Finally, regarding infant baptism, it is such a minor issue that I marvel that anyone has to make such a big production over it that they go so far as to deny fellowship to others who disagree with them or resort to labeling them "heretics" just because they think differently about a minor issue. And infant baptism IS a minor issue. I'll tell you why - babies or very young children do NOT have the capability to give their assent to belief in Jesus Christ so that makes the ordinance of baptism to be INEFFECTIVE for them. Scripture, when it speaks about baptism, NEVER mentions it outside of a person FIRST believing and then submitting to baptism. It was always done as an outward testimony of a heartfelt, inward change of heart - repentance. There is NO Scriptural reference about babies being baptized and, since the Gospels and epistles that make up the New Testament were written decades after the fact, no mention of a "tradition" of doing so.
I don't dispute that the concept DEVELOPED over time, but it was certainly NOT something the Apostles asserted had to be done. Should children be dedicated to the Lord and raise in the nurture and admonition of the Lord? Of course, but it is NOT the same as baptism. A strong factor to prove this assertion is simply the changes even the Roman Catholic Church has made about what happens to babies that die without being baptized. Some theologians said they went to hell. Some, thinking that was too harsh for a loving God, said they went to a place the called "Limbo" - though such a place is nowhere found in Scripture. Now what does the Roman church teach? They don't say either way anymore. Just something to the effect that God is merciful. Well DUH! That's what we've been saying all along. Babies aren't baptized because they cannot believe and they are innocent of personal sin and, though they have a sin nature inherited from Adam, the mercy and grace of God covers such innocents and they WILL be with Him in heaven.
Baptism should be reserved for the TRUE purpose it was created for - to testify to others that we have made a choice to follow Christ and live in newness of life. It is not the act that saves us but the faith behind the act. being baptized has NO effect at all unless there is faith and that is why it is faith that saves us. God saves us by His grace THROUGH faith. No outward acts supplement that but God saves us when we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
This is not an issue of "ownership", it is an issue of demonstrable doctrinal continuity. The Early Church Fathers preached a form of Christianity and Liturgy that more closely resembles modern Catholicism than any other form of Christianity or denominational doctrine. That form of Christianity was embodied in the Traditions and Creeds that preceded and produced the Canon of Scripture. The Church does not spend time extracting snippets and quotes attempting to prove that they were like us, we have spent the last 2,000 years ensuring that we remain like them.
Peace be with you.
a few comments in response:
1. re: mocking derision. when i see storm clouds gathering, i know it’s going to rain. when i hear someone say abraham lincoln was the first president of the us, i know they don’t know american history. and sadly, when i read someone say Irenaeus didn’t practice infant baptism, i know i am dealing with someone who doesn’t know Church history. here is the quote for anyone who didn’t read my prior post:
“He came to save all through Himself; all, i say, who through Him are reborn in God: INFANTS, and children and yoths.....” ( my emphasis ) Irenaeus learned the faith from Polycarp, who learned from John. Ireneaus taught Hippolytus, who said infant baptism was taught by the Apostles. does anyone think Polycarp didn’t know if the Apostle John baptized infants? does anyone think Ireneaus didn’t know what Polycarp though of infant baptism? was Hippolytus dreaming, when after learning the faith from Irenaeus, he wrote “the apostolic tradition” in 215ad and said infant baptism was from the Apostles?
2.”our common ancestors in the faith” i see this thinking a lot. for someone to be your “common ancestor”, you need to hold the same “common faith” the church fathers believed in baptismal regeneration, do you? they believed in infant baptism, do you? they believed in the Catholic Church, do you? they believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, do you? i could go on, but i think my point is made. how could they be your common ancestor in faith if you would not have worshipped with them and they wouldn’t give you the Eucharist even if you did worship with them since you deny it is the Body of Christ?
3. infant baptism is a minor issue, REALLY??? you should have told the Baptists that, they seemed to have caused a lot of trouble in the 16th century over a “minor issue”
4. the core of the problem is a complete misunderstanding of what baptism is. baptism is for the remission of sins, receiving the Holy Spirit and placing us “into Christ”. no one was ever told to be baptized as an “outward testimony” ( please provide Scripture for this assertion ) or to be obedient ( again, Scripture please ) as i proved previously these are 16th century inventions. John, Polycarp, Ireneaus and Hippolytus all believed in the Catholic doctrine of baptismal regeneration.
5.” i don’t dispute the concept developed....” translation, i hope it developed, because if it didn’t, i have a different Gospel than traditional, historical Christianity. what is the proof of this “development”? THERE IS NONE. History shows the Catholic Church dealt with many heresies in the 1st four centuries after Christ, but there is NO RECORD of any “bible christians” who opposed the Catholics in this regard. WHY NOT, WHERE WERE THEY? again, imagine the controversy that would ensue if one day a local parish was practicing “believers baptism” and then the next day the priest was baptizing a baby!!
5. “it is not the act that saves us” who are we to believe in this regard you or the Holy Spirit who thru Peter, tells us baptism does save us? Baptism is not done by us, it is not a “work” Baptism is done TO US, by the Holy Spirit, through the Body of Christ on earth, the Church.
6. “ i follow His teachings as laid out in Holy Scripture”
REALLY? Jesus prayed in John 17 that His followers be One, as a testimony to the world. Do you follow Your Lord in this regard or do you seperate yourself from His Church and contribute to the religious confusion and make all kinds of accusations against the Church? Paul exhorts the Corinthians to be One and not have any dissention. Do you follow Paul in this regard? Many will say Lord, Lord, and think they were being obedient, but they are really in rebellion against the Lord.
Finally, i wish to comment on this whole notion of former Catholics and alleged former Catholics being attacked on FR for disagreeing with Catholic doctrine. Speaking for myself, i have no problem with anyone disagreeing with the Church on anything IF THEY CORRECTLY STATE THE TRUE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE. I can’t think of one “former” or alleged former Catholic who has ever correctly stated the Catholic doctrine, never. so i will read Catholics worship Mary, bread, statues, Catholics aren’t allowed to read the Bible, Catholics believe we are saved by works, Catholics think the Pope is perfect, Catholics think we will be God, etc etc. If i ever read a former Catholic correctly state Catholic doctrine, i think i would pass out!! i would feel they would deserve a prize! But then i realize that if they really did understand Catholic doctrine, they would still be Catholic! so i for one, will continue to expose the phony former Catholics who obviously learned what they know about the Faith from someone who they themselves have no clue or a comic book tract of some kind.
but i love the discussion, because i believe someone is going to actually look up Irenaeus and see what this defender of the faith in the second century actually believed ( and that’s a very good thing for Christ and His Church! )
interesting -- I'll remember that the next time we have a conversation with Baptist and will point out you when they say I'm sorry, but infant baptism makes a mockery of God's plan of salvation. In some churches it's taught that the clergy say some "magic words" and grace is infused into the infant. We are talking about infants who have no understanding of anything other than their diaper is wet and their hungry. In other churches they claim it is a "means of grace" where the Holy Spirit will finish the job later. Either way it mocks the examples given in Scripture of belief first and then baptism.
Interesting -- why don't you ask iscool about that -- when he says here is no infant bapatism in the NT...To call infant baptism biblical is to tell a lie...Anyone that can read can see there is no infant baptism in the bible
So, boatbums, how come no peep from you about others "making such a big production"?
So go ahead bb, if unitarians and mormons and others are good enough bedfellows because they ain't orthodox, then go ahead...
****Baptism should be reserved for the TRUE purpose it was created for - to testify to others that we have made a choice to follow Christ and live in newness of life****
Where is this said in Scripture?