Posted on 01/14/2011 5:57:52 PM PST by topcat54
Evangelical book catalogs promote books such as Planet Earth: The Final Chapter, The Great Escape, and the Left Behind series. Bumper stickers warn us that the vehicle’s occupants may disappear at any moment. It is clear that there is a preoccupation with the idea of a secret rapture. Perhaps this has become more pronounced recently due to the expectation of a new millennium and the fears regarding potential Y2K problems. Perhaps psychologically people are especially receptive to the idea of an imminent, secret rapture at the present time. Additionally, many Christians are not aware that any other position relative to the second coming of Jesus Christ exists. Even in Reformed circles there are numerous people reading these books. Many of these people are unaware that this viewpoint conflicts with Scripture and Reformed Theology.
(Excerpt) Read more at reformed.org ...
What a perfect secular opportunity to reinforce the need for a Magesterium. We are going to need Quix to thoroughly and precisely define the term 'sea level' with respect to some point of reference and then establish the validity of that reference. Then and only then can we begin to assess the validity of his assertion.
Just like discussions of Catholicism and the Catechism we have arrived at the need for a "rubberized dictionary" to establish even a basic vocabulary for further discussion. If Quix asserts (and I'm not saying he does) that sea level is determined from the theoretical surface of a perfect sphere and I am contending that sea level is self determinate based upon the mean of the tides over a finite period of time we will only talk past each other.....just like the Religion Forum.
At least the Catholic Church has driven a stake in the ground as a reference point for the discussions of theology by having fixed "daffynitions".
The Holy Spirit often chooses flawed individual to deliver His message, at least that was your response to an earlier question of the sins of Luther, Calvin and a host of other Reformationists. It is the office of the Pope and not any occupant that we hold infallible. It is only Protestants who demand Pope's be without sin.
Catholics are smart enough to know that all are sinners, differing only in degree and repentance. Even the hand picked by Jesus were highly flawed. Judas betrayed Jesus. Peter denied Jesus three times and Thomas doubted Jesus. We do not expect any better from those who seek only to serve Him.
Although many Protestant traditions baptize babies, Baptists—and “Bible churches” in the Baptist tradition—insist that baptism is only for those who have come to faith. Nowhere in the New Testament, they point out, do we read of infants being baptized.
On the other hand, nowhere do we read of children raised in believing households reaching the age of reason and then being baptized. The only explicit baptism accounts in the Bible involve converts from Judaism or paganism. For children of believers there is no explicit mention of baptism—either in infancy or later.
This poses a problem for Baptists and Bible Christians: On what basis do they require children of believers to be baptized at all? Given the silence of the New Testament, why not assume Christian baptism is only for adult converts?
This, of course, would be contrary to historical Christian practice. But so is rejecting infant baptism. As we will see, there is no doubt that the early Church practiced infant baptism; and no Christian objections to this practice were ever voiced until the Reformation.
The New Testament itself, while it does not explicitly say when (or whether) believers should have their children baptized, is not silent on the subject.
Luke 18:15–16 tells us that “they were bringing even infants” to Jesus; and he himself related this to the kingdom of God: “Let the children come to me
. . . for to such belongs the kingdom of God.”
When Baptists speak of “bringing someone to Jesus,” they mean leading him to faith. But Jesus says “even infants” can be “brought” to him. Even Baptists don’t claim their practice of “dedicating” babies does this. The fact is, the Bible gives us no way of bringing anyone to Jesus apart from baptism.
Thus Peter declared, “Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children” (Acts 2:38–39).
The apostolic Church baptized whole “households” (Acts 16:33; 1 Cor. 1:16), a term encompassing children and infants as well as servants. While these texts do not specifically mention—nor exclude—infants, the very use of the term “households” indicates an understanding of the family as a unit. Even one believing parent in a household makes the children and even the unbelieving spouse “holy” (1 Cor. 7:14).
Does this mean unbelieving spouses should be baptized? Of course not. The kingdom of God is not theirs; they cannot be “brought to Christ” in their unbelief. But infants have no such impediment. The kingdom is theirs, Jesus says, and they should be brought to him; and this means baptism.
Baptism is the Christian equivalent of circumcision, or “the circumcision of Christ”: “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). Thus, like circumcision, baptism can be given to children as well as adults. The difference is that circumcision was powerless to save (Gal. 5:6, 6:15), but “[b]aptism . . . now saves you” (1 Pet. 3:21).
The first explicit evidence of children of believing households being baptized comes from the early Church—where infant baptism was uniformly
upheld and regarded as apostolic. In fact, the only reported controversy on the subject was a third-century debate whether or not to delay baptism until the eighth day after birth, like its Old Testament equivalent, circumcision! (See quotation from Cyprian, below; compare Leviticus 12:2–3.)
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 Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).
“‘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]).
Hippolytus
“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
“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]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“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).
Gregory of Nazianz
“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 [I respond], if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated” (ibid., 40:28).
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]).
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]).
“By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration” (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).
Council of Carthage V
“Item: It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they [abandoned children] were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the [North African] legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such [abandoned children] from the barbarians” (Canon 7 [A.D. 401]).
Council of Mileum II
“[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration” (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]).
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
[BACK][TOP]
Home | Seminars
if your pastor baptized an infant, there would be a great hue and cry, no? show me from history, where the mythical “true” Christians you believe existed in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries that were not Catholic, show me where they preached against the Catholic practice, give names, dates,etc.
your silence will tell all!!
Since the practice that the Bible describes over and again is that a person becomes a disciple first and then is baptized those who followed what the apostles taught made disciples and then baptized them.
THAT was Jesus’ command, ‘make disciples...baptize them’. If you can find a contrary order please share it.
Who are these ones “directly taught by the Apostles’? Don’t forget that Paul told the elders of Ephesus that after his going away apostates would arise FROM WITHIN the Christian congregation’,(Acts 20:30) men that had been ‘taught by the apostles’, men who would ‘speak twisted things’.
Leave the thread.
The Bible doesn’t teach that, you are reading your tradition into the verses. The fact that your tradition of men did not appear on the world stage until the 16th century, should give you pause. Polycarp was taught by St John and was so faithful to St John, he was appointed Bishop. He was later martyred for his faithfulness to Christ. He in turn taught St Iraneus, who i quoted above. Indeed false teachers did arise, but the Catholic Church was there to teach the truth as commanded by Jesus in Matthew 28. The Bible does not say false teachers can fool the elect, it says the opposite. But it just wasn’t Polycarp, the whole Roman world practiced infant baptism, because the Apostles preached to the whole Roman world under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If this is not true, tell me who started infant baptism? Where? when? who opposed it? Again, stop fighting the Church founded by Jesus, it is His Body on earth!
prediction - the silence to my question will tell all!
there is only one baptism, do you believe in two?
I JOhn 3:1 See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him.
It says nothing about baptizing infants. He was talking to the men who believed his message and asked him a question. This is a good example of the kind of error that taking verses out of context can lead to.
The apostolic Church baptized whole “households” (Acts 16:33; 1 Cor. 1:16), a term encompassing children and infants as well as servants. While these texts do not specifically mention—nor exclude—infants, the very use of the term “households” indicates an understanding of the family as a unit. Even one believing parent in a household makes the children and even the unbelieving spouse “holy” (1 Cor. 7:14).
Again, no Scriptural support for baptizing infants. Assumptions are not good things to make doctrine on.
I really don't care what someone's extra-Biblical opinion on baptizing infants is. Wide is the way that leads to destruction and many there are who find it. Consensus in not a good way of determining truth or doctrine. Scripture is.
Now if someone wants to follow a practice that's not found in the Bible, they are certainly free to do so. But teaching it as truth and demanding adherence to it, is inexcusable. It's legalism, plain and simple.
My silence will tell nothing.
Flame bait somewhere else.
just when i ask a three year old to recite the book war and peace from memory and can’t, same with you when i ask you my questions, you can’t answer because you are unable to. i understand.
“Bottom line here is that there is no reference to modern secular Israel in the Abrahamic blessing or in any other blessing – literally speaking.”What part of “and to your descendants” is so hard to understand?
"It is those who are of faith who are children of Abraham."
It’s difficult to believe a lie when all believers have been raptured. Since it’s God ‘s desire that none shall be lost, not one, why would He send them strong delusion... Does the scripture you’re quoting deal directly with the rapture and those who are left after... or somehing totally different that you’re using to strengthen the case for a rapture?
Context is important.
God doesn’t save believers from the effects of natural disasters. It rains on the rightous and the wicked. I don’t think scripture supports a rapture as many churches picture it.
My definition of a Christian? Why not let Christ define who is a follower of him? To paraphrase Matt. 7:21-23,
‘Not everyone calling him Lord would enter the kingdom of the heavens but the one DOING THE WILL of his father in heaven would. Despite their powerful works (not sins, not wrong per se) Jesus says get away from me, you WORKERS OF LAWLESSNESS’
“On Constantine’s death-bed he was baptised — and remember the beleif in baptism at that point was that it completely washed away your sins, so Constantine showed that he truly believed in Christ as Lord, God and Savior.”
If indeed he was baptized on his death bed believing that this washed away his sins, what does this say about the sincerity of belief before then?
In other words a sham Christian, calling Jesus “Lord, Lord” yet being a worker of lawlessness.
Dragging me into a debate, creating arguments and claiming that if I don’t answer, you’ll assume my answer is _____, is infantile.
You cannot presume what my answer will be based on my refusal to play your games.
It’s been amusing watching the level of frustration demonstrated by the Catholics in trying to find out what church I go to, what I believe, what my *group* believes, etc. and the antics they engage in to try to manipulate an answer out of me.
The direct questions of where I go got slapped down pretty quickly. The back door method of trying by elimination to figure out who I am associated with didn’t fly either. This is not going to work as well.
I am not going to fall for being tricked into answering by denying or agreeing with assumptions made about my beliefs after being dragged into a discussion.
What I believe can be found in Scripture. That’s the only point of authority I will ever appeal to.
Get lost.
i guess everyone was a “sham” Christian before the 16th century, including those who set the canon of Scripture. makes sense to me!!
i understand.
I highly doubt that.
So do you reject the Trinity?If so then it lets me know where your theology lies.
That question's been asked before. Good luck getting a straight answer.
Let me say that I admire your stand for the Lord Jesus Christ and for the truth of the gospel of grace he has lavished on us all.
Ephesians 6:10,11 “Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes.”
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.