[This council served as the meeting-place of a large number of church synods probably assembled under Cyprian]
One statement from this Council condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth.


Gregory of Nazianz (381 AD)
[Gregory made a significant impact on the shape of Trinitarian theology among both Greek-speaking and Latin-speaking theologians, and he is remembered as the "Trinitarian Theologian." Much of his theological work continues to influence modern theologians, especially in regard to the relationship among the three persons of the Trinity. The Roman Emperor Julian had publicly come out in opposition to Christianity. In response to the emperor's rejection of the Christian faith, Gregory composed his Invectives Against Julian between 362 and 363. Disparaging the emperor's morals and intellect, the Invectives assert that Christianity will overcome imperfect rulers such as Julian through love and patience. Emperor Julian resolved in late 362 to vigorously prosecute Gregory and his other Christian critics; however, the emperor died the following year during a campaign against the Persians. With the death of the emperor, Gregory the next few years combating the Arian heresy]
"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. 381]).


Ambrose (387 AD)

[One of the most influential ecclesiastical figures of the fourth century and was highly regarded Christian for his challenges to the Arians= non-Trinitarian believers]

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." (On Abraham 1:3:21 [A.D. 387]).



Augustine (400AD)

[He was one of the most important figures in the development of Western Christianity. Augustine was one of the most prolific Latin authors, and the list of his works consists of more than a hundred separate titles.[8] They include apologetic works against the heresies of the Arians, Donatists, Manichaeans and Pelagians, texts on Christian doctrine, notably De doctrina Christiana (On Christian Doctrine), exegetical works such as commentaries on Genesis, the Psalms and Paul's Letter to the Romans. ]


"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 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 believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (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" (Letter to Jerome 166:8:23 [A.D. 415]).

"The Church has always baptized children. She received this tradition from our forefathers' faith and she will keep it until the end of time. Infant baptism is a practice which is in harmony with the very firm and ancient Faith of the Church."


Gregory Dialogus (590AD)

[He wrote the Dialogues in an attempt to bring fractionated Christian from becoming heretical]

"'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).




This next Christian may be a problem for some Christians for two reasons. First, he is a semi-modern Christian and two, because he started to label himself a Protestant by virtue of his spiritual rebellion against the Catholic Christian Church. His name? Martin Luther, the Father of the Protestant revolution. In Martin Luther’s writings (Basic Theological Writings/Full) he writes of Infant Baptism ....

..... "Since our baptizing has been thus from the beginning of Christianity & the custom has been to baptize children, & since no one can prove w/good reasons that they do not have faith, we should not make changes & build on such weak arguments. For if we are going to change or do away w/customs that are traditional, it is necessary to prove convincingly that these are contrary to the Word of God."

Wow, did you hear that “...from the beginning of Christianity...”? I know some Christians do not like religious customs/traditions but since they have their own I am sure we can compromise with Martin Luther’s use of customs and traditions. Protestants do not have a scriptural “age of discernment” therefore they have to rely on tradition/customs to support ages 7 through 12 as an appropriate age for baptismal discernment. That being said then maybe they can better accept what Martin Luther also says about Infant Baptism as a [traditional custom to baptize children].

Now here is where the non-labeled Christians who do not like the idea about early Christian writings will go crazy because the Father of the Reformation helps make the Catholic Christian point when he continues to say “.... since no one can prove w/good reasons that they [infant children] do not have faith, we should not make changes & build on such weak arguments. For if we are going to change or do away w/customs that are traditional, it is necessary to prove convincingly that these are contrary to the Word of God....”. Here Luther appeals to LOGIC, not an Ad Hominem even though he’s very prejudice, very emotional and very bias by asking for good reason and customs that are traditional (something that has a long history to it).

Infant Baptism starts with scripture coming from the OT through the NT supported by the earliest Christians (labeled and non-labeled) and by the Father of the Reformation, Martin Luther. Unfortunately, there are many non-labeled Christians out there that will deny one or all of these Christians by saying they were not real Christians, or they can’t be considered authoritative, that scripture is the one and only authority….etc, etc. What I have shown is the scriptural basis for Infant Baptism followed with historical evidence that the earliest Christians practiced it. Now, if these non-labeled Christians say there is no mention of Infant Baptism then that creates a small quagmire for them because there are several non-Christian doctrines that are NOT mentioned in scripture but are assumed or inferred. If they are going to do that, then Infant Baptism has the same right of assumption and inference.

The purpose of these early Christian writing is to demonstrate its acceptance as a Christian practice in the earliest Christians, which is what Catholic Christians do today. If this practice of Infant Baptism was abhorrent to “real” Christian doctrine then there would be libraries full of writings opposing it. Heck, Christians opposing Arianism can be found throughout the earliest Christians defense of the faith, so surely there would be the same opposition and writings on Infant Baptism. Again, the challenge is out there. The double-dare still exists for those who deny these earliest of Christians, by simply researching the documents. It appears that some of you know where to find some great sources, so let’s put on those research glasses and come up with something.

Christ’s Peace,

Catholic Steve

[Guest]

Shoot, CatholicSteve, I could've provided more than that!

And, predictably, as I had already stated, all of your earliest examples don't even mention infant baptism.

Here's what I said in a previous post:

* 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.

So how do you account for the absence of references to infant baptism prior to the early 200's?

[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.

That it is more than a symbol , it is an act by God:

Acts 2:38-39

38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

Both are necessary for salvation :

Mark 16:16
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned

The exception would be if there is no opportunity to be baptized before death as in the thief on the cross. On the other hand it is not something which you can reject an expect to be saved.

Thomas

[Guest]

CatholicSteve,

Here's one you left out:

“But they whose office it is to baptize, know that baptism is not rashly to be administered. . . . 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 indispensably necessary—that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger . . . ? The Lord does indeed say, ‘Forbid them not to come unto me.’ Let them ‘come,’ then, while they are growing up; . . . 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! . . . For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred—in whom the ground of temptation is prepared.
. . . If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay; sound faith is secure of salvation.”
-- Tertullian (200 AD), On Baptism, ch. 18

And these:

Acts 2:38, 41 - Peter replied,'Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit'....Those who accepted his message were baptized...

Acts 8:12 - But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Acts 8:36-38 - As they travelled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said,'Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized? And he ordered the chariot to stop. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptised him.

Acts 9:17-18 - Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul he said,'Brother Saul, the Lord - Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here - has sent me to you that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit. Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized...

Acts 10:44-48 - While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said,'Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have. So he ordered that they be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ.

Acts 16:30-33 - He (the Philippian jailer) then brought them out and asked, 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved? They replied,'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved - you and your household.' Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized.

The Apostolic pattern here is that baptism occurs after belief.

Justin Martyr wrote in approx. 150 AD:

"All who accept and believe as true the things taught and said by us, and who would undertake to have the power to live accordingly, are taught to pray and entreat God, fasting, for the forgiveness of their former sins, while we join their prayer and fasting. Then we bring them to a place where there is water, where they are regenerated in the same way we were."

Again, the pattern is belief, then baptism.

Though it's a bit lengthy, I'd like to quote from an excellent paper by George Allen Turner, Ph. D., a professor at Asbury Theological Seminary entitled INFANT BAPTISM IN BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT. The entire paper can be read online here: http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology ... 5/05-2.htm:

"Advocates of infant baptism infer it from the practice of family baptisms. The study by the Church of Scotland agrees with Joachim Jeremias that there are several instances in the New Testament of families being baptized, under the "Oikas formula" as Jeremias calls it. Thus Paul baptized the household of Stephanas (I Cor. 1:16), Lydia and her household was baptized (Acts 16:15), the Jailor at Philippi was baptized with all his family (Acts 16:33), as was Crispus, ruler of the synagogue in Corinth (Acts 18:8). Since most family groups included some children and since family solidarity was prevalent the inference is that infants were included in these early instances of family conversions and baptisms.(7)

Jeremias infers baptism when Paul speaks of "his seal upon us" in connection with "His Spirit in our hearts" (al Cor. 1:22). This is very doubtful exegesis.(8)

On the basis of Colossians 2:11, 12 Jeremias equates Christian baptism with the "circumcision of Christ" ignoring the fact that with Paul Christian circumcision is figurative, a "circumcision of the heart" rather than any external act Rom. 2:29; Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 9:26). Defenders of infant baptism are perplexed by I Cor. 7:14 where Paul states that children born to parents, one of whom is a Christian, are considered "holy." A child born to a Jewish proselyte, who had been baptized, was considered "holy" and hence did not need baptism. It would follow, therefore that children born to Christian parents are already "holy" and do not need baptism to initiate them into the family of God. Paul's statement implies that infant baptism was unknown in Cornith. To counter this Jeremias makes ineffective appeal to his "proof-text" which, he assumes, equates baptism with circumcision.(9)

Many of the texts cited by Jeremias to prove infant baptism in the early church are shown by Aland to be ambiguous. His proof text (Col. 2:11) is over worked. Jeremias himself, in his German edition, agreed that in the light of I Corinthians 7:14 the practice of infant baptism at the church of Corinth was unknown. This is because children who had one Christian parent were considered "holy" with nothing said about baptism being the means of that holiness. Jeremias makes much of the difference between baptism in a missionary situation and that of infants born to Christian parents. This, as Aland points out, was a distinction unknown to writers of the New Testament or to the early church fathers. The earliest Christian documents which make explicit reference to baptism include in order the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas dated from about 100 to 150 A.D. In the Didache, for example, instruction is given prior to baptism and such instruction automatically rules out applying baptism to infants. In addition, it specified that recipients of baptism should fast for one or two days and this eliminates infants. The Shepherd of Hermas presupposes a period of probation prior to baptism, which also rules out infants. And in the Epistle of Barnabas baptism is mentioned in connection with the candidate being full of sin and defilement of the flesh (11:11). In the Apology of Aristides (15:6) reference is to the baptism of children but not of infants: "They instruct the servants and maids of the children when any of them have such that they may become Christians on account of the love which they have for them." The impression is that they are baptized and regarded as full Christians and participate in the eucharist. In the writings of Clement of Alexandria, there are many passages concerning children which Jeremias does not quote, but of the twenty passages referring to children nothing is said about their baptism. Baptism, says Aland, is for the forgiveness of faults which have been committed and this would, of course, exclude infants who have nothing for which they need to be forgiven.

The earliest Latin witness implies that infant baptism was an innovation in 200 A.D. Tertullian says that children should come for baptism after they are able to learn and be instructed in the Christian way. Tertullian apparently speaks to all children or infants in the community irrespective of whether they belong to parents already baptized or to Catechumens.(11)

Tertullian's work, dated about 200 A.D., bears witness to the introduction of infant baptism in North Africa against which he was protesting. Fifty years after Tertullian, infant baptism was the norm, so obviously his effort was unsuccessful. This would argue against infant baptism as being a continuation from primitive times.

There is much in the New Testament that cannot be reconciled with infant baptism. It is significant that baptism is always linked with a command to repent and believe (Mark 1:4,5, 15; Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38; 8:13), something infants cannot do. In the writings of St. Paul, baptism is linked with the death of the old life and the resurrection to a new life Rom. 6:1-5; Col. 2:12). The earliest baptismal formulas call for "renunciation of the devil and all his works," language appropriate for an adult but not for an infant. The argument that baptism takes the place of circumcision as a right which incorporates one into the kingdom is actually contrary to the spirit of the New Testament. Paul and John the Evangelist emphasize that it is contrary to the Christian spirit for the Jews to assume that one is automatically in the kingdom because he is a son of Abraham (Rom. 2:25-29; John 8:39). Equally emphatic is John the Baptist that a true child of God is one who keeps the commandments and believes in God's Son regardless of whether he is circumcised or whether he is a descendant of Abraham (Luke 3:8). If insistence on circumcision can amount to a betrayal of faith as a condition of salvation (Gal. 5:2-6) cannot the same be said of the application of water where faith is nonexistent? In short the "circumcision of Christ" is the "circumcision of the heart" and has nothing to do with external rites such as water baptism. It is true that children are of the kingdom of heaven, that they are innocent, and that their parents and god-parents do well to bring them to Jesus for His blessing and for parents to dedicate their children. But this dedication and acceptance by God is a covenant on the part of sponsors rather than any intrinsic change in the infant himself. It simply minimizes the significance of baptism to apply it to an infant to whom it means nothing whereas the parents' act can be just as truly dedication whether or not water is used.

If this is the case, how does it happen that infant baptism is so widely practiced from an early time in Christian history? Aland, in further pursuing the evidence mentioned by Jeremias, considered indirect testimonies to infant baptism of the second century. In this he adduces evidence not cited by Jeremias, showing that repeatedly Jeremias has produced evidence and read into it meanings which are not obvious and in some cases, distorts evidence which is contrary to his position. First Clement, for example (96 A.D.), states that the letter was delivered by messengers who "have walked among us from youth to old age unblameably." Such an aged person, in 96 A.D., living in Italy, would have been born a paga, so that the phrase aponeotos theodouleuo means "from youth" not "from infancy" as Jeremias states it. With reference to St. Paul and the primitive church (see I Cor. 7: 14,) Aland says, "to consider infant baptism as direct continuation of circumcision is not possible on the basis of historical evidence."(12) Probably the most thorough study of Pauline doctrine of baptism is that of Rudolph A. Schnackenburg, who argues that Colossians 2:12 is a condensation of Romans 6:4, in both of which union with Christ in baptism leads in Romans to deliverance from sin and in Colossians to deliverance from heresy.(13) In summary, the whole early period shows that baptism is only for adults. "Infant baptism appears sporadically towards the end of the second century and was indeed practiced all during the following century, yet only as an exception.(14)

As far as Martin Luther goes, it's no revelation that Lutherans practice infant baptism. Marty was a great man and I appreciate his accomplishments and convictions, but he also clung to a fair amount of Catholic doctrine and trappings. The folks from that time period that I really admire are the Anabaptists, also known as the Radical Reformers. They were brutally persecuted by both the Catholic and Protestant church for their practice of re-baptizing adults who professed faith in Jesus Christ.

[Guest]

Mort :

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.

Pretty close , although baptism is the actual beginning of faith , an act of Gods Grace.

The idea that a person must reach a certain stage of development before being able to have faith , turns salvation into an intellectual exercise. Salvation is neither an intellectual nor an emotional act. It is spiritual and comes from the soul. Intellect an emotion tend to fight against God. Gods action on the recipient of baptism works on the soul and , as such , is independent of the state of the recipient.

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

Yes , and the idea that infant baptism is invalid has led to the forcible re-baptism of people. That the the idea can be abused , does not invalidate it.

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

My experience with people , both Christian and non-Christian , and their capacity for sin and evil , has left me convinced that there is a basic flaw within the human race. It is a flaw that cannot be corrected without the intervention of God. In so far as baptism instills the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38-39) and begins the process of healing (sanctification) and cuts the bondage (if not the total effect) to original sin , that is enough.

Augustine , in consigning the innocent to Hell , was being very literal in his reading of the scriptures. He did not consider the mercy of God toward the innocent. There is an unresolvable question between the mercy of God and the requirement of baptism.
Augustine placed them in Hell
Some Catholics proposed Limbo
Many call upon the mercy of God to save the innocent.
Some say there is no original sin

I had a son die at 2 days of age , unbaptized , so I believe in the mercy of God. Actually had a Catholic priest assure my wife and I of his salvation. (18 yrs. ago) In that I cannot prove , with absolute certainty , which view is the correct one , I chose to play it safe and baptize my daughter as an infant.

There is a gap of 2 centuries between the Apostle and the church fathers. We do not know what the original church practiced for certain. There are unresolved problems with both views. The Bible is not definitive on this question anymore than it is on the question of salvation itself. (Calvin vs. Arminius vs. Luther etc.) On the good side , it causes us to study the Bible , church fathers , doctrine etc. in order to increase our understanding.

Thomas

[Guest]

Dear MichelleM,

Very good. Now go further. Do your own study about OT male circumcision as to what it meant to the Jews and how God relates this to the great OT women you brought up. We at the forum wait for you study. Catholic Steve

The men of the Old Testament were justified by faith. So were the women.

[Guest]

Dear MichelleM,

Help me out here. Are you saying that OT circumcision was equivalent to justification? If so, please give some verses to study.

Peace, Catholic Steve

[Guest]

Nope, just the opposite. But I'm not going to post anything more in this thread. Sorry, it's just too uncomfortable for me.

[Guest]

CS-

paul said that abraham was justified by faith (romans ch 4); faith that occurred prior to his circumcision. isn't that authority enough?

TK

[Guest]

Dear Forum Readers,

Just a side note because I could not pass this one up, but I will maintain the thread later of earliest Christian writing on Infant Baptism.

Abraham was justified three times in scripture ... past, present and future...all were different but all were bona fide, Godly justifications. The problem with some non-labeled Christians is that that they put more credibility on only one justification ( Rom 4 ) than the other two scriptural justifications that God gave him so they can maintain a "one time" Born Again position.

Catholic Steve