Can anyone give a citation for the first recorded instance of infant baptism. This is an historical question not a theological one.
Soli Deo Gloria,
Randy
It truly did not cross my mind that documents more than 1500 years old could start an argument. And it still baffles me as to why.
Perhaps because your dealing with people and not robots.
In my world
Just downloaded this on my kindle as well.
MJ, do you have any more great books that are suitable for kids? I am always looking for good books to read to my grandkids.
Thanks!
Some people who do live in your world, not like to have curses cast at them.
As the meaning in this context is clearly:
3.a formal ecclesiastical curse involving excommunication
I would think people would be delighted ... they appear to not want communion with the church as represented in the council. Which means I am loosing patience and need to bow out of the thread permanently.
P.S.I am delighted that others are enjoying The Fallacy Detective.
[Y]
Certainly, quoting a historical source is not the same as endorsing, or promoting the substance of the quote.
As the meaning in this context is clearly: 3.a formal ecclesiastical curse involving excommunication
What so many people are missing here is that MJ is all about supplying facts to whatever question is asked. It doesn't matter if it's a blessing or a curse, if she agrees with it or not. A blessing on people baptizing infants, a curse on people baptizing infants, and a curse on people not baptizing infants, all have one thing in common: they prove that infants were baptized at that time -- which is exactly what the OP asked about.
MJ just uses whatever quotes she happens to find that provides an answer. I've seen her post long lists of quotes supporting positions I know she doesn't hold, simply because that's what was asked for. I can't remember seeing any other person on these forums doing that.
What so many people are missing here is that MJ is all about supplying facts to whatever question is asked. It doesn't matter if it's a blessing or a curse, if she agrees with it or not. A blessing on people baptizing infants, a curse on people baptizing infants, and a curse on people not baptizing infants, all have one thing in common: they prove that infants were baptized at that time -- which is exactly what the OP asked about. MJ just uses whatever quotes she happens to find that provides an answer. I've seen her post long lists of quotes supporting positions I know she doesn't hold, simply because that's what was asked for. I can't remember seeing any other person on these forums doing that.
As the meaning in this context is clearly: 3.a formal ecclesiastical curse involving excommunication No ! It's not at all Clear. My wife (a Catholic) lost a Baby, Almost full term but not strong enough to survive. The priest was there before she even made it back to her room. Screaming at her...that if she didn't have the baby baptized immediately that she was doomed to eternal hell fire...and the wife with her. She never recovered from that trauma. For the rest of her life she could not get beyond that injustice. She had been brainwashed to believe that the priest actually spoke for God. Therefore God was unfair. That incident cost her a relationship with God. I would hope she resolved that issue before she died...but I saw no evidence of it. So NO...It's much more than an ecclesiastical curse.
Talk about a terribly insensitive priest!
I'm sure that was an incredibly painful experience for her, and for you as you walked with her through it.
Awful. Just awful.
(Sadly, bad, faith-traumatizing behavior is not limited to R.C. clergy. Been there. Done that. [heavy sigh])
What you people keep forgetting is that this isn't the place. Teach them how to use the software, not how to fuel a debate.
(Sadly, bad, faith-traumatizing behavior is not limited to R.C. clergy. Been there. Done that. [heavy sigh])what you may not be seeing is the mandatory infant baptism rule still exists. and the threat of anathema with it.
I see it. I see your hurt too.
What I don't see is why citing the conciliar action in the context of answering a historical question is somehow an endorsement or promotion of that council's action.
By way of analogy: as a protestant in the Reformed tradition, with historical roots going back to the reformation in the Netherlands, there have been plenty of anathemas spoken against me/us by the R.C. church. Let's say I asked for information about the differing theologies of justification during the time of the Reformation. Let's say someone provided me with some quotes from the council of Trent including the anathemas. Would that bother me? No. Unless the person citing the information was also attacking the protestant views on justification. Trent is history. It happened. Citing it, or not won't change history.
Richard, One does not have to endorse or promote to fuel a debate.
Paul, I am going to write publicly what I wrote in private - the priest was theologically and pastorally wrong and I am very sorry for the pain he caused. Priests are human and flawed, just like the rest of us.
For any who care to look, wikipedia or the Logos resource by Ott will give a clearer view of Catholic theology - but its far too late to erase the pain.
What I don't see is why citing the conciliar action in the context of answering a historical question is somehow an endorsement or promotion of that council's action.If it were not still in effect, I could see your argument. It would be just another outdated doctrine. But that's not the case. It is alive and well. People are still being traumatized by it today. If you can't see that, I fear i'm ill equipped to convince you.
I see your point: The R.C. church and/or members and leaders of that church have used their theology of infant baptism to bully and badger people until they decided to leave not only that church but 'organized religion' itself. (I will leave unanswered whether and to what degree I agree/disagree with your point.)
But your point isn't germane to the topic of this thread.
If we were talking about the theology of infant baptism (which is outside the scope of these forums), or if we were talking about the application of R.C. theology throughout history to the present, or if we were talking about power abuse in the clergy, your point would carry weight.
But we're not talking about that.
We're talking about providing a historical question with answers from historical documents of or near the time in question.
Citing a statement from an early historical document, to answer a question that requires citing early historical documents is still just citing a statement. It has nothing to do with endorsing or rejecting what one is citing. It's just a citation. It's not saying it's a good thing they did this, or that what they did is bad. Value judgments on what that council did, or what the R.C. church has done since is a different topic entirely (and not appropriate to these forums). The fact that they did what they did is not in dispute. And facts are what the OP wanted.
Perhaps you think MJ selected her facts with some sort of hidden agenda in mind. If so, let's talk about that. I don't think she did that, but if you did then let's talk about motives and hidden agendas.
If we can't agree on what we're talking about, and how to talk about it, then we really have no way of carrying this discussion beyond mutual confusion over each others' position.
BTW, I'm genuinely sorry for the hurt you've experienced by the bad behavior of the people you describe. I've been with others who have gone through similar things, faced my own share of bad behavior (sometimes justified by bad theology), and know the trauma and the heart-ache.
First time reading the thread, even though I saw it earlier. It is interesting that 3441 times the thread has been read/viewed, even though it was started January 1. There are older threads on the forum which do not even have as many views.
Looks like most forum members are more into debates than discussing the software. [:D]
Perhaps you think MJ selected her facts with some sort of hidden agenda in mind. If so, let's talk about that.
Can anyone give a citation for the first recorded instance of infant baptism
Furthermore, here are some more Church Fathers on infant Baptism.
He asked for a specific instance, not an era, a decade, or a century.
From Dean053's post, you know there are differences of opinion as to which of the offered sources represents the first record of infant baptism. I prefer to leave the evaluation to the OP. If I were pushing a particular position, I would argue from Scripture before I would call in the records of the early church. I tried very carefully to not push a particular interpretation of the data or a particular theology. I am sorry that you misconstrued my intent and that the Randall regrets asking the question.
I am sorry that you misconstrued my intent
First time reading the thread, even though I saw it earlier. It is interesting that 3441 times the thread has been read/viewed, even though it was started January 1. There are older threads on the forum which do not even have as many views. Looks like most forum members are more into debates than discussing the software.
Looks like most forum members are more into debates than discussing the software.
Lynden, possibly because it is an incredibly interesting question. I sit on the 'personal profession' side on this issue, nonetheless am interested by the question and initial response. Having just expanded my library considerably with the Christmas credit, it has given me the opportunity to study this topic further, for which I thank my brothers and sisters in Christ.
I find it very helpful to allow others to present information which in turn I have the opportunity to research. This then deepens my understanding and confirms or challenges my present thoughts. I realise the 'discussion' this may lead to will inevitably fall into the 'out of bounds' category for these forums, however the OP and initial citations surely were acceptable as would be further citations on topic. These have possibly been exhausted for the present!
Off topic of the OP, but in context of the thread, I love ALL God's family, and those yet to know him. I pray this year of 2012 will see many more come into the family and further look forward to the day when the scales will be taken from MY (and all our) eyes and I (and we) will truly know God's heart. When we meet before him, I do not want to have to apologise for my behaviour towards those I disagree with, whether in the family or not.
May God's love be evidenced in all we do and say.
The confessions of a 'hot topic' thread lurker...
I used to love debating theology, it was a rather routine thing to do within my religious tradition. But I found myself being very angry towards those who did not see things my way. (That is a nice way of me saying I hated them) Over the years, while still in ragefull debate mode, I slowly realized a few things. The foremost being I could not recall ever debating anyone to the Lord (using my implied def. of debate). The only time I was privileged to lead someone to Christ was when I was sharing the love of Christ (which has many forms: peace, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, compassion, and the like). I have personally come to the conclusion the Lord wants me to enter (or at least try) into loving (reflecting His love in ALL its forms) relationships that He will use to facilitate opportunities for sharing Truth, as opposed to my learned method of demeaning those who do not agree with me.
To use the overused... "I'm far from perfect". I am reminded, almost daily, how far I have yet to go. I naturally LOVE to let people know I am right and they are wrong, using lots of negative emotional language of course... I had to take a 'sabbatical' from these forums because when I wanted to post it was usually to disagree with something, and I would find myself typing away in the same manner of my past. (most of the time I ended up not finishing the post, but not always)
I say all of that to say this... I 'lurk' these 'hot topics' now for self-reflection. I find myself, at times, agreeing with the thought foundation of a post, but cringing at how it is relayed. It reminds me.... of me. Then there are those rare gems of meekness that indeed disagree with someone, and yet it is FILLED with grace.
Despite feeling like I'm trying to convince people of my own humility (which of course would make me self-delusional) ... I want to be a gem of meekness...
(a seemingly forgotten Christlike attribute)... <-- see old habits to die hard
The Holy Spirit doesn't let me pick and choose which characteristics of Christ I may or may NOT want to emulate... Paul called on Christians to be like him. While I tremble at the mere thought of ever saying that out loud to 'my' congregation, I know Paul could honestly say it because he was honestly and faithfully (by the Grace of God) trying to be like Christ... Not in one or two ways... but in EVERY way... (remember meekness [:)] )
I apologize for the rambling parts and probably a few rabbit trails there...
I want to end by thanking those "gems of meekness", most of you probably don't even realize who you are, but we do...
I just realized.... too late... I should have just posted this as a new thread... Just FYI... It was not my intention to give new "life" to the negative....
My original intention was to thank the "gems".
love debating
From The Rise of the University: (pay attention especially to the second paragraph)
By the early 1100's there was great intellectual ferment in the LatinQuarter. Translations into Latin of Aristotle's Greek logical works werearriving from translation centers in Spain and Sicily, and the scholars ofParis found themselves with powerful new tools of reason. PeterAbelard, a student in the Latin Quarter who had returned to becomea master in the school of Notre Dame, set both students and masters ontheir ears with his book entitled Sic et non (Yes andNo), in which he demonstrated that the accepted authorities thateveryone had been studying contradicted one another on almost every basicpoint that one could think of. He concluded that one had to collect theopinions of the authorities, but use logic to determine which of theseopinions were correct.
The manner of teaching soon changed. Instead of listening to their masterread and interpret, the students wanted to be taught how to reason. Thepublic debate soon replaced the lecture in attracting the student'sattention. They particularly like to hear their masters debate each other.At the same time that the nobles were developing the man-to-man armedconfrontations of the tournament, scholars were developingthe logical combat of the public debate.
At the same time, the demand of both Church and princes for trainedadministrators and lawyers was growing, and students found that skill inargumentation was a surer key to success than being able to determine thedate of Easter or explain the mathematical proportions that were harmonicand those that were not. An ex-student by the name of John ofSalisbury, commented that the study of the LiberalArts (the trivium and quadrivium) were being abandoned in favor ofmere professional training.
MJ.
I think... I should thank you for assuming my discernment is of high caliber... While I understand what that article is saying factually, I am at a loss in discerning your implied intent of posting it. (implied because it was not explicitly stated)
8,000+ posts!? wow, thanks for all you do around here!
I am at a loss in discerning your implied intent of posting it.
Just implying that debate, including theological debate, has a long and illustrious history ... when used in the appropriate manner[:)] You might find that your interest in debate is a gift from God if you find the appropriate way to channel it.
I used to love debating theology, it was a rather routine thing to do within my religious tradition. But I found myself being very angry towards those who did not see things my way. (That is a nice way of me saying I hated them) Over the years, while still in ragefull debate mode, I slowly realized a few things. The foremost being I could not recall ever debating anyone to the Lord (using my implied def. of debate). The only time I was privileged to lead someone to Christ was when I was sharing the love of Christ (which has many forms: peace, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, compassion, and the like). I have personally come to the conclusion the Lord wants me to enter (or at least try) into loving (reflecting His love in ALL its forms) relationships that He will use to facilitate opportunities for sharing Truth, as opposed to my learned method of demeaning those who do not agree with me. To use the overused... "I'm far from perfect". I am reminded, almost daily, how far I have yet to go. I naturally LOVE to let people know I am right and they are wrong, using lots of negative emotional language of course... I had to take a 'sabbatical' from these forums because when I wanted to post it was usually to disagree with something, and I would find myself typing away in the same manner of my past. (most of the time I ended up not finishing the post, but not always) I say all of that to say this... I 'lurk' these 'hot topics' now for self-reflection. I find myself, at times, agreeing with the thought foundation of a post, but cringing at how it is relayed. It reminds me.... of me. Then there are those rare gems of meekness that indeed disagree with someone, and yet it is FILLED with grace. Despite feeling like I'm trying to convince people of my own humility (which of course would make me self-delusional) ... I want to be a gem of meekness... (a seemingly forgotten Christlike attribute)... <-- see old habits to die hard The Holy Spirit doesn't let me pick and choose which characteristics of Christ I may or may NOT want to emulate... Paul called on Christians to be like him. While I tremble at the mere thought of ever saying that out loud to 'my' congregation, I know Paul could honestly say it because he was honestly and faithfully (by the Grace of God) trying to be like Christ... Not in one or two ways... but in EVERY way... (remember meekness )
The Holy Spirit doesn't let me pick and choose which characteristics of Christ I may or may NOT want to emulate... Paul called on Christians to be like him. While I tremble at the mere thought of ever saying that out loud to 'my' congregation, I know Paul could honestly say it because he was honestly and faithfully (by the Grace of God) trying to be like Christ... Not in one or two ways... but in EVERY way... (remember meekness )
Well said... I admire and long to be this refined someday.
I'm just glad someone actually read my ranting! lol
But I found myself being very angry towards those who did not see things my way. (That is a nice way of me saying I hated them)
Sometime how you treat others is more important than "winning' a debate but I wouldnt say anger is always hate. Depending on the subject, anger towards others can be a reflection of love toward God. Let me say again depending on the subject. Most times treating other with respect even if they dont respect you is the way to go.
Let me add.... You can be wrong and still love God.[:)]
