Posted on 03/07/2015 12:04:48 PM PST by Colofornian
I don’t read the early church “fathers” much. 254 AD is middle of 3rd century. And whatever decision they made, it’s still unscriptural.
However, so do Charismatic revival meetings, producing more damned infidels with fake confessions than they do in actually leading anyone to salvation. I escaped from them myself, though I was never really one of them (could never "speak in tongues). A friend that came out of them, however, admitted to never actually even knowing what the Gospel was.
If John the Baptist could leap within the womb at the presence of Jesus Christ, then an infant is just as much capable of salvation as anyone else. In fact, since all salvation is itself a supernatural act (no one confesses Christ but by the Holy Ghost), I would argue that the salvation of infants and the salvation of adults is entirely the same in nature.
#1...Christianity didn't become "state" ized til Constantine. And that was the fourth century. Therefore, your historical facts are way off! The Council of Nicae was 325 a.d.
#2 I know this is "hard" for individualistically minded Westerners to think that whole families were baptized "on the spot" -- minus an in-depth 16 week Inquirer's class -- but they were...
Now we don't know how much lead-up time for such families as Stephanus (1 Cor. 1:16)...but we know this oikos reality (oikos is Greek Biblical word for household) included the totality of these families...see Acts 11:14; 16:15,33; Acts 18:8).
You see the families in the Middle East rated see themselves as a unit, not as individuals. Both in the case of circumcisions -- which Paul ties to baptism in Col. 2:11ff -- and also proselyte baptism...the place of the WHOLE FAMILY was significantly high.
Credobaptists assume NONE of these above families had infants in them.
And for that matter, they basically have to assume these whole families were essentially childless. Why? Because the ages of the kids -- of ANY age -- are not given.
Therefore, if credobaptists say there is no warrant for infant baptism, then why stop at infants? There's no Biblical warrant for teen baptism, either! Or pre-teen baptism!
#3 Those who object to infant baptism tend to try to "substitute" baby "dedications."
Now there's something that's been introduced into the Church just in recent times!
Where's the Biblical precedent for that???
I agree. But failure in that area lends no support for infant baptism. However, those who are unworthily baptized class with the same who unworthily ingest the tokens of the Lord’s Passion. Away with it all.
This wasn't a situation where infant baptism wasn't practiced and they "decided" to implement it in 254 A.D.
It was a situation where there WAS NO controversy in the Church about its open practice in the first, second, and third centuries! No controversy at all, and not even raised as an "issue" until mid-3rd century.
And when the 66 existing bishops reviewed it...men who were born within just over a 100 years from when the apostle John died, they simply affirmed its already existing widespread practice!
Well, you seem to cite "Lord Reason" vs. any Scriptural verses.
Can you cite any Scripture that says what you just said?
(Or are you just making that up because of your religious tradition?)
Whern is the last time you read your Bible on this? Do you even know what the water baptism is all about? Don't feel bad, most denominsations have gone way, way out of the boundaries on this.
My belief is totally and fully Biblical. For a lengthier accurate treatment, go here:
Baptism of Disciples, or Water Baptism"
Refute this if you can. Until then, I think I'm done here.
Exactly.
When we look at Jesus' most succinct statement of defining "eternal life," it's John 17:3, which He defined as KNOWING the Father -- and Jesus.
An infant KNOWS others personally.
An infant trusts others personally. (We know he/she trusts Mom to be fed!)
Faith, before anything else, is trust.
So I'm not sure why people argue that babies aren't capable of trusting -- of relating personally.
And, btw, many of these same arguments we hear vs. infants apply to...
...toddlers...
...pre-schoolers...
...kindergarteners...
...primary-age kids...
...and even adults with down syndrome, other mental retardations, and "special" mental disabilities.
Many of the most loving people I've EVER met are in this last category.
Many people want others to have all this "rational" degree in theology before they can be baptized.
Jesus knows them all as His little lambs. And even at a very early age, young kids pray to Him. Know Him. Worship Him. Trust Him to keep them secure.
“Read the early church fathers.”
If you took your own advice, you probably wouldn’t be a Protestant for very long.
I’m just saying. . .
Agreed.
Hoss
No it doesn't teach that at all. Ezekiel 18 clearly explains that children do not inherit the sins of their fathers. Salvation is also predicated on having understanding to understand the Gospel and obey it by being baptized. An infant can not do that on his/her own. Such "...children are born in sin." is false and should not be taught.
The answer is — no. Show me something a bit earlier, before the Platonists messed up the theology. Better yet, show me where an infant was a willing, rational disciple. And who is called an infant in those days? A newly born? How old?
I’m not going to debate this further with anyone who thinks that babies are held accountable for their original sin, as these bishops must have thought to be at all logical.
You are exactly right. Infant baptism was NOT practiced in the early church, but was introduced later.
You are a false teacher in a total sort of way.
“Suffer the little children to com unto me for such is the kingdom of heaven”- Jesus of Nazareth. No need to baptize children for such “is the kingdom of heaven” and those in heaven need no baptism. A dying infant and child is automatically saved. Can any of you state with a straight face that a two year old unbaptized child is thrown, by Jesus, into raging the fires of hell? Nonsense. Frighten a small child with the threat of Hell and one risks violating the other warning “If any of you offend one of these little ones I say that it is better for that man that he had never been born.”
I have had my catholic relatives foaming at the mouth over this and have not had contact with them for 20 years. No loss. You can threaten to kill me or burn me alive and I would not concede the point. Let it rest.
Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
Yes.
Per the Bible...water baptism, as accompanied by God's Word -- which IS the empowering agent involved (Eph. 5:25) alongside the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5; John 3:5)...
...Establishes you as Christ's disciple -- as you enter the Name of the Trinity (Matthew 28:19)
...are rebirthed from above (John 3:5)
...regenerated by the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5)
...justifies us when linked to Name of Christ and enacted by Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:11; Gal. 3:27)
...are saved (1 Peter 3:21; Titus 3:5)
...is the entry way for the Holy Spirit (John 3:5; Acts 2:38, etc)
...you become buried in Christ's death and raised with Him in resurrection (Romans 6:3-4; Col. 2:12)
...are forgiven (Acts 2:38; 22:16) -- certainly an infant's original sin -- there from birth per Ps. 51:5; 58:3 is forgiven...and we ALL know that repentance for ANY of us -- child or adult -- is NOT a one-time thing! It's ongoing in our lifestyle
...clothes us in Christ (Gal. 3:26-27)
Now, tell me:
Does a person's "intellect" accomplish any of these things?
Is baptism primarily something man does -- instead of something that God does (thru man)?
Since the above references supernatural DIVINE power undertakings...no mere man has the capacity to make these realities come into fruition.
IF the emphasis remains that baptism is what WE do...and we have to be "XYZ" developed to accomplish it...I would say NONE of us are able to do these things...such as...
* Rebirth/Regenerate/save/justify ourselves (John specifically says our adoption as sons is NOT of ANY human decision!!! see John 1:12-13)
* Be buried in Christ's death by being baptized into Him
* Forgive ourselves
* Cleanse ourselves (Eph. 5:25-26)
* Sprinkle our hearts clean from an evil conscience (Heb. 10:22)
* Be given a new heart sprinkled upon us (Eze. 36:25-27)
* Initiate spiritual adoption proceedings (Gal. 3:26; John 1:12-13)
These are ALL ONLY things God can accomplish!!!
The MAJOR problem with credobaptism is that it reduces baptism to what men do -- and tends to leave God out of it other than God "decreed" it (the meaning of "ordinance"). It's almost like a version of deism...where, yeah, God created all things...but now just sits back & lets men have it without an active participatory involvement.
Yet...what does the Bible say? Even...
* ...repentance in the book of Acts is described as something ONLY God can grant!
* ...saying Jesus is Lord can ONLY done by the Holy Spirit leading us to say that! (1 Cor. 12:3)
It's PAST time for the churches to de-ritualize credobaptism!
For it makes what is clearly divine power subjugated to the rational & reason of men performing what they deem as mere religious rites.
Tell you what: you better take some scissors to your Bible then:
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. (Psalm 51:5)
Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies. (Psalm 58:3)
In case you haven't noticed, the most self-centered people on earth actually tend to be babies & toddlers.
Your family's toddlers didn't "environmentally" appropriate sinful habits.
Jesus talked about "sin" in the singular. “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin
The sins are the individual acts & omissions (wrong-doing or right-neglecting). Sin itself is a power that controls.
Infants & toddlers haven't wrung up the sins plural. But they inherit that power of sin in their nature.
That is standard Christian teaching across about all Christian denominations.
Please explain: Why stop at infants?
What about toddlers?
What about Any aged kid?
What about adults with mental disabilities?
What about adults who haven't heard the Gospel?
By the time you list all of the "What abouts...?" you basically could readily arrive at some semi-conclusion of "Hey, why bother to..."
...disciple anybody?
...missionize anybody?
...baptize anybody?
Why "frighten" anyone with ANY shred of revelation about hell?
Why, ya might as well just embrace universalism.
...Dying infants...
We do have one OT glimpse here. As a punishment for David's sin with Bathsheba, the Bible indicates David's young son was taken.
David then said that the boy would not return to him, but that David would return to the son.
But it's all left with at least a degree of mystery.
For whatever we conclude in that verse, we also need to temper it -- as applied to ALL people:
"I am the way, the truth, and the life. NO ONE comes to the Father but by ME." -- Jesus, John 14:6
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.