[ThePlaidRanger]

No - if they are new disciples, they are baptized as adults, just as converts to Judaism were circumsised as adults.

[Bryan]

you aren't dealing with the issue, it doesn't say nor imply that we should baptize infants

[Bryan]

and Colossians 2:11-12 is making a connection between circumcision of the heart and baptism. not circumcision of the flesh. there is a huge difference.

[ThePlaidRanger]

Originally posted by Bryan
you aren't dealing with the issue, it doesn't say nor imply that we should baptize infants

Because it was a non-issue given the context of the reference to baptism - it was referring solely to new converts.

[WooTang]

Plus, the parallel between baptism and circumcision only go so far. They are by nature two very different things. Circumcision is removal of the foreskin, and Baptism is diping someone under water. The spiritual parallels are clear, but the physical administration of these two acts require two different processes. There are no guidelines given as to physically how and when it should be done.

[Luke]

(Luke)
Now, if you disagree with this (e.g. WooTang), that's one thing, but it's getting old to hear you say over and over again that we're just saying it's okay because the Bible never prohibits it--that is not the paedobaptist belief.

(Wootang)
I have just as many legitimate reasons to believe that it is not necessary as you have to say that there is.

(Luke)
I know. I was contrasting you to him. It was meant to be a respectful notation, not a slam. Sorry that wasn't clear.

[WooTang]

(Luke)
I know. I was contrasting you to him. It was meant to be a respectful notation, not a slam. Sorry that wasn't clear.

(Wootang)
Ok, I appologize for reading it wrong. I have no doubt that it was a respectful comment, and I appreciate it.
Also, I agree with ThePlaidRanger about Baptist propaganda. The Baptist denomination has historically been more concerned about being anti-catholic (among other things) than being doctrinally sound. But again, don't think the few with the biggest mouths and loudest voices are inclusive of all Baptists.

[brown07]

Originally posted by WooTang

Please don't think that seungk5's ideology is inclusive of all Baptists. And as for this "Baptist propaganda," this view of anti-paedobaptism goes back to Irenaeus, Cyprian, and Tertullian, as early as the year AD185, far back into the antiquity of church history. As a matter of fact, no infant baptism was explicitly recorded in the early church until the 6th century as a result of Tertullian's rejection of it.

Your history is first of all incorrect and second of all incomplete.

Cyprian did not object to infant baptism: "This, therefore, dear brother, was our opinion in the Council; that we ought not to hinder any person from baptsim, and the grace of God, who is merciful and kind to us all. And this rule, as it holds for all, we think more especially to be observed in reference to infants, even to those newly born." (Cyprian, Epist. 66)

Tertullian did object to infant baptism, as you said. However, you didn't say WHY they objected to infant baptism. They objected because they thought that baptism was accompanied by the remission of all past sins, and therefore it wouldn't be a good idea to baptise infants. These people also taught that people shouldn't be baptised even after they were believers, until they had reached an advanced stage in life, and could then be baptised and have a lot more of their sins washed away. It's a preposterous idea, and I hope that modern baptists don't look to folks like Tertullian as their predecessors in denying infant baptism.

Also, how can you state that infant baptism was not recorded until the 6th century and also say that Cyprian and Tertullian were against it? Cyprian and Tertullian lived in the third century! In order for Cyprian to be against it (which I have already demonstrated he wasn't against it), it had to be in existence LONG before the 6th century.

Additionally, Origen (a contemporary of Cyprian) and Augustine spoke of infant baptism as being handed down from the Apostels themselves.

If you are arguing against infant baptism, I advise you not to call on Church history, as the entire history of the Church is OVERWHELMINGLY supportive of infant baptism.

In fact, the current baptist objections to infant baptism did not arise until the 1500s! Any other objections before that were for altogether different (and equally absurd) reasons.

[brown07]

Originally posted by WooTang
Please don't think that seungk5's ideology is inclusive of all Baptists. And as for this "Baptist propaganda," this view of anti-paedobaptism goes back to Irenaeus, Cyprian, and Tertullian, as early as the year AD185

Another interesting question is how baptists think that the entire church went from the apostels teaching of "believer's baptism" to paedobaptism within 100 years. That is ridiculous. Unless the apostles taught it, it could never become universally accepted so fast.

Based on the fact that infant baptism was recorded as being the nearly universal practice of the church before 100 years had passed since the death of the apostles, I state that the apostles must have practiced infant baptism.

[WooTang]

<----misunderstood

My post concerning this was not an attempt at saying that arguments for paedobaptism or anti-paedobaptism existed at all prior to the reformation. However, the "view of anti-paedobaptism," which is what I actually stated, meaning that infant baptism has not always been universally accepted, can be seen previously in church history.
If we view all the arguments against infant baptism put forth by any of the church fathers in today's context, they don't add up because they skip nearly 2000 years of church history. IF that were my case, there would be no point in me arguing this. However, my point is that the rejection paedobaptism existed before1500 AD. It is not "baptist propaganda." The rejection of paedobaptism existed before any "Baptists" came along.

[WooTang]

Originally posted by brown07
Cyprian did not object to infant baptism...

You are correct. I misread his quote from his book on the united Catholic Church. However, wasn't it Cyprian who developed the doctrine of the keys. You know, Jesus went to hell, got the keys, and gave them to the Pope? And he also believed in baptismal regeneration.

Originally posted by brown07
Tertullian did object to infant baptism, as you said. However, you didn't say WHY they objected...

Tertullian, Of Baptism, page 18. Tertullian states that baptism shouldn't be done until a person is "formed in character." Interpret as you wish.

Originally posted by brown07
Also, how can you state that infant baptism was not recorded until the 6th century and also say that Cyprian and Tertullian were against it?

I didn't say that! I said it was not explicitly recorded in the early church until the 6th century, meaning it was not universally accepted by the Church until that time, per every church history book I own, because of Tertullian's teachings on it.

Originally posted by brown07
Additionally, Origen (a contemporary of Cyprian) and Augustine spoke of infant baptism as being handed down from the Apostels themselves.

Ok, Origen, the great Christian Universalist, believed in infant baptism. And so did Augustine, who came around in the 2nd century. Also, I'm stating all of this in spite of your previous posts. There's no reason to repeat old arguments.

Originally posted by brown07
If you are arguing against infant baptism, I advise you not to call on Church history, as the entire history of the Church is OVERWHELMINGLY supportive of infant baptism.

Of course the Church is supportive of infant baptism. They made it a sacrament, didn't they? But I guess that many catholics can't be wrong. Very well, I'll stick with the argument of lack of instructive biblical support of paedobaptism.

You neglected to respond to Irenaeus. Albeit a rather obscure reference, he responded negatively toward infant baptism *(Irenaeus,Against Heresies, 2.22) the first extra-biblical reference to infant baptism (circa 185 AD), such a short time after the apostolic era.

Originally posted by brown07
In fact, the current baptist objections to infant baptism did not arise until the 1500s! Any other objections before that were for altogether different (and equally absurd) reasons.

Exactly my point, baptists were not the first ones to reject infant baptism!

Originally posted by brown07
Another interesting question is how baptists think that the entire church went from the apostels teaching of "believer's baptism" to paedobaptism within 100 years. That is ridiculous. Unless the apostles taught it, it could never become universally accepted so fast.

Good point. I won't pretend to have the answer to that question. I wasn't there at the time, so I can't say for sure what ideas the people alive at that time might have come up with. I can't pretend to know for certain what was accepted and what was not by those who followed after the apostles. Nor will I pretend to jump to conclusions as quickly and effortlessly as you. Where scripture is silent, it is unwise to make definitive, decisive proclamations. Nor should we establish doctrines from one obscure verse.

Based on the fact that infant baptism was recorded as being the nearly universal practice of the church before 100 years had passed since the death of the apostles, I state that the apostles must have practiced infant baptism.

You propose a 100% definitive statement based on the inconclusive support of some of the early church fathers, some of whom are responsible for the future heresies in the Catholic church. Your opinion is well noted.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

I disagree with the B/R folks, but reformed guys out there. Why do you hold to it? I see it as extra-scriptural, and it seems pointless to me, but I dont see it as heretical. (I think B/R is) I have read the whole thread and Id like a reformed view if you wouldnt mind on why. Just the basics please, I haven't heard it clearly and concisely. Scripture is as always apreciated. Thanx

[brown07]

Originally posted by BillSPrestonEsq
I disagree with the B/R folks, but reformed guys out there. Why do you hold to it? I see it as extra-scriptural, and it seems pointless to me, but I dont see it as heretical. (I think B/R is) I have read the whole thread and Id like a reformed view if you wouldnt mind on why. Just the basics please, I haven't heard it clearly and concisely. Scripture is as always apreciated. Thanx

If you read the whole thread, I think that you'll get a pretty good idea of the Reformed position on baptism. I'll give it to you, in short, though:

1) Baptism is the God given symbolic act that is the seal of the New Covenant.

2) Baptism is the seal of the New Covenant just as circumcision was the seal of the Old Covenant.

3) God commanded that circumcision, the seal of the Old Covenant, be given to the infant sons of the members of the Covenant.

4) God never stated that a change in the age at which the covenant seal should be administered had occurred.

5) In the absence of teaching otherwise, we hold that the covenant seal should still be administered to the infant children of members of the covenant.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

so it should be done on the 8th day then in your view? What do you mean as the new covenant exactly. I beleive that God has never changed the covenants to the Jews, as you can see in previous posts (I cite Romans 11). However I really dont see them as the same. Baptism existed as a sign before Christ. (John the Baptist) There it was a sign if repentance, not a covenental seal. Why would this have changed?

[Chico]

Originally posted by brown07
1) Baptism is the God given symbolic act that is the seal of the New Covenant.

wrong. the seal of the New Covenant is given by the Holy Spirit. Ephesians 1:13 i believe. i may be wrong with that verse.

2) Baptism is the seal of the New Covenant just as circumcision was the seal of the Old Covenant.

wrong. look at above statement.

3) God commanded that circumcision, the seal of the Old Covenant, be given to the infant sons of the members of the Covenant.

that is OT.

4) God never stated that a change in the age at which the covenant seal should be administered had occurred.

but the way to enter the covenant wasn't circumcision anymore or baptism, it is faith in Christ. how does being baptized as an infant change that. i still don't understand the difference b/t entering the covenant and salvation.

5) In the absence of teaching otherwise, we hold that the covenant seal should still be administered to the infant children of members of the covenant.

but the teaching is there. we have to look at the New Covenant and what it is and how to enter it. it isn't by baptism or any other work, but by the grace of God and faith in His Son.
i guess under the list you gave a little while ago, i would fall under the reformed way of thinking of baptism even though i am baptist. again, it isn't infant baptism i have a problem with, just what you say it represents.

chris