baptism

Page 2 of 7 (131 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last »
This post has 130 Replies | 2 Followers

Posts 10887
Forum MVP
NB.Mick | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 2 2012 5:25 AM

Paul Oertly:
The last 8 quotes ... do not in any way address  the question of when the first infant baptism occurred.

Paul,

Let me remark that I find the tone of your posting very inappropriate and in direct violation of the forum posting rules. I encourage you to edit your post accordingly and purposely cited only a relevant portion of it.

We all know that if there was an infant baptized at household-baptisms in the NT, it has not been recorded as such. Thus the only way to address the question, "when was the first infant bapized" is by inference from the writings of the Early Church Fathers (and from the didache and excavated baptism-places in catacombs). Logos helps us to research these in context - which may help as to the question how reliable the texts and their dating are, whether there was a controversy about introduction or general validity of infant baptism etc. These are historical questions that can be addressesd by using Logos. That notwithstanding, the same documents lead some to argue "apostolic heritage" and others "really proven in 4. Century AD" - thus dealing with the ECF-citations is absolutely to the point.

Running Logos 8 latest beta version on Win 10

Posts 2398
Ronald Quick | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 2 2012 5:25 AM

MJ. Smith:
And, in another place, we are told that Polycarp was Baptized by none other than the Apostle John!

MJ,

(This is a little off topic from the original post). 

I've known that Polycarp was a disciple of John, but I had not heard that he had been baptized by him.  Where can I find this information?

Thanks.

Posts 77
Paul Oertly | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 2 2012 5:41 AM

NewbieMick:
thus dealing with the ECF-citations is absolutely to the point.
Please cite any  ECF quote above that addresses the first infant baptism, and I'll edit my post.
NewbieMick:
We all know that if there was an infant baptized at household-baptisms in the NT, it has not been recorded as such.
AMEN

Posts 77
Paul Oertly | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 2 2012 6:07 AM

Ronald Quick:

I've known that Polycarp was a disciple of John, but I had not heard that he had been baptized by him.  Where can I find this information?

Thanks.

 

POLYCARP (PERSON). Bishop of Smyrna in Asia Minor, born ca. 70 C.E. and martyred in Smyrna ca. 156 C.E. Our sources for the life of Polycarp include Ignatius’ letter to Polycarp, Irenaeus’ Adversus Haereses, Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica, and most importantly, the anonymous Martyrdom of Polycarp.* Irenaeus, quoted by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 5:20:6), states that Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle. Some scholars doubt the accuracy of this assertion, especially considering Eusebius’ preoccupation with demonstrating apostolic succession. Neither Ignatius nor Polycarp himself mentions any connection with John. According to a scribal addition to the Martyrdom of Polycarp (22:2), Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp.

Freedman, D. N. (1996). Vol. 5: The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (389). New York: Doubleday.

*Please note that the aforementioned "Martyrdom of Polycarp" is an anonymous work.

 

Posts 2844
Mike Childs | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 2 2012 6:29 AM

Well done, MJ!!  You start with Scripture and then move to Church history.  You have stated the infant baptism position well indeed.

Both sides of the debate over infant baptism can make a reasonable case from Scripture and history.  If not,  the issue would have been laid to rest long ago.  I grew up Baptist, and joined the United Methodist Church when in High School.  I know that both sides of the issue do not listen to the other.  Unitl I was grown, I had never heard the information that MJ states so clearly.

What is needed is respect for views that may not be our own.  If the issue is something that strikes at the heart of the faith, then I would never compromise.  But as Wesley said (in this quote which I found in my Logos edition of Wesley's Works),  "But as to all opinions which do not strike at the root of Christianity, we think and let think."

I remember once serving on a Board of MInistry Committee that examined candidates for ordination and ministry.  We were examining a young pastor who was wanting to transfer from the Baptist Church to the Methodist Church.  So I asked the young Baptist preacher, "Brother, do you believe in infant baptism".  He said, "Would you repeat the question?"  I said, "Brother, do you believe in infant baptism?"  He thought a moment and answered, "Well, do I believe in infant baptism?  Fellow, I don't just believe in it, I have seen it." 

Me, too.

"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley

Posts 84
Jerry Fourroux | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 2 2012 6:29 AM

Paul, when did the first woman receive communion? Acts 2:42 maybe but still not explicit.

(this post is for humors sake only) :)

Posts 2844
Mike Childs | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 2 2012 6:35 AM

Paul Oertly:
Neither Ignatius nor Polycarp himself mentions any connection with John.

Considering the brief amount of the writings of these earliest Church Fathers an argument from silence holds no water. 

 

"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley

Posts 589
Randall Cue | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 2 2012 6:38 AM

Sorry that this has turned into something other than I had wished. Thaks MJ and Dal you both provided answers I was looking for.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Randy

Soli Deo Gloria

Randy

Posts 77
Paul Oertly | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 2 2012 6:40 AM

Michael Childs:
Considering the brief amount of the writings of these earliest Church Fathers an argument from silence holds no water. 

But words from an anonymous novel do hold water?

 

Posts 2844
Mike Childs | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 2 2012 6:47 AM

Paul Oertly:

Michael Childs:
Considering the brief amount of the writings of these earliest Church Fathers an argument from silence holds no water. 

But words from an anonymous novel do hold water?

Words from an ancient document of the Christian church hold a lot of water - a lot more than silence in a few brief letters and documents. After all, the sources you mention were not writing biographies of Polycarp, were they?  Do you find any Church Fathers contradicting the statement?  That silence speaks at least as loud as yours.

For example,  I have not yet mentioned the assasination of Abraham Lincoln.  Please don't interpret that as my doubting the fact.

I am not saying that the matter is proven beyond all doubt, but the weight of the evidence we have would support the statement. Why would one doubt it without evidence?

 

"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley

Posts 77
Paul Oertly | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 2 2012 6:58 AM

Sir, You speak in riddles. Now you assert that the ECF'S silence is validation? 

Michael Childs:
 Do you find any Church Fathers contradicting the statement?
Michael Childs:
Considering the brief amount of the writings of these earliest Church Fathers an argument from silence holds no water. 
Michael Childs:
Why would one doubt it without evidence?
You have done nothing to provide evidence that the practice was derived from God's Word.

    (Mt 15:9)  And in vain they worship Me, 

          Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ”  

Posts 130
Willard Scott | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 2 2012 7:49 AM

Michael Childs:
Well done, MJ!!  You start with Scripture and then move to Church history.  You have stated the infant baptism position well indeed.
Maybe someone shoulda clued you in...M.J. is fervently denying that she is attempting to support infant baptism theology. Yes, She started with scripture...Scripture that never mentions infants. She then follows up with a dozen quotes from early church fathers that never address the OP's question...just promote the doctrine. ... Well done, Indeed Stick out tongue

Posts 3863
Forum MVP
Friedrich | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 2 2012 8:54 AM

I come from (and remain in) a theological tradition that does not support or practice infant baptism.  That said,  I am surprised by the strong words from some posters here toward MJ.  Yes, there are some theological assumptions in her post, for instance, seeing "whole household" as possible/probably including infants and toddlers.  But I can filter through that.  It certainly does not come across as contentious.  2 Timothy and Ephesians 4 shed some light on how we are to treat those who disagree with us.

As for quoting church tradition which includes some theological hermeneutic--what is the problem with that?  It is quite relevant to the OP's question.  IF that theology existed at that time, then it follows that infant baptisms were done at that time,  That is far different than carrying on a contentious conversation over whether one believes in it or not.  Is that not correct?

I like Apples.  Especially Honeycrisp.

Posts 7505
DAL | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 2 2012 9:12 AM

Tes:

DAL:
Since both faith and repentance are conditions leading to New Testament baptism, naturally infants are excluded (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38). Infants have not the mental capacity to believe in Christ, and they cannot repent for they “have no knowledge of good or evil.” (Deuteronomy 1:39) Hence, the practice of “infant baptism” is unknown to Holy Scripture

.

Hi, Dal this is biblical and true.

Amen, Tes! Now as far as Jesus not repenting of any sin before His baptism it's due to the fact that He was perfect and he just did it to fulfill all righteousness (Matthew 3:14-15).

DAL

Posts 5573
Forum MVP
Rich DeRuiter | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 2 2012 9:15 AM

Dan DeVilder:
That is far different than carrying on a contentious conversation over whether one believes in it or not.  Is that not correct?

I agree. MJ's post was excellent and well researched. I also thought DAL's post was helpful in filling out the historical picture (though his comment on baptism being a merely human tradition... was unnecessary and unnecessarily contentious - IMHO). Other than that, both posts answered the OP's question probably as much as it can be, using original sources, pointing to sources in Logos whenever possible. Well done!

Let's just admit that the theology regarding the practice of infant baptism can be a point of sharp contention. This point of contention has been debated for centuries. We are not likely to resolve it, nor gain 'converts' to 'our' side on a forum such as this. Nor would it be helpful to point out the theological problems with the side of those with whom we disagree; and would be outside the guidelines of this forum.

Can we drop the theological comments, and get back to the question of historical sources that record the earliest instances of the practice of infant baptism. Does anyone have any more to add to that discussion?

 Help links: WIKI;  Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)

Posts 77
Paul Oertly | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 2 2012 9:18 AM

Dan DeVilder:
That said,  I am surprised by the strong words from some posters here toward MJ. 
I got into this discussion because one school of thought was applauded, another was reminded of forum guidelines. I am not offended by anyone's theology. I do think it's hypocritical to promote a certain theology , then deny that is what was done.
Dan DeVilder:
It is quite relevant to the OP's question.  IF that theology existed at that time,
The OP's question had nothing to do with theology, In fact he asked that it not be a theological debate. The question was: When was the first infant baptism? Only one of her citations even vaguely addresses that question. (And it is from an anonymous source)

Posts 1775
Rick | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 2 2012 9:34 AM

Paul Oertly:
The OP's question had nothing to do with theology, In fact he asked that it not be a theological debate.

Then why have you contributed to the debate?

Posts 130
Willard Scott | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 2 2012 10:02 AM

Rick:

Paul Oertly:
The OP's question had nothing to do with theology, In fact he asked that it not be a theological debate.

Then why have you contributed to the debate?

Why have you?

 

Posts 1775
Rick | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 2 2012 10:13 AM

Willard Scott:
Why have you?

I have not expressed an opinion on either side. That can hardly be called debating. If you consider my question as adding to the debate then I will pretend to agree and say that I am very disrespectful to other people's wishes. I refuse to accept authority and follow forum guidelines. I have got it all figured out and must correct the heathens that disagree with my theology. Nobody should have the right to believe anything other than what I do. How can I not change others' minds and opinions with doing things this way? This is why I entered the debate.

Since I have given my reasoning, shall you follow? I promise not to refute or reply since I am apparently debating. Sorry for that.

That's all folks. Outta here. Smile

Posts 130
Willard Scott | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 2 2012 10:14 AM

Richard DeRuiter:
Does anyone have any more to add to that discussion?
I do !
Richard DeRuiter:
I agree. MJ's post was excellent and well researched.
Well researched indeed. Copied and pasted from a Catholic website.http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=127903  
Richard DeRuiter:
Other than that, both posts answered the OP's question probably as much as it can be, using original sources, pointing to sources in Logos whenever possible. Well done!
Yeah, Right ! Stick out tongue
MJ. Smith:
Yes, I should have provided links to Logos but I was tired and lazy.

Page 2 of 7 (131 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last » | RSS