Posted on 06/13/2010 12:16:24 PM PDT by markomalley
So the traditions Irenaeus spoke of are all found in the Bible, he even iterates what the truths were that the barbarians would be taught.
If you read the Bible alone you would not come to explicate wording for things like Infant Baptism,the Trinity, etc...
The ECF's were in agreement on these things and held councils to make them concrete and dogmatic after heretics challenged them and after Christianity was legalized by Constantine
Here are a few ECF writings on Infant Baptism and the Trinity
"For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God--infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180).
""Next, I may reasonably turn to those who divide and cut to pieces and destroy that most sacred doctrine of the Church of God, the Divine Monarchy, making it as it were three powers and partitive subsistences and god-heads three. I am told that some among you who are catechists and teachers of the Divine Word, take the lead in this tenet, who are diametrically opposed, so to speak, to Sabellius's opinions; for he blasphemously says that the Son is the Father, and the Father the Son, but they in some sort preach three Gods, as dividing the sacred Monad into three subsistences foreign to each other and utterly separate. For it must needs be that with the God of the Universe, the Divine Word is united, and the Holy Ghost must repose and habitate in God; thus in one as in a summit, I mean the God of the Universe, must the Divine Triad be gathered up and brought together. For it is the doctrine of the presumptuous Marcion, to sever and divide the Divine Monarchy into three origins,--a devil's teaching, not that of Christ's true disciples and lovers of the Saviour's lessons, For they know well that a Triad is preached by divine Scripture, but that neither Old Testament nor New preaches three Gods.” Pope Dionysius [regn. 260-268], to Dionysius of Alexandria, fragment in Athanasius' Nicene Definition 26 (A.D. 262).
Sola scriptura, to me, means that the scriptures are the ultimate authority for doctrines of the faith and, on that, every early "church father" agreed.
This is not what they believed dear sister.They believed in the three legged stool-if you take one out the stool collapses-The three legged stool is Sacred Scripture,Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium(councils etc..)
Some examples...
"The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, 'He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.'" Cyprian, Unity of the Church, 6 (A.D. 256).
" 'So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.' Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther." John Chrysostom, Homily on 2nd Thessalonians, 4:2 (A.D. 404).
Again,dear sister,. The Early Church understood God’s Revelation is given to us in three ways: 1. The Scripture, God’s Word in writing by the inspiration of the Spirit. 2. Sacred Apostolic Tradition, God’s Word entrusted to the Apostles by God that is NOT EXPLICITLY in Scriptures. It is living in that it is practiced, thus we also call Tradition “living”. Sometimes, it takes the Church some self-examination to determine whether something is Divine or not. 3. The teaching office of the Church, the Magesterium. It is God’s desire that men are able to interpret God’s Revelation to us in Scriptures and Tradition. It is the responsibility of the Apostles’ successors to present this for belief to God’s People. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are from the same source, God.
You're posts does lead me to think you're on the right track. I will be praying for Our Blessed Lord to reveal more truth to you
I wish you a Blessed evening!
corection
You’re posts = Your post
If you feel like you just really really MUST have the last word, then you’ve had it, no problem, but I’m done with your endless nonsensical assertions. Tossing pearls in the mud and all that, you see.
I don't see from your quote that he even spoke of infant baptism. He said:
"For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God--infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men."
Your church infers from this that he means water baptism because you believe that is how someone starts down the salvation path. I don't read it that way and find nothing in his statement that contradicts scripture. To say "infant water baptism" is scriptural is not true. Nowhere does the Bible say babies must be baptised in order to be saved, in fact, no scripture even says anyone MUST be water baptised to be saved. We are baptised in the Holy Spirit when we believe. Water baptism is an outward sign after this that a believer professes to be a follower of Christ and to rise up in newness of life. It is an outward sign of an inward condition, but the act itself does not save. We are saved by grace through faith in Christ's payment for our sins.
I appreciate any prayers I can get so please feel free to lift them up for me anytime you feel led. I do for you. :o)
It's public knowledge. You are more than welcom to do your own research, but the New testament is not an authority on Jewish law. Jewish Encyclopedia is a good start.
That they are included for Jesus, and no one else in the NT, sure imply they are important, too
Sure they are. They were included to convince the Greeks, who knew nothing of Jewish laws.
You are forgetitng (or neglecting) that the New Testament was written for Greeks, not Jews. Those who knew Jewish custom and law (the Jews), rejected the whole Christian idea because it is as un-Jewish as Mormonism is un-Christian.
BB said-I don't see from your quote that he even spoke of infant baptism.....Your church infers from this that he means water baptism because you believe that is how someone starts down the salvation path. I don't read it that way and find nothing in his statement that contradicts scripture. To say "infant water baptism" is scriptural is not true. Nowhere does the Bible say babies must be baptised in order to be saved, in fact, no scripture even says anyone MUST be water baptised to be saved
Here is clear evidence that Blessed Irenaues taught Infant Baptism by water
"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).
So,you see the Church KNEW John 3:5 included infants and there is GREAT evidance of that because Saint Irenaues knew Saint Polycarp who was a direct Disciple of Saint John himself.Dear Sister ,when we approach Scripture, it is important to keep in mind what the intent of the writer was and how early Christians interpreted it. It was NEVER intended to be interpreted apart from the Church.
We see UNITED continuation of infant baptism from other ECF's and Church coucils as well
Examples...
"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" Hippolytus (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
"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" Origin(Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).
"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]).
"Canon 2. Likewise it has been decided that whoever says that infants fresh from their mothers' wombs ought not to be baptized....let him be anathema." Council of Carthage,Canon 2,(A.D. 418
Who put it there?
What makes you think it was a “who?” Someone said “the Sun if falling” and the others, expecting a miracle, “saw” the sun “falling.”
Can you cite anywhere in the N.T. that speaks of infant baptism?
I don’t worry about my salvation. I trust in Christ’s Mercy.
I just don’t believe that Scripture can be ignored in regards to our actions as Christians. We have obligations, even as sinners, to live as He taught us.
I came across an interesting passage today.
Rom.11:6 And if by grace, then it is no longer works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.
IOW it is either by grace or it is by works but not both. I know where I fall. I recognized a long time ago that I can't possibly do enough to make up for all the sin I've committed. Thank you Jesus, without you I'm lost.
Can you cite anywhere in the N.T that says Baptism is limited to adults ONLY and says never to Baptize infants?
Don't bother quoting me from the error filled KJV's or NIV's.
Infant Baptism was Christianity 101 to the early Christian's.It's much like the Trinity that is not spelled out EXPLICITLY in Scriptures. It was a given because the early Christians taught it EXPLICITLY through Apostolic Tradition and we see it in the ECF's writings
Examples...
Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 13 (A.D. 155).
"[T]he statements made regarding Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity. For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds the comprehension not only of temporal but even of eternal intelligence; while other things which are not included in it are to be measured by times and ages." Origen, First Principles, 4:28 (A.D. 230).
I did not know this ,thanks.
Where do you find this information and are there pictures of the inscriptions anywhere?
Disciple first, baptize second.
Oh brother! What book are you reading and self interpreting? Matthew 28:16 says nothing of the sort.
From Matthew 28:16-20 Douay-Rheims
16And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. 17 And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. 18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
Admit you're a modernist and move on.This topic has been discussed many times here and the Infant Baptize deniers lose every time.
I posted Justin and Origin in Regards to the Trinity Do you deny the Trinity as well?If so,all I can say is what a mess of individualistic theology
Teach, make a disciple of, make a pupil, instruct, no infants. Want to try again? Matt. 28:19, 19, yes I hit the 6 instead of 9!!!
In no instance does the N.T. speak of infants being baptized.
There is also this testament to ancient Christian infant baptism
In the second last line is the phrase Dei Serv(u)s which means slave of God followed by the Chi Rho symbol for Christ. The last line is the Greek ichtheos familiar as the "fish symbol" - an anagram for Jesus Christ God’s Son Savior. These words and symbols mark the one-year, two months, and four-day-old child as a baptized Christian.
From the Lateran Museum, also from the 200’s, is a Greek inscription that gives information about the religious status of the parents. It reads, "I, Zosimus, a believer from believers, lie here having lived 2 years, 1 month, 25 days."
Also from this era are headstones for children who received emergency baptism with ages ranging from 11 months to 12 years. Since the patristic sources of the third century, as those earlier, give us to understand that the children of Christian parents were baptized in infancy, we must conclude that these emergency baptisms were administered to children of non-Christians. The inscriptions themselves confirm this conclusion. In the Roman catacomb of Priscilla is reference to a private emergency baptism that was administered to the one-and-three-quarter-year-old Apronianus and enabled him to die as a believer. The inscription reads:
the fact that it was the grandmother who urged the baptism makes it very probable that the father of the child, Florentius, was a pagan. This is confirmed by the formula in the first line which is pagan and not found on any other Christian epitaphs. We have thus in this inscription evidence for a missionary baptism administered to a dying non-Christian infant.
A very compelling case can be made by the fact that even heretical Christians did not object to infant baptism and this was apparently the Christian practice no matter which Chrisotlogical or Triniatrian twist a particular Church took.
Thus, it can safely be concluded that infant baptism was and is part of the early Church and that there was no outwardly opposition to it by anyone except one recorded instance by Tertullian (160 - 215) because he believed that one is better off being baptized later on in life when they could avoid sinning (emphasis added):
No other record of opposition is found for another 1000 years.
Apparently, either apostles themselves approved of the practice or did not censure their (apostolic) successors for doing it. There is simply no record, no indication that any of the Apostles or Apostolic or Church Father or any Christian apologetic criticized infant baptism as contrary to what the Church believed everywhere and always.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.