Infant Baptism and the Bible: Should Babies Be Baptized?

[Cornelius]

Let me make it clearer I will happily engage you in a study about the fact that we must only believe the Bible . Open a thread about it and I will join you. The forum rules are happy when we stick to one subject at a time. This is about baptism. If you can prove from the Bible that we must add to the Bible, then please open a thread and I will join you there

 

[Hardcastle]

Have you yourself actually done any historical reading, or do you take this guy's word at face value?

I have studied the matter – extensively and Meyer and the other scholars are quite correct. The historical record tells the story – the baptism of infants is not to be found in the NT; the baptism of infants cannot be considered an apostolic ordinance; infant baptism encountered long resistance from those Christians who understood the revealed word of God; and infant baptism only became accepted by an erring branch of the Lord’s church after the time of Augustine.

These truths you have not refuted because you can't. Your hand-waving in the air proves nothing. The error of infant baptism that you teach was never sanctioned by God’s inspired writers. You go beyond what is written and you need to reject your sectarian error - an error that has blinded you to God's revelation.

 

[Hardcastle]

At least two posters have made precisely such an argument - that the reason (or one of the reasons anyway) not to baptize infants is that we are not explicitly instructed to do so.

You were told clearly and correctly that Holy Writ does not instruct infant baptism because infants are not candidates for baptism. The one who is scripturally baptized is the one who is mature enough to hear God's word proclaimed and responds to that word via obedience from the heart to the doctrine once delivered. Infants are not mentally mature enough to hear the gospel message - accept that message as true and submit to baptism calling on the name of the Lord.

You cannot present one example of an apostle baptizing an infant because such baptisms never occurred in the NT. Baptism is believer baptism - open only to those who freely choose to obey their Lord in baptism. You continue to teach error my friend. You now know better. Give up you error. Anyone who was only baptized as an infant has not been scripturally baptized and is in need of being immersed in water calling on the Lord.

And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'
(Acts 22:16 ESV)​

 

[Hardcastle]

You have more or less suggested "if its not in the Bible, it should not be done".

Your logic remains flawed - infant baptism is not in the Bible because it is not sanctioned by God and it was not practiced by the apostolic church. It remains what it has always been - one more man-made dogma that should be rejected. You continue to dodge reality my friend. Wake up.

For the record - you do admit infant baptism is not in the NT - right?

 

[francisdesales]

Yes that would be zany indeed if we had to think like that . But luckily we do not, because we all know that we are in fact only speaking here about things Biblical and thus the Bible is the only source as it tell us in 1Co 4:6

Actually, that is based upon your incorrect notion of sola scriptura. Considering there are no such passages that support this ANTI-BIBLICAL notion (yes, specifically AGAINST the Bible's teachings), your entire presumption collapses.

Yes, I do not rely on historical evidence.

You don't rely on the Bible, either, since the Bible doesn't provide any evidence that infant baptism is against Christian norms.

For the Bible does not tell us NOT to baptize infants - and the Church of the first and second century did, which leads one to think that THEY, having the oral traditions and teachings of Paul, understood that baptism could be done on ENTIRE families (no exclusions are made when the Scriptures mention them.)

Now, I didn't really want to sidetrack this too much, but I feel I must, since your citation of 1 Cor 4:6 could lead others into the same false errors as yourself. Thus, I will show conclusively that 1 Cor 4 does not support sola scriptura...

1. Context. This is one of those things that the Church teaches when reading Scriptures. Read the context, verses above and below the verse. You apparently didn't do that, otherwise, you would pick up

But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. 4For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. 5Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God. 6And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. 7For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it? 8Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us: and I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you. 9For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. 10We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised.


Clearly, the context is about not becoming proud. The Apostles, to whom the Gospel was given, were deemed humble - so certainly, the followers of Christ at Corinth could not claim a higher place. They were not stewards of the Gospel, Paul and the Apostles were. In the passage, Paul is saying "don't think about other men beyond what is written", a slogan of the time. Don't invent and gossip about other people. Thus, the passage is an ethical exhortation to avoid arrogance and has nothing to do with the Bible, per sec, as an all-encompassing rule of faith for Christians. That's WAY off base, my friend...

2. St. Paul elsewhere in this very writing makes it clear that the Corinthians were to hold onto teachings ALREADY GIVEN.

Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you 1 Cor 11:2

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 1 Cor 15:1-2

No doubt, these teachings were given ORALLY, since this is Paul's FIRST LETTER to the Corinthians. It follows that he couldn't possibly command them to "do not go beyond what is written" if he had not given them anything written YET!!! Nor can the command apply to future writings, since he does not even differentiate what KINDS OF WRITINGS he is talking about. We could say he is refering to future Ecumenical Councils and written Papal Encyclicals...

Paul never abrogates the COMMAND to Christians to "hold onto the traditions I have given, both orally and in written form". Unfortunately, in their pride, some have done just that...

3. Even IF we disregard all that Paul had later written, even in 1 Cor 11:2 or 15:1-2, the phrase "what is written" generally refers to the OLD TESTAMENT. Even if we eliminate great sections of Scriptures, your interpretation goes too far, since it WOULD refer to the Old Testament, as the New Testament was as yet written.

That Scripture alone is the Rule of Faith cannot be demonstrated by ANY Church Father in the first millenium, more evidence that NO ONE read this passage of Scripture as you do. One must conclude that it is just another "tradition of men" that keeps men and women from the Teachings of God. It also ignores that the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the Truth, not the Bible. It is the CHURCH, not the Bible, that makes known the mysteries of God (Eph 3:10). And of course, it is the Church that wrote the Bible, inspired by God to reveal to mankind, by one means of several, how men could be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I have studied the matter – extensively and Meyer and the other scholars are quite correct.

Baloney. 2 Please, spare me the "extensive study" bit. It ain't flying. I actually HAVE read the Fathers.

Either you are still spinning tall tales and inventing things or you are thinking about reading the Church Fathers on another topic, say, on the Trinity. There is plenty of historical evidence that children were baptized in the apostolic era and several Christian writings vouch for the practice as apostolic. Someone who has "extensively studied" would have looked at a number of sources, both hostile and positive, to their preconceived notions. That is what a scholar does. As such, your "scholar" was more concerned with inventing things and using his "argument from authority" fallacy to proclaim from upon high a faulty conclusion based upon a very limited study of what the Fathers and ordinary Christians had matter-of-factly had written.

The following I came up with in a "very short time" of study. This just shows how biased your "study" was, if you and your Lutheran friend couldn't get this from the internet...

And many, both men and women, who have been Christ's disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixty or seventy years..." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 15:6 (A.D. 110-165).


"And when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God [baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins." Aristides, Apology, 15 (A.D. 140).

"Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and Saviour?" Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, 9 (A.D. 156).

"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).

"I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord." Polycrates, Fragment in Eusebius' Church History, V:24:7 (A.D. 190).

"And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family." Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215).

"[T]herefore children are also baptized." Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233).

"For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too." Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

"Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and 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." Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244).

By the way, Origen was the greatest Bible commentator of the first 500 years of Christianity. He didn't seem to have a problem with the idea...
"But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day...And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism...we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…" Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251).


This is all WELL before Augustine came upon the scene. And I STILL am looking for proof of evidence of that false claim about "infant baptism encountered long resistance from those Christians who understood the revealed word of God against the teaching of infant baptism". What a bunch of baloney. If nothing more, the last quote tells us that people should not even wait until the 8th day!!!

If you have studied so extensively, like you claim, provide the evidence from early Christian writing to this effect.

----
In addition, there is plenty of evidence in Sacred Scriptures, as well, that Jesus is not locking out the children in coming to Him, as you desire;


Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?

Matt 19:14 - Jesus clearly says the kingdom of heaven also belongs to children. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism.

Mark 10:14 - Jesus says to let the children come to Him for the kingdom of God also belongs to them. Jesus says nothing about being too young to come into the kingdom of God.

Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with "He who does not believe will be condemned." This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a "believer's baptism."
Luke 18:15 – Jesus says, “Let the children come to me.†The people brought infants to Jesus that he might touch them. This demonstrates that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason.

For adults, certainly, one comes to Christ through Faith. However, the Bible clearly points out the idea of proxy statements of faith for the sake of others, prayers of intercession for the sake of others, and of course, vicarious suffering for others. These ideas are biblical and readily acceptable to ancient people who considered the Church as a community helping each other to come to God. It only seems odd to you because your idea of Church is skewed into an individualistic notion of "every man for himself"...

The historical record tells the story – the baptism of infants is not to be found in the NT;

Nor is it refuted. Evidence is stronger for it than against it.

the baptism of infants cannot be considered an apostolic ordinance;

You have proven yourself to know nothing about the history of this subject.

and infant baptism only became accepted by an erring branch of the Lord’s church after the time of Augustine.

The evidence says otherwise. More fallacy. It is perfectly clear you have done NO research, and you just read something that suited your fancy without testing it for yourself.

These truths you have not refuted because you can't.

I have already on this thread, and have done it again. Where's your evidence??

Your hand-waving in the air proves nothing.

You took the words right out of my mouth. :biglol

Now, perhaps you can put your money where your mouth is and cite some historical writings that tell us about this grand revolt against infant baptism during the first few centuries.

 

[Hardcastle]

For the Bible does not tell us NOT to baptize infants…

You continue to argue from ignorance my friend. The Bible does not tell us NOT to use Coca-Cola in the cup of blessing as we celebrate the Lord’s Supper. The Bible does, however tell us that the apostolic church used fruit of the vine as the emblem for the Lord’s blood shed for many. Your logic remains flawed.

And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, "Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is shed for many unto remission of sins. But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom" (Matthew 26:26-29).​

The same is true with Christian baptism – the example provided by the apostolic church is ‘believers baptism’ administered in every conversion recorded in the NT as baptism for only those who had the mental capacity to hear the word – believe that word - and request to be baptized “for the remission of sins”. Infants cannot meet those requirements.

Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?" [And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he replied, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."] And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. (Acts 8:35-38 ESV)​

Infant baptism is not scriptural baptism. If that is the only baptism you received you have never been "baptized into Christ". Your error continues. Your argument remains weak.

Thus, I will show conclusively that 1 Cor 4 does not support sola scriptura...

Straw-man and off-topic my friend. Your weak argument must have run its course. We are not debating sola scriptura – we are debating the error of infant baptism – a dogma nowhere taught in Holy Writ. Your priestcraft continues to go beyond what is written and is nowhere to be found in the NT because it was never authorized by God. I don’t want to shatter your reality but you do not have the authority to change God’s word to fit your sectarian error. That is not the way God works.

 

[Hardcastle]

Baloney. 2 Please, spare me the "extensive study" bit. It ain't flying. I actually HAVE read the Fathers.

The 'fathers' were not inspired writers and some that your tradition consider to be 'the fathers' taught baloney. Your appeal to the 'fathers' as your authority doesn't fly. If that is all you have you have nothing. When the 'fathers' contradict the Book (and many do) one must reject the fathers - God's word is always true.

. . yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, . . . Romans 3:4​

Infant baptism remains non-biblical and should be rejected. It is not taught anywhere within the pages of the NT. Why - because it was never authorized by the Eternal.

 

[Hardcastle]

Now, perhaps you can put your money where your mouth is and cite some historical writings that tell us about this grand revolt against infant baptism during the first few centuries.

I put my faith in God's word and His word is clear - infants were not baptized in the NT. The ordnance of baptism has always been 'believer baptism' administered only to those capable of hearing, believing and obeying from the heart the gospel of grace. Your error continues and you have placed your faith in the doctrine of man instead of God's word. Sad but true. The priestcraft you preach has been soundly defeated ages ago via God's word.

The truth remains true - (1) infant baptism is not found in the N.T; (2) infant baptism is not to be held as an apostolic ordinance; (3) infant baptism encountered early and long resistance in the Lord's church for the obvious reasons; and (4) infant baptism did not become common practice until after the time of Augustine.

 

[Scotth1960]

Baloney. 2 Please, spare me the "extensive study" bit. It ain't flying. I actually HAVE read the Fathers.

Either you are still spinning tall tales and inventing things or you are thinking about reading the Church Fathers on another topic, say, on the Trinity. There is plenty of historical evidence that children were baptized in the apostolic era and several Christian writings vouch for the practice as apostolic. Someone who has "extensively studied" would have looked at a number of sources, both hostile and positive, to their preconceived notions. That is what a scholar does. As such, your "scholar" was more concerned with inventing things and using his "argument from authority" fallacy to proclaim from upon high a faulty conclusion based upon a very limited study of what the Fathers and ordinary Christians had matter-of-factly had written.

The following I came up with in a "very short time" of study. This just shows how biased your "study" was, if you and your Lutheran friend couldn't get this from the internet...

And many, both men and women, who have been Christ's disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixty or seventy years..." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 15:6 (A.D. 110-165).


"And when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God [baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins." Aristides, Apology, 15 (A.D. 140).

"Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and Saviour?" Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, 9 (A.D. 156).

"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).

"I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord." Polycrates, Fragment in Eusebius' Church History, V:24:7 (A.D. 190).

"And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family." Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215).

"[T]herefore children are also baptized." Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233).

"For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too." Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

"Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and 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." Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244).

By the way, Origen was the greatest Bible commentator of the first 500 years of Christianity. He didn't seem to have a problem with the idea...
"But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day...And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism...we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…" Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251).


This is all WELL before Augustine came upon the scene. And I STILL am looking for proof of evidence of that false claim about "infant baptism encountered long resistance from those Christians who understood the revealed word of God against the teaching of infant baptism". What a bunch of baloney. If nothing more, the last quote tells us that people should not even wait until the 8th day!!!

If you have studied so extensively, like you claim, provide the evidence from early Christian writing to this effect.

----
In addition, there is plenty of evidence in Sacred Scriptures, as well, that Jesus is not locking out the children in coming to Him, as you desire;


Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?

Matt 19:14 - Jesus clearly says the kingdom of heaven also belongs to children. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism.

Mark 10:14 - Jesus says to let the children come to Him for the kingdom of God also belongs to them. Jesus says nothing about being too young to come into the kingdom of God.

Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with "He who does not believe will be condemned." This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a "believer's baptism."
Luke 18:15 – Jesus says, “Let the children come to me.†The people brought infants to Jesus that he might touch them. This demonstrates that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason.

For adults, certainly, one comes to Christ through Faith. However, the Bible clearly points out the idea of proxy statements of faith for the sake of others, prayers of intercession for the sake of others, and of course, vicarious suffering for others. These ideas are biblical and readily acceptable to ancient people who considered the Church as a community helping each other to come to God. It only seems odd to you because your idea of Church is skewed into an individualistic notion of "every man for himself"...



Nor is it refuted. Evidence is stronger for it than against it.



You have proven yourself to know nothing about the history of this subject.



The evidence says otherwise. More fallacy. It is perfectly clear you have done NO research, and you just read something that suited your fancy without testing it for yourself.



I have already on this thread, and have done it again. Where's your evidence??



You took the words right out of my mouth. :biglol

Now, perhaps you can put your money where your mouth is and cite some historical writings that tell us about this grand revolt against infant baptism during the first few centuries.

AMEN.

 

[Jake]

Baloney. 2 Please, spare me the "extensive study" bit. It ain't flying. I actually HAVE read the Fathers.

The only Father you need to read, my friend, is the ONE Father; you have no other.

Either you are still spinning tall tales and inventing things or you are thinking about reading the Church Fathers on another topic, say, on the Trinity. There is plenty of historical evidence that children were baptized in the apostolic era and several Christian writings vouch for the practice as apostolic. Someone who has "extensively studied" would have looked at a number of sources, both hostile and positive, to their preconceived notions. That is what a scholar does. As such, your "scholar" was more concerned with inventing things and using his "argument from authority" fallacy to proclaim from upon high a faulty conclusion based upon a very limited study of what the Fathers and ordinary Christians had matter-of-factly had written.

No, you are spinning tails. God continues to ask and warn you, His Word stands forever:
Matthew 15: 3 He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?"

Isaiah 8: 20To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.



Matthew 15: 6then he need not honor his father or mother. Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. 7 Hypocrites!

Matthew 15: 9And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’â€

You best be closing those scolar books and open the One Book that will teach you what He says and then pray to Him to show you what He means.

Baptism is for those who know what they are doing, it is clear, set aside those denomination beliefs and read what Jesus has to say.

Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

 

[westtexas]

The truth remains true - (1) infant baptism is not found in the N.T; (2) infant baptism is not to be held as an apostolic ordinance; (3) infant baptism encountered early and long resistance in the Lord's church for the obvious reasons; and (4) infant baptism did not become common practice until after the time of Augustine.

Hardcastle, like you, I believe that scripture and early patristic writings point towards believers baptism, but will stay out of that debate. I just want to add that your Mr. Meyer is entirely incorrect with his statement #4. In the second century you will find writings on both sides of this debate. But by the time of Cyprian (208-258) and Origen (185-254),both of whom wrote on infant baptism, infant baptism was quite common. Well before the time of Augustine (354-430).

Westtexas

 

[Hardcastle]

Hardcastle, like you, I believe that scripture and early patristic writings point towards believers baptism, but will stay out of that debate. I just want to add that your Mr. Meyer is entirely incorrect with his statement #4. In the second century you will find writings on both sides of this debate. But by the time of Cyprian (208-258) and Origen (185-254),both of whom wrote on infant baptism, infant baptism was quite common. Well before the time of Augustine (354-430).

Westtexas

Hi WT - I will have to disagree - Meyer recognized infant baptism prior to Augustine but he correctly notes that infant baptism did not become *common practice* until after the time of Augustine. Tertullian (c. A.D. 210) opposed infant baptism as did other 'fathers'. He says let children come while they are growing up...while they are learning. He understood correctly that one must be capable of a certain amount of understanding before coming to the Lord - one needed the maturity to *know Christ*. I think church history agrees that the error of infant baptism did not become *common practice* until the teachings of Augustine.

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. … The Lord does indeed say, "Do not forbid them to come to me." Let them come, then, while they are growing up! Let them "come" while they are learning, while they are learning where to come to! 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? … Let them know how to ask for salvation, that you may seem to have given "to him that asks." (Tertullian, On Baptism)​

 

[westtexas]

Hi WT - I will have to disagree - Meyer recognized infant baptism prior to Augustine but he correctly notes that infant baptism did not become *common practice* until after the time of Augustine.

Hello Hardcastle, Mr. Meyer is wrong. I'll be glad to post the works and dates of fathers from the time of Origen (185-254) and Cyprian (208-258) on up to Augustine (354-430) who supported infant baptism, and there are many of them. But to make it easy on myself, let me go this way. Here is a link to wikipedia (which I know is not exactly a theological masterpiece)
Infant baptism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The last paragraph under "History" says "From at least the 3rd century onward Christians baptized infants as a standard practice...."
With the death of Augustine in the middle of the 5th century, somebody aint right.
Again, I agree with you on believers baptism, I just disagree with the historical facts Mr. Meyer has presented.

Westtexas

 

[Jake]

Brother you cancer argument is again just human and mean nothing in regard to baptism. The Bible says : 1Pe 2:24 who his own self bare our sins in his body upon the tree, that we, having died unto sins, might live unto righteousness; by whose stripes ye were healed.

In fact here God judges somebody for going to a doctor and not to Him :

2Ch 16:12 And in the thirty and ninth year of his reign Asa was diseased in his feet; his disease was exceeding great: yet in his disease he sought not to Jehovah, but to the physicians.
2Ch 16:13 And Asa slept with his fathers, and died in the one and fortieth year of his reign.

So my answer would be "No" we are not told to take a cancer patient to a doctor for chemo. The Bible gives us the alternative : Exo 15:26 and he said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of Jehovah thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his eyes, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of the diseases upon thee, which I have put upon the Egyptians: for I am Jehovah that healeth thee. which of course brings us right back to the Word only. We have to listen to the Word , obey it and then God will heal us.

Amen Brother, let the manifestations of healing begin!

 

[Cornelius]

Actually, that is based upon your incorrect notion of sola scriptura. Considering there are no such passages that support this ANTI-BIBLICAL notion (yes, specifically AGAINST the Bible's teachings), your entire presumption collapses.




You don't rely on the Bible, either, since the Bible doesn't provide any evidence that infant baptism is against Christian norms.

For the Bible does not tell us NOT to baptize infants - and the Church of the first and second century did, which leads one to think that THEY, having the oral traditions and teachings of Paul, understood that baptism could be done on ENTIRE families (no exclusions are made when the Scriptures mention them.)

Now, I didn't really want to sidetrack this too much, but I feel I must, since your citation of 1 Cor 4:6 could lead others into the same false errors as yourself. Thus, I will show conclusively that 1 Cor 4 does not support sola scriptura...

1. Context. This is one of those things that the Church teaches when reading Scriptures. Read the context, verses above and below the verse. You apparently didn't do that, otherwise, you would pick up

But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. 4For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. 5Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God. 6And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. 7For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it? 8Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us: and I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you. 9For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. 10We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised.


Clearly, the context is about not becoming proud. The Apostles, to whom the Gospel was given, were deemed humble - so certainly, the followers of Christ at Corinth could not claim a higher place. They were not stewards of the Gospel, Paul and the Apostles were. In the passage, Paul is saying "don't think about other men beyond what is written", a slogan of the time. Don't invent and gossip about other people. Thus, the passage is an ethical exhortation to avoid arrogance and has nothing to do with the Bible, per sec, as an all-encompassing rule of faith for Christians. That's WAY off base, my friend...

2. St. Paul elsewhere in this very writing makes it clear that the Corinthians were to hold onto teachings ALREADY GIVEN.

Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you 1 Cor 11:2

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 1 Cor 15:1-2

No doubt, these teachings were given ORALLY, since this is Paul's FIRST LETTER to the Corinthians. It follows that he couldn't possibly command them to "do not go beyond what is written" if he had not given them anything written YET!!! Nor can the command apply to future writings, since he does not even differentiate what KINDS OF WRITINGS he is talking about. We could say he is refering to future Ecumenical Councils and written Papal Encyclicals...

Paul never abrogates the COMMAND to Christians to "hold onto the traditions I have given, both orally and in written form". Unfortunately, in their pride, some have done just that...

3. Even IF we disregard all that Paul had later written, even in 1 Cor 11:2 or 15:1-2, the phrase "what is written" generally refers to the OLD TESTAMENT. Even if we eliminate great sections of Scriptures, your interpretation goes too far, since it WOULD refer to the Old Testament, as the New Testament was as yet written.

That Scripture alone is the Rule of Faith cannot be demonstrated by ANY Church Father in the first millenium, more evidence that NO ONE read this passage of Scripture as you do. One must conclude that it is just another "tradition of men" that keeps men and women from the Teachings of God. It also ignores that the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the Truth, not the Bible. It is the CHURCH, not the Bible, that makes known the mysteries of God (Eph 3:10). And of course, it is the Church that wrote the Bible, inspired by God to reveal to mankind, by one means of several, how men could be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

Regards

Amen, adding to the truth of the Word, as you have correctly pointed out puffs up. Men indeed become proud in their "knowledge" of how much they know and how much they have read and studied.

So lets give heed to the warning and ...learn not to go beyond the things which are written; 1Co 4:6 because we know that if any man teaches or if any man speaketh, speaking as it were oracles of God; if any man ministereth, ministering as of the strength which God supplieth: that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, whose is the glory and the dominion for ever and ever. Amen. 1Pe 4:11

So God is telling us to only speak the Word (Oracles) of God. But Christians seems to be unable to do this. They keep on falling into the traditions of men For when by reason of the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that some one teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food. Heb 5:12 We keep on going back and back to the same old foundations because some never move on from the foundational truth. They never get to the solid food. Wherefore leaving the doctrine of the first principles of Christ, let us press on unto perfection; not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
Heb 6:2 of the teaching of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. Heb 6:1 . But some never do move on.They are stuck in the first principles of Christ.

 

[Cornelius]

For the Bible does not tell us NOT to baptize infants -

Regards

And the Bibles does not tell us NOT to eat bricks and yet we seem to have the sense not to because we have knowledge. My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I also will forget thy children.
Hos 4:6

I must tell you that is the one of the most ludicrous arguments for doing something that I have ever heard on any forum. Doing something because your not told NOT to do it. Its like saying : "Oh I am going to breath under water, because God did not tell me NOT to do it"

We have to grow up in the Lord and leave the first principles of Christ.We are at the door of the great Tribulation and people who have been Christians for years, still have not moved on in the Lord. Why are you guys still stuck in rituals and traditions, when you are suppose to be manifesting Christ to a dying world out there ?

 

[francisdesales]

And the Bibles does not tell us NOT to eat bricks and yet we seem to have the sense not to because we have knowledge.

Unfortunately for you, the Apostles didn't teach anyone to eat bricks, so the example is just silly and pointless. We have no indication that they did, no historical record of eating bricks. We can be assured that there was no such brick eating taught as a tradition.

The Apostles taught Christians to hold onto ALL of the traditions they were taught, given BOTH orally and in written form. We don't know the full content of Tradition, without considering the practice of the actual Church. If they baptized infants, it must have been part of the Apostolic Tradition. If this was some "illegal proceeding", we would have historical note of it. Because Paul's admonition to hold onto ALL of the teachings given, you are the one who is failing to live up to Paul's teachings.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Amen, adding to the truth of the Word, as you have correctly pointed out puffs up. Men indeed become proud in their "knowledge" of how much they know and how much they have read and studied.

So lets give heed to the warning and ...

You didn't bother to even address what I wrote, did you. You would have Paul contradict himself at least twice in the very same letter. Thanks, but some twist Paul's writing to their own destruction...

But trying to get you to actually consider another point of view has always been a problem...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

No, you are spinning tails. God continues to ask and warn you, His Word stands forever:

Who are you again and what are you talking about??? Where is your historical evidence of this "revolt" against infant baptism? Don't butt in unless you have something to say on the subject.

As to transgressing the commandment of God because of your Tradition, have you considered taking the plank out of your own eye and getting rid of sola scriputura, since it is not found anywhere in the Bible?

Regards