Hello;
Studying through paedo and credo debates, both sides try to show how baptismal architecture (the depth of baptismals), paintings (whether they showed people being sprinkled or immersed) or quotes by the early church fathers favor their view.
I am interested in hearing the historic evidence for both paedo and credo, but first....
How important is it for the paedos or credos to gain this historcial high ground anyway?
After all, chiliasm and baptismal regeneration were fixtures of the early church?
It seems that error crept in rather quickly. Therefore, even if paedos could prove that the early church practiced paedo-ism, what do we do about chiliam and baptismal regeneration then?
Is there a tradition of opposition to chiliasm and baptismal regeneration that is also early that we can appeal to?
Studying through paedo and credo debates, both sides try to show how baptismal architecture (the depth of baptismals), paintings (whether they showed people being sprinkled or immersed) or quotes by the early church fathers favor their view.
I am interested in hearing the historic evidence for both paedo and credo, but first....
How important is it for the paedos or credos to gain this historcial high ground anyway?
After all, chiliasm and baptismal regeneration were fixtures of the early church?
It seems that error crept in rather quickly. Therefore, even if paedos could prove that the early church practiced paedo-ism, what do we do about chiliam and baptismal regeneration then?
Is there a tradition of opposition to chiliasm and baptismal regeneration that is also early that we can appeal to?
Last edited: