Were there any credobaptists in the early church?

Status
Not open for further replies.

refbaptdude

Puritan Board Freshman
Joseph,

All of the early Church Fathers held to baptismal regeneration that I am aware of. I am willing to be corrected if you can show me otherwise. Roman Catholics today go strait to the Church Fathers to prove that their doctrine is the historic position.

Do you hold to the doctrine of infant baptism as held by the Church Fathers? If not then why do you keep bringing them up?

Grace to you,
Steve
 

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by refbaptdude

Do you hold to the doctrine of infant baptism as held by the Church Fathers? If not then why do you keep bringing them up?


The Church fathers believed that NT baptism was directly linked to OT circumcision. --- So in this sense, yes, I do hold to the doctrine of infant baptism as held by the Church fathers.

The doctrine of baptismal regeneration came along, somewhere along the way. Tertullian and his ilk may never have objected to paedobaptism in the first place if it hadn't have been for this doctrine. But sadly, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration did get to going, and was greatly to blame for Tertullian's faulty baptistic practices. And obviously, this faulty doctrine was picked up by paedobaptists too.

But none of this erases the fact that early church paedobaptists linked circumcision to baptism. And they were quite correct on this important point.
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
:ditto:

They baptized children because they saw it as a fulfillment of circumcision (as does Paul in Colossians 2). It is that simple. Mode and the meaning of baptism are secondary to this discussion.
 

refbaptdude

Puritan Board Freshman
Joseph wrote:

The doctrine of baptismal regeneration came along, somewhere along the way.

This is not true, they all held to baptismal regeneration. It was not that they did not hold to baptismal regeneration and then started to believe it. Can you show us when it came in? Who were the Church Fathers who did not hold to a form of Roman Catholic baptismal regeneration?

Please correct me if I am wrong!;)

Grace and Peace,
Steve
 

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by refbaptdude
Joseph wrote:

The doctrine of baptismal regeneration came along, somewhere along the way.

This is not true, they all held to baptismal regeneration. It was not that they did not hold to baptismal regeneration and then started to believe it. Can you show us when it came in? Who were the Church Fathers who did not hold to a form of Roman Catholic baptismal regeneration?

Please correct me if I am wrong!;)

Chrysostom DID link baptism and circumcision, just like I do. (Read his commentary on Colossians.)

However, according to Pastor Way's link above, Chrysostom did NOT believe in baptismal regeneration.

:up:
 

refbaptdude

Puritan Board Freshman
Joseph,

So you hold to the theology of St. John Chrysostom and what he believed about infant baptism?:up:

Grace,
Steve
 

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Andrew,
I think you'll find that his testimony was made before the Roman Governor just before his execution, so his testimony, like his death can be dated at 156AD.

However, he is not discussing baptism, baptism is not mentioned, even in passing, throughout his address. Why do you think he is talking about baptism?

Obviously, because there is no mention in any way of baptism, I cannot prove he doesn't mean that, but it could equally mean that he has served God all his life, or that he is now in his nineties and made a profession as a child.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

You cannot prove that he is talking about his baptism, true. You can also not prove that he isnt. Logically they words he uses seems to be referring back to his baptism.
 

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
You know, you would think that most people are going to be in favor of believers baptism. I am, i just believe in infant also.

Maybe it is that there was no need to talk about infant baptism, because it wasnt that big of a deal. The only reason to talk about believers baptism is because well...a person believed the gospel...a good reason to get excited.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by Romans922
You know, you would think that most people are going to be in favor of believers baptism. I am, i just believe in infant also.

Maybe it is that there was no need to talk about infant baptism, because it wasnt that big of a deal.

Andrew, exactly! It was a gimme. Could you imagine the Jews of the day, telling them that the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, now believes that their children are excluded from His previous promise and covenant until they show some proof of their relationship to Him.
 

Steve Owen

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by Romans922
You know, you would think that most people are going to be in favor of believers baptism. I am, i just believe in infant also.

Maybe it is that there was no need to talk about infant baptism, because it wasnt that big of a deal.

Andrew, exactly! It was a gimme. Could you imagine the Jews of the day, telling them that the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, now believes that their children are excluded from His previous promise and covenant until they show some proof of their relationship to Him.

You mean by saying something like, 'Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance. And do not think to say to yourselves, "We have Abraham as our father." For I tell you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. And even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.'?

;)

Martin
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by Romans922
You know, you would think that most people are going to be in favor of believers baptism. I am, i just believe in infant also.

Maybe it is that there was no need to talk about infant baptism, because it wasnt that big of a deal.

Andrew, exactly! It was a gimme. Could you imagine the Jews of the day, telling them that the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, now believes that their children are excluded from His previous promise and covenant until they show some proof of their relationship to Him.

You mean by saying something like, 'Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance. And do not think to say to yourselves, "We have Abraham as our father." For I tell you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. And even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.'?

;)

Martin

My pastor preaches like this every week.........how is that relevant? This passage just validates the claim that there is a visible and invisible body.

[Edited on 12-8-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 

refbaptdude

Puritan Board Freshman
St. John Chrysostom on infant baptism:

You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit.
 

gwine

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by refbaptdude
St. John Chrysostom on infant baptism:

You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit.

:eek:
 

BrianBowman

Posting Priviledges Revoked
Originally posted by refbaptdude
St. John Chrysostom on infant baptism:

You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit.

... this kind of statement should make us very careful of granting the Church Fathers undue "interpretive authority" simply because they were closer to the events of the 1st Century than we are.

[Edited on 12-9-2005 by BrianBowman]
 

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by refbaptdude
St. John Chrysostom on infant baptism:

You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit.


I believe this may be a simplistic reading of Chrysostom, that doesn't take the context of his teaching into consideration.

When Chrysostom says "sinless" above, does he literally mean "without any sin", or does he merely mean that the infants have committed no personal sin? In other words, does he really deny original sin? I am not so sure that he does. Augustine, a contemporary of Chrysostom, did not think he was denying it.

Please consider these notes on original sin by the early church fathers, and specifically scroll down to the section on John Crysostom.

Augustine did not think that Chrysostom was denying original sin at all. Rather, he said:

"You see that he (John Chrysostom) certainly did not say, 'Infants are not defiled by sin,' or 'sins,' but, 'NOT HAVING SINS.' Understand 'of their own,' and there is no difficulty. 'But,' you will say, 'why did he not add "of their own" himself?' Why else, I suppose, if not that he was speaking in a Catholic church and never supposed he would be understood in any other way, when no one had raised such a question, and he could speak more unconcernedly when you were not there to dispute the point?"
 

refbaptdude

Puritan Board Freshman
Joseph,

You have been pointing to the Church Fathers to support your position and I am just trying to find out what Church Father(s) supports your beliefs.

So do you believe like St. John Chrysostom?

They all sound very Roman Catholic to me.

Grace to you,
Steve
 

kceaster

Puritan Board Junior
Reading this thread for the first time....

Weren't all of them credobaptistic? I mean, wouldn't we say as Westministarians that we're credobaptistic, too. We just don't believe in ONLY credobaptism.

I just don't see what the big deal is, fellas. Empirical evidence is not going to overthrow either position, because if it did, it would no longer be a spiritual issue. We have to pray for more grace, more faith, and more understanding. ALL OF US.

And about the fathers, we can all thumb our noses at how much stuff they got wrong. But would we not be in the same boat if we were transported to their time? We act like everyone should understand and accept all that we know in our time. But the reason we know it is not because it's just my Bible, Jesus, and me. We stand on shoulders, do we not? ALL OF US.

In Christ,

KC
 

ChristopherPaul

Puritan Board Senior
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by refbaptdude
St. John Chrysostom on infant baptism:

You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit.


I believe this may be a simplistic reading of Chrysostom, that doesn't take the context of his teaching into consideration.

When Chrysostom says "sinless" above, does he literally mean "without any sin", or does he merely mean that the infants have committed no personal sin? In other words, does he really deny original sin? I am not so sure that he does. Augustine, a contemporary of Chrysostom, did not think he was denying it.

Please consider these notes on original sin by the early church fathers, and specifically scroll down to the section on John Crysostom.

Augustine did not think that Chrysostom was denying original sin at all. Rather, he said:

"You see that he (John Chrysostom) certainly did not say, 'Infants are not defiled by sin,' or 'sins,' but, 'NOT HAVING SINS.' Understand 'of their own,' and there is no difficulty. 'But,' you will say, 'why did he not add "of their own" himself?' Why else, I suppose, if not that he was speaking in a Catholic church and never supposed he would be understood in any other way, when no one had raised such a question, and he could speak more unconcernedly when you were not there to dispute the point?"

Ah, good show, good show.

An interesting thread indeed.

A lesson learned on the possibility of granting the Church Father's undue "interpretive authority" and then a lesson learned in taking a statement out of context.

:book2:
 

lwadkins

Puritan Board Junior
Humility is dead, too much is invested in positions that now must be defended no matter what the bible or History says. There is a weight of evidence that points to truth. Can you find minority positions, certainly. But now we no longer weigh the preponderancee of the evidence and determine the truth of the matter. In a sense we have reverted into a type of relativism by saying the truth cannot be known. Why cant it be known, because there is someone out there who disagrees. So now its not the evidence that determines truth, but whether you can muster enough support for you position to state that it is a debatable issue. Those who place peace in the church above and beyond the purity of the church then give ground to preserve the peace of the church. As a result we have given tacit permission to all to believe whatever they wish, after all Christianity is a personal faith. Our Churches teach theology that cannot be reconciled with itself. But hey thats ok, after all different people interpret things differently.

Lets face it there are many whose only purpose is to be the smartest one in the room, who will defend a position because they like it, or because it is the position of their "team." Having come to Christ late in life I've had to put up with this BS all though my Christian life and frankly I am sick and tired of it.
Confusion, confusion, confusion with too many personal agenda's that have nothing to do with knowing the truth mudding the waters.

Its not necessary to have evidence on your side, just accrue enough support and presto you have a viable theological position and never had to make a coherent argument in regards to the bible, or you can make a scholarly treatise that is so complex and convoluted that no one can really understand the pap, and say that this trumps the clear teaching of scripture. Then we sit around and wonder why there is an anti-intellectual trend in our churches.

If you can find ONE person in all of history who supports your position, that makes it valid! What baloney, with any position it has to be the preponderance of the evidence that rules the day. But that isn't going to happen. Instead we'll continue to confuse our young Christians and not care because we have to WIN! (truth not withstanding)

Oh, and if someone actually brings evidence that threatens your position, attack him personally, after all if you can discredit him you wont have to confront his argument. Accuse them of bias or some nefarious intent that usually works.

[Edited on 12-9-2005 by lwadkins]
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Kevin, Lon,
Thank you for the reproof and correction. I believe this thread has had it's moment in history...............

Closed for the sake of sanity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top