JFJ Forums - Baptism in Scripture and The Early Church

Chafer – I’ve started this thread so we can focus on baptism and what the early Church believed, rather than cluttering the “Canon of Scripture Thread”.

I’m fully aware that your understanding of baptism is based on your interpretation of scripture.  And I’m dealing with it.  My interpretation of baptismal regeneration is also based on scripture but I’m backing up my position with evidence from what the Early Church taught.

What I’m asking is why is there absolutely no single shred of evidence that your position was ever believed by the Early Church.  Is it possible that your interpretation of scripture is wrong?  Instead, you list the following as having “departed from scripture”:  Justin Marytr, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Augustine, Barnabas, Ignatius, Cyprian, Ambrose.  Am I to reject the interpretation of scripture from these great leaders and 1500 years of history in favor of your interpretation of scripture?  Can you cite some ECF writings addressing baptism that didn’t depart from scripture?

You then go on to claim that these people did not understand Baptism as the RCC teaches it, citing “ex oper operato”.  I explained the meaning of this term: that the sacrament is the work of God and not man and therefore it’s efficacy is not dependent upon the piety of the person administering the sacrament.  So could you please explain to me the differences between the ECF understanding of baptismal regeneration and how it differs from what the RCC teaches?  I’m not seeing a difference but apparently you are.

I’ve cited 11 Early Church Fathers (ECF) that wrote on regenerative baptism. I can cite many more that pre-date the reformation. You have cited NONE that oppose baptismal regeneration and you have cited NONE that support the view as held by Evangelical Protestants.  Given all of this evidence, why should anyone believe that your view was taught by Jesus and his Apostles as you claim?

wkirscher Wrote:

Chafer – I’ve started this thread so we can focus on baptism and what the early Church believed, rather than cluttering the “Canon of Scripture Thread”.

I’m fully aware that your understanding of baptism is based on your interpretation of scripture.  And I’m dealing with it.  My interpretation of baptismal regeneration is also based on scripture but I’m backing up my position with evidence from what the Early Church taught.

What I’m asking is why is there absolutely no single shred of evidence that your position was ever believed by the Early Church.  Is it possible that your interpretation of scripture is wrong?  Instead, you list the following as having “departed from scripture”:  Justin Marytr, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Augustine, Barnabas, Ignatius, Cyprian, Ambrose.  Am I to reject the interpretation of scripture from these great leaders and 1500 years of history in favor of your interpretation of scripture?  Can you cite some ECF writings addressing baptism that didn’t depart from scripture?

You then go on to claim that these people did not understand Baptism as the RCC teaches it, citing “ex oper operato”.  I explained the meaning of this term: that the sacrament is the work of God and not man and therefore it’s efficacy is not dependent upon the piety of the person administering the sacrament.  So could you please explain to me the differences between the ECF understanding of baptismal regeneration and how it differs from what the RCC teaches?  I’m not seeing a difference but apparently you are.

I’ve cited 11 Early Church Fathers (ECF) that wrote on regenerative baptism. I can cite many more that pre-date the reformation. You have cited NONE that oppose baptismal regeneration and you have cited NONE that support the view as held by Evangelical Protestants.  Given all of this evidence, why should anyone believe that your view was taught by Jesus and his Apostles as you claim?

Ws I had offer quote a source that The church delay baptism until the person understood the creeds about jesus.

that from 100-300 ad it was a practice to delay baptism for 2-3 yearsuntill the new convert understood things about jesus.

even Justin marty confirms this.

I not at my home pc so i can not paste the site for now but if you want to look for it in why I believe in jesus about the meaning of peter 3:212 you will find it.

http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/baptism.htm#IC2d

here is the site Ws

Sugarman,

I’m aware of the practice you describe. We follow it in the Catholic Church and call it the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA). In most dioceses, it takes about a year, culminating with baptism and celebration of the Lord’s Supper at the Easter Vigil. In the early church, it took about 3 years but I’m sure that varied depending on the accessibility of the teachers. Prior to the Easter Vigil, the candidates participate in the Liturgy of the Word, and then are dismissed for the Liturgy of the Eucharist, to “chew on” the scripture readings from the liturgy. They were/are not allowed to participate in “these sacred mysteries”, until they were baptized.

This whole process is for adults entering into the faith. For children of Christians the process is different because of the understanding that the child is born into a family of faith and will be raised in the faith. This is why the church always has and still does practice infant baptism. Most denominations practice it. I believe it is pretty much only Baptists (ironically) and “Bible Only”/Protestant Evangelical churches that deny an infant the graces of baptism.

wkirscher Wrote:

Sugarman,

I’m aware of the practice you describe. We follow it in the Catholic Church and call it the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA). In most dioceses, it takes about a year, culminating with baptism and celebration of the Lord’s Supper at the Easter Vigil. In the early church, it took about 3 years but I’m sure that varied depending on the accessibility of the teachers. Prior to the Easter Vigil, the candidates participate in the Liturgy of the Word, and then are dismissed for the Liturgy of the Eucharist, to “chew on” the scripture readings from the liturgy. They were/are not allowed to participate in “these sacred mysteries”, until they were baptized.

This whole process is for adults entering into the faith. For children of Christians the process is different because of the understanding that the child is born into a family of faith and will be raised in the faith. This is why the church always has and still does practice infant baptism. Most denominations practice it. I believe it is pretty much only Baptists (ironically) and “Bible Only”/Protestant Evangelical churches that deny an infant the graces of baptism.

so then you admit that the earlier church put baptism on a hold untl they understood creeds about Jesus?

you admit it takes 1-3 years for a new convert to be baptism?

I do not believe that God put his salvation on hold for true believers

remember no matter how long the church fathers lived they were still man like you and me and had there ideals.

Not saying that they wrong about everything but since the bible in the time of the church fathers until middle ages only the rcc had The bible it was not given to public yet and people were influence of the RCC people could not just read the scriptures for there self.

but during the 15 century translations of the bible for whatever language the people spoke began to come and then people started to disagree with the rcc..

I can even give you a story base on fact a family having to hide there bible under there table due to if the RCC police saw it they would take it away.

sugarman Wrote:

wkirscher Wrote:

Sugarman,

I’m aware of the practice you describe. We follow it in the Catholic Church and call it the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA). In most dioceses, it takes about a year, culminating with baptism and celebration of the Lord’s Supper at the Easter Vigil. In the early church, it took about 3 years but I’m sure that varied depending on the accessibility of the teachers. Prior to the Easter Vigil, the candidates participate in the Liturgy of the Word, and then are dismissed for the Liturgy of the Eucharist, to “chew on” the scripture readings from the liturgy. They were/are not allowed to participate in “these sacred mysteries”, until they were baptized.

This whole process is for adults entering into the faith. For children of Christians the process is different because of the understanding that the child is born into a family of faith and will be raised in the faith. This is why the church always has and still does practice infant baptism. Most denominations practice it. I believe it is pretty much only Baptists (ironically) and “Bible Only”/Protestant Evangelical churches that deny an infant the graces of baptism.

so then you admit that the earlier church put baptism on a hold untl they understood creeds about Jesus?

you admit it takes 1-3 years for a new convert to be baptism?

I do not believe that God put his salvation on hold for true believers

Let’s remember the origin of this thread is on the nature of baptism.  Is it merely symbolic or is God’s grace conferred through baptism?  The position I see from many in this forum is that it is only symbolic and not considered part of God’s plan for our salvation.

You are looking at Faith and Baptism as an either/or rather than both/and.  If one believes being “saved” is an instantaneous event, then it is impossible to see more than one event in one’s life being part of salvation.  If one views salvation as a process of conversion through God’s grace, it is easy to see how multiple events in one’s life are part of God’s plan for salvation.

So a person who has not been baptized does not have his salvation “on hold”.  The calling by name, awareness of sin, acknowledgement of the need for redemption, accepting, learning, repentance, conversion, baptism, etc. are all part of salvation.

sugarman Wrote:

remember no matter how long the church fathers lived they were still man like you and me and had there ideals.

Not saying that they wrong about everything but since the bible in the time of the church fathers until middle ages only the rcc had The bible it was not given to public yet and people were influence of the RCC people could not just read the scriptures for there self.

but during the 15 century translations of the bible for whatever language the people spoke began to come and then people started to disagree with the rcc..

I can even give you a story base on fact a family having to hide there bible under there table due to if the RCC police saw it they would take it away.

So you also believe that every single early church father that wrote about baptism as being regenerative was wrong? You believe that the true Christians rejected this and wrote absolutely nothing against it? Or do you believe that Jesus Christ allowed his Bride to error for 1500 years in something he commanded his people to do?

Scripture has always been read in the assemblies of the Catholic Church with a schedule of readings (just as in the synagogues) that covers nearly the entire bible in three years (far more coverage than you’ll see in any “bible only” church). Bibles were copied by the Church. Bibles were translated by the Church. Bibles were not "handed out" because they were too costly and most couldn’t read anyways. Bibles were "chained up" to prevent theft. And yes, unauthorized translations were confiscated. If you want to start a separate thread on the history of the Bible in the Catholic Church, we can go into more detail.

So you also believe that every single early church father that wrote about baptism as being regenerative was wrong?  You believe that the true Christians rejected this and wrote absolutely nothing against it?  Or do you believe that Jesus Christ allowed his Bride to error for 1500 years in something he commanded his people to do?

I never said that baptism is error or wrong and it is a command  but command for obeying Jesus.

You can not obey Jesus without being saved so baptism is after salvation.

The real baptism is the one done by the holy spirit himself.

as for baptism saving us i do not think it matters what men have to say about it but the scripture.

I have alot of facts documents during different period of times BEFORE the reformation people going against RCC belief.

as for having bible and could not read ok I understand that but then the harsh action against those who had One?

No I'm not saying that everyone during the timeline of Christ and up objected it what I'm saying Not everyone  believe it.

but  I'm not at home I be home on jan 6.

I have a book in my room with people during different timelines before the 1500s being put to death for not subjecting to rcc belief.

Quote:

I’m fully aware that your understanding of baptism is based on your interpretation of scripture. And I’m dealing with it. My interpretation of baptismal regeneration is also based on scripture but I’m backing up my position with evidence from what the Early Church taught.

Has the Bishop of Rome while sitting on the seat of Peter offically proclaimed an interpretation of the following passages : John 3:5; Acts 2:38 ; Titus 3:4-8 and 1 Peter 3:18-22 ? Yes or no ?

Quote:

What I’m asking is why is there absolutely no single shred of evidence that your position was ever believed by the Early Church.

The falllacy in your question is the fact I claimed my position is taught in Scripture and that it was held and embraced by Jesus and the Apostles. My position conforms to what is taught in Scripture and therefore predates the RCC position. You consistanly use logical fallacies instead of valid argumentation. Your using an argument of silence as evidence againist me when in fact it is not evidence at all. The early once held that the world was flat and yet we find out that it was in error on that.

Quote:

Is it possible that your interpretation of scripture is wrong?[

My interpretation is based on the normal literal grammatical historical method and therefore my conclusions are consistant with it. So in this case I am totally correct in my interpretation.

Quote:

Instead, you list the following as having “departed from scripture”: Justin Marytr, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Augustine, Barnabas, Ignatius, Cyprian, Ambrose. Am I to reject the interpretation of scripture from these great leaders and 1500 years of history in favor of your interpretation of scripture?

You resorted to ananchronism in your arguments. What is indeed odd here is you would claim they departed from Scripture on certain issues as well. You are aware that at least 7 of those you named held to Premillennialism and yet you and the RCC reject it as errror ? You must be aware than Origen held to universalism and a future second coming of Jesus and Semi Arianism with which you and the RCC disagrees with him on. They each held to truth mixed with error and therefore were not infallible in what they teach. Your not as united as you claim to be with them on several issues.

Quote:

Can you cite some ECF writings addressing baptism that didn’t depart from scripture?

Most did not deal with that specific issues. Therefore silent on it and is not evidence for or againist anything.