William Putnam

Okay - consider yourself corrected - you are wrong. As mentioned on this thread ad nauseam neither Scripture nor history is on the side of pedobaptists. Infant baptism is a corruption of Christian baptism as institited by Jesus Christ. The practice of infant baptism was institiuded some three hundred years after the apostolic era. It met with long and hard resistance before the corrupted church that morphed into Catholism capitulated and allowed its practice. Let me see now: I did a good "Dogpile" search and ran across this interesting paper by a Lutheran. I quote this portion: The Early Church Polycarp (69-155), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant. This enabled him to say at his martyrdom. "Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 9: 3). Justin Martyr (100 - 166) of the next generation states about the year 150, "Many, both men and women, who have been Christ's disciples since childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years" (Apology 1: 15). Further, in his Dialog with Trypho the Jew, Justin Martyr states that Baptism is the circumcision of the New Testament. Irenaeus (130 - 200), some 35 years later in 185, writes in Against Heresies II 22: 4 that Jesus "came to save all through means of Himself - all, I say, who through him are born again to God - infants and children, boys and youth, and old men." Church Councils and Apologists Similar expressions are found in succeeding generations by Origen (185 - 254) and Cyprian (215 - 258) who reflect the consensus voiced at the Council of Carthage in 254. The 66 bishops said: "We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God..... especially infants. . . those newly born." Preceding this council, Origen wrote in his Commentary on Romans 5: 9: "For this also it was that the church had from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants. For they to whom the divine mysteries were committed knew that there is in all persons a natural pollution of sin which must be done away by water and the Spirit." Elsewhere Origen wrote in his Homily on Luke 14: "Infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins. Cyprian's reply to a country bishop, Fidus, who wrote him regarding the Baptism of infants, is even more explicit. Should we wait until the eighth day as did the Jews in circumcision? No, the child should be baptized as soon as it is born (To Fidus 1: 2). To prevent misunderstanding by rural bishops, perhaps not as well-schooled as other or even new to the faith, the Sixteenth Council of Carthage in 418 unequivocally stated: "If any man says that newborn children need not be baptized . . . let him be anathema." This comes form the link: http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/journals/kastens.htm You said "some three hundred years after the apostolic era," but I am seeing some documentation here that goes back to edge of the beginning of the second century. The rest of your comment is simply your own opinion and conclusion, which is fine, but you prove nothing by it. I simply disagree with you here, believing that the evidence is quite clear, from at least the beginnings of the 2nd century, that infant baptism was the practice of the early Church. How close to the apostolic era do you want me to go the make the case through non-scriptural history? Will you raise the bar and say, "OK, nothing earlier then 100 years after the end of the apostolic era"? (Assuming that the end of the apostolic era is circa A.D. 100.) Did the Church fall into serious error over this error so soon? Even in the span of 100 years + or -? Not being glib of tongue, let's see what this Lutheran says: What Does the Bible Say? Those who reject the Baptism of infants accurately point out that the Bible does not specifically command that infants should be baptized nor are there any specific examples in the Book of Acts of an infant receiving Baptism. While this is true, it is not difficult to explain. The Book of Acts deals with first generation adult converts to Christianity. The Bible does not tell us what these first Christians did with their children as far as Baptism is concerned. In order to definitively answer that question, we must look into the writings of the early church fathers. Yet, the Bible is not silent in the matter. What you see in the Word of God concerning the Baptism of infants depends upon how you approach the Word. When searching Scripture in order to answer the infant Baptism question, the issue is not whether or not there are any specific references including children and infants in Baptism. Rather, the issue is whether or not there are specific references in Scripture excluding children and infants from Baptism. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is an inclusive message. "God so loved the world," and Jesus commanded us to "baptize all nations." Obviously, infants are a part of the world and represented in all nations. The reasoning used by those who reject infant Baptism was the same reasoning used by the Supreme Court in dealing with the abortion issue. The Court was faced with the question of whether or not a fetus is a person who is guaranteed the right to life under the constitution. Should the unborn be included or excluded from the rights of personhood? Since they were unable to answer the question, rather than potentially erring on the side of inclusion, they excluded the unborn and made abortion legal. Those who reject infant Baptism claim that there is no biblical warrant for including infants and children in Baptism. But the real question is, does the Bible specifically exclude infants and children from Baptism? Definitely not! In Mark 10: 14 our Lord Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these." The Greek word for children in this text is paidia, which means babes in arms. What means other than Baptism has God provided whereby little children can be brought to Jesus? Baptism is the only way we know of. If you want to obey the command of the Lord Jesus concerning your little children, have them baptized! In addition, there are five references in the New Testament to the Baptism of entire households. Peter baptized the household of Cornelius (Acts 11: 14). In Philippi, Paul baptized the household of Lydia and the household of the jailer (Acts 16: 15, 33). He also baptized the household of Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue in Corinth. In his first epistle to the Corinthians, he speaks of baptizing the household of Stephanas (1: 16). The Greek word for household is oikon and refers to all the inhabitants of the house including slaves, servants, infants and children. Can anyone seriously suggest that within the households of Cornelius, Lydia, the Jailer, Crispus and Stephanas there were no children or infants present? In addition, if the members of these households had converted to Judaism, all the males would have been circumcised. This included infants who were at least eight days old. In Colossians 2: 9-12, the Apostle Paul compares the effect of circumcision with the effect of Baptism. While there are no specific references to infant Baptism in the New Testament, there is every reason to believe that children and infants were included. As you will see when you read Pastor Kastens' article Infant Baptism in Early Church History, the witness of the early church fathers is very clear. Children and infants were included in Baptism. From the link: http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/journals...nfant%20Baptism That is one of the best defenses of infant baptism via the scriptures I have seen, even while it comes from a Lutheran! Now I realize that a similar case from scripture has already be made in this thread, so I hope a r epresentation of it again from thia author will not be a boring read. It reminds me a little of a similar argument from scripture that proves the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Surely, the doctrine is strongly implied, but implied it is. I would submit that infant baptism is similarly implied. I especially like the comparison with the Supreme Court error that excludes the fetus from being considered a human person. Of course I would disagree with you here, the fact that the Church was established with the authority to make such determinations, the power to "bind and loose" in Matthew 16:18, through the awesome power of the "keys of the kingdom" but this goes down another rabbit trail. Did the Church have the authority to determine the canon of scripture, yes or no? Did the Church have the authority to determine the doctrine of the Trinity, yes or no? I could go on and I am sure I would very soon run into a Church doctrine that you will say, "Whoooah horseeeeeee, not so fast!" right? My point is, essential to this discussion is whether the Church had to authority to interpret from scripture, the intent of the Gospel of Christ. Does it or not? When did the Church loose it if not? Yet all of these things were done by MEN! Ah yes, the "Doctrines of men" you rail against, yet the Church is lead by 11 apostles, soon expanded back to 13 with Paul being admitted, a determination without Christ telling to do so, that the authority is there before your eyes! The holy Spirit active here? If you say yes, how then your take on the determination of the doctrines concerning baptism by the Church? As already mentioned the Christian community for three hundred years rejected the false teaching of "baptismal regeneration" - the error that led to infant baptism. During the "golden age" of Catholicism anyone who publicly dissented from any of the myriad false doctrines of the RCC was quickly dispatched into eternity via the sword, the stake or some other cruel and unusual punishment, i.e., disembowment, beheading, etc. Such folks didn't have much of an opportunity to write history. Which I have just refuted, reducing it down to about 100 years after the end of the apostolic era! Incidentally, I forgot about a couple of heresies that did indeed, contest infant baptism: The Waldenses and Catharists. in the middle ages. I hope you don't put too much store in this heresies! And how quickly you allude to the so called "atrocities" of the Catholic Church! This discussion would be better served if your prejudices were not so easily exposed, sir. The bottom line is - most certainly they were in error during that period...error is always error. Consistency in error does not rectify the wrong. Therefore, Christ went back on his word, Holy Church wallowed in error for at least 1600 years before Luther, who continued to believe in infant baptism! If I were to come to that conclusion, I would abandon Christianity completely as a total error! "What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory in the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory." - Romans 9:22, 23 "And shall not God avenge His own elect, which day and night cry unto him, though he bear long with them?" Lk. 18:7 Paul was obviously speaking about the Catholic Church, right? Luke as well, or are they speaking of individual Christians, in the faith, but fall back into sin and are this condemned? Nah, in your mind, it's the Catholic Church, plain as day! Right? WOW! From Lutheranism, who also believed in infant baptism, we have today, what is the present figure? 1,000? 10,000? 20,000, 30,000 individual non-Catholic denominations all spouting their version of the Gospel Message? Some baptize infants, some re-baptize adults from other denominations, some baptize not at all! In my youth, the Evangelical Church I belonged to had a huge baptismal tank behind the row of seats where the pastor and church elders used to sit during services. I went to this church for about three years, and never, ever did I see a drop of water in that baptismal tank! Excuse me, but from the time I entered the Naval service in 1947, I went on a quest, looking for Christ's Church. My momma used to say to me, "Son, join any church you want, but please, do not become a Catholic." It was in that Church that I found the truth uncompromised and unfettered, complete and undiminished! God bless, PAX Bill+

WOW! So sensitive! Maybe it's because I have been active in CARM too long. So, sorry I hurt your feelings. I probably will be leaving this thread anyway... God bless, PAX Bill+

John 3:5: 5 Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit. 1 Peter 3:21 ...and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also

John 3:5: 5 Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit. 1 Peter 3:21 ...and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also

For total immersion, the minister of the baptism may very well "go down" at least up to his waist and immerse the person being baptized. Interestingly, the didache specifies that if a sufficient amount of water is not available, then a pouring on of the water is acceptable. Of course you know that either method is valid so long as the water flows with the words, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, Amen" (Also specified in the didache Or a specific prohibition of baptizing infants and very young children. Or, the famous John 3:3 to Nicodemus, that for one to be "born again" (or "born from above") one must be born of "water and spirit." I get involved in some good discussions with that one! Once I believed in the wonderful sacrament of the Eucharist, a most wonderful Eurika for me, all other doctrines fell into place for me, and I became a Catholic, the teaching of baptism and the other sacraments that are eschewed by much of Protestantism, fell completely into place. God bless, PAX Bill+

I think all of the so called "Reformers" believed in infant baptism, it being first contested with the Anabaptists, who insisted upon rebaptism, even of adults who converted to them, as I understand it. Another issue, and explainatikon that may have already been mentioned in this thread is that infant baptism substituted for circumcision, which was imposed at about the same time in the infant's life. The beauty of baptism, of course, is that it included females as well. Another point: Good Christian parents, who understand the responsibilities of raising the Child in the Christian faith, are "charged" in the responsibility of doing so in the rite of baptism. An adult baptism has that adult given the responsibility of continuing in the faith. For infants, the parents take this responsibility until the age of reason and achieving of adulthood. For what that is worth... God bless, PAX Bill+

So far, I have not seen any references to the writings of the early church fathers on this subject, so let's see what we have: http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/infant.htm Some of the comments within need careful study, as one who has "served the Lord for eighty years" must have started from his infant baptism, followed with good upbringing in the faith by the parents, certainly a requirement in infant baptism. And while it is not absolutely necessary that a "household" contain adults including many children, this is highly unlikely. I think it stands as a powerful inference that infants were certainly included, be they at the suck, toddlers, or early teenagers. Back to the fathers: they are not scripture, of course, but they are a powerful thing to consider, they living close to the apostolic era, some even trained at the feet of an apostle or two... God bless, PAX Bill+

Exactly! They are so close to God, in complete happiness, that they are so able to relay our prayers to God Himself, they being in His immediate favor. Actually, I do it in muliple ways: 1. I pray to God directly. 2. I pray to the Son who is also God. 3. I pray to the holy Spirit, and recently, I did a special prayer that was answered, which makes me believe He answered mine in the selection of a mighty fine man to become Pope Benedict XVI. 4. I pray to all the saints in heaven to intervene for me in pray to the Father. 5. And finally, I pray to the Blessed Mother of Our Lord, who certainly has Our Lord'e ear........after all....what is the old saying?.........if you want a favor of Jesus. Ask His momma! I do it all! God bless, PAX Bill+

Thank you sir! While I did receive a polite reply, it still puzzles me how it is that my Catholic sites are taken (or can be construed) as proselytizing, yet Protestant/Fundamentalist sites are just fine. That makes this forum a vastly tilted playing field that I will not abide with and therefore, my appearance here will be limited if not eliminated altogether; there are too many other sites I am active in to be that concerned with this one! Present your site when you are able and we will see... Thanks again, God bless, PAX Bill+

Arthur Durnan contributed: I have encountered this claim before, and I am always reminded of the "two hats" worn by the pope. First of all, he is the leader of the Whole Catholic Church and has jurisdiction over same through the Holy See, which happens to have it

No, no no, no, don't let WhySoBlind lead you on here! As any good Southern Redneck knows what "Case XXX" means in that fine folding (or fixed hunting) knife that goes for good money in any good hardware store that carries fine cutlery! God bless, PAX Bill+

Gerioke, I join you in agreement and prayer on his behalf! He is a child of God, perhaps even greater in the sight of God then I am... God bless, PAX Bill+