WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
Proper Reformed theology?
Speaking of biting one's tongue.
Speaking of biting one's tongue.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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 doctrine of baptismal regeneration came along, somewhere along the way.
Originally posted by pastorway
I think all arguments for paedobaptism are moot and self defeating. I mean, if I declare that as such, then it is as such, right???
Is it not that simple to win an argument?
A Chart Comparing Early Fathers and their Baptismal Views
[Edited on 12-8-05 by pastorway]
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!
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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?"
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?"