Calvinists: Defend your idea that God burns babies in hell forever

[TER]

Read the passages:

Thank you Eduardo.

FF, if the weight of your evidence rests on your post above you should reconsider your argument.

 

[erowe1]

Read the passages:

Notice the parts you left out.

Acts 16:34 - He rejoiced, having believed in God, with all his household.

1 Corinthians 16:15 - The household of Stephanus devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints.

You can't make those very same households include infants too young to demonstrate that they had faith when it talks about them being baptized.

Infant baptism is an innovation that came up in the third century. I prefer to stick with the practice of the apostolic Church.

 

[eduardo89]

Notice the parts you left out.

Acts 16:34 - He rejoiced, having believed in God, with all his household.

1 Corinthians 16:15 - The household of Stephanus devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints.

You can't make those very same households include infants too young to demonstrate that they had faith when it talks about them being baptized.

Where do those verses exclude the children and infants from being baptised?

Infant baptism is an innovation that came up in the third century. I prefer to stick with the practice of the apostolic Church.

If it's an innovation that came up in the third century, then why did Hippolytus write about in 215 when talking about traditions of the Church of the 2nd century and before?

 

[erowe1]

Where do those verses exclude the children and infants from being baptised?

They're talking about people who believed, rejoiced, and ministered to the saints, and it is these people who are called "the household" of so-and-so. So you can't get the inclusion of infants from the word "household." These households in these two verses are the exact same households in the verses you quoted as supposedly including infants.

If it's an innovation that came up in the third century, then why did Hippolytus write about in 215 when talking about traditions of the Church of the 2nd century and before?

You're talking about a work called "the Apostolic Traditions." This is a very complicated work. Some of it comes from Hippolytus, some of it doesn't. I don't know whether the part about baptism does or not, or if there's a reliable way to tell. But even if it does, that doesn't mean that it's talking about older traditions than his own day.

We have plenty about believers' baptism in the books of the New Testament, the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, and Justin Martyr, all of which consistently speak of it as something for people capable of demonstrating repentence, faith, and change of life. The idea of infant baptism is nowhere to be found in the first or second centuries, and doesn't fit with what is found there. It first clearly comes up in the mid-third century with Origen. It may or may not be the case that the so-called Apostolic Traditions constitute an earlier source mentioning it.

 

[eduardo89]

You're talking about a work called "the Apostolic Traditions." This is a very complicated work. Some of it comes from Hippolytus, some of it doesn't. I don't know whether the part about baptism does or not, or if there's a reliable way to tell. But even if it does, that doesn't mean that it's talking about older traditions than his own day.

It was written in hopes of preserving older traditions, not those of his days.

Why did Irenaeus speak of infant baptism in Against Heresies which dates back to 180? How are infants reborn in Christ if not through baptism?

Why do we find absolutely no writings denouncing or chastising infant baptism?

 

[erowe1]

It was written in hopes of preserving older traditions, not those of his days.

It claims to be. That's not the same as "was." And much of it is later than his days.

Why did Irenaeus speak of infant baptism in Against Heresies which dates back to 180?

He didn't.

Why do we find absolutely no writings denouncing or chastising infant baptism?

That's a great question. I think that part of the answer may be that infant baptism became the official orthodox position at the time of Augustine as a result of the condemnations of Pelagius. After that time it was not kosher to criticize it. Before that time there was probably more of a diversity of views about it. Not everybody talked about it at all. And of those that did, the ones that were preserved by later generations were those that supported infant baptism.

I think some did denounce it, because what Origen writes about it looks to me like he's defending the practice in light of such objections.

Those of the second century neither defend nor denounce it, because they haven't heard of it.

 

[TER]

Infant baptism is an innovation that came up in the third century.

Proof? Which church then started this? In what city did this become an innovative doctrine? What Bishop started this which you claim to be a heresy? You have no answer.

By the third century the Christian Church was composed of five patriarchates representing hundreds of churches in numerous cities spread far across three continents, separated by months of travel. Did it spontaneously just change to infant baptism over night by some email sent by the Pope? Were the faithful in India (who have practiced infant baptism since St. Thomas preached the Gospel there) just one day willy nilly change such an important mystery and sacrament after getting a memo, without a council or debate on the matter? Why must you blind yourself and ignore the historical reality in order to justify your beliefs?

I can tell you which men in what cities and in what years the innovative doctrines which deny infant baptism began. How they were in contrast with the entire rest of Christendom which was ever recorded, and then you glibly pronounce that it was instead the practice of the apostolic Church? How can someone so bright as yourself be such a fool?

 

[eduardo89]

He didn't.

How are infants reborn in Christ if not through baptism?

 

[eduardo89]

There also this:

St. Irenaeus was the disciple of St. Polycarp, who was the disciple of the Apostle John himself (as well as an associate of the Apostle Philip). And, in AD 155, St. Polycarp said this at his execution:

"Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury. How can I blaspheme my King and Savior?" (Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp 9 c. AD 156)

Now, it is well documented that "The Martyrdom of Polycarp" was written the year after the saint's execution; and so the quote above is extremely reliable. It is also well documented that Polycarp was 86 years old at the time of his death. Therefore, if the saint claims to have served Jesus for 86 years, it therefore follows that he was Baptized as an infant. And, in another place, we are told that Polycarp was Baptized by none other than the Apostle John! Therefore, at least in the case of St. John, we can show conclusively that the Apostles Baptized infants.

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a26.htm

How do you explain away that?

Or what about this, from the 2nd century:

St. Justin Martyr:

"And both men and women who have been Christ's disciples since infancy, remain pure, and at the age of sixty or seventy years ..." (Justin Martyr, First Apology,15:6 -- AD 110-165)

 

[TER]

How do you explain away that?

With self-induced blindness, voluntary ignorance, and mental gymnastics.

 

[eduardo89]

With self-induced blindness, voluntary ignorance, and mental gymnastics.

I just really want him to explain his thoughts on this:

How are infants reborn in Christ if not through baptism?

Is there another secret way only Protestants know about?

 

[erowe1]

How are infants reborn in Christ if not through baptism?

My own answer for me is, I don't know.

I also don't know Irenaeus's answer. He doesn't say anything about them being baptized. If he were a later author writing at a time when that belief of infants being reborn through baptism were known, then we could assume he meant that. But he wasn't.

 

[eduardo89]

My own answer for me is, I don't know.

I also don't know Irenaeus's answer. He doesn't say anything about them being baptized. If he were a later author writing at a time when that belief of infants being reborn through baptism were known, then we could assume he meant that. But he wasn't.

He doesn't need to explicitly say the word baptism. There is no other way in which we are reborn in Christ. Regeneration happens through baptism. Are you saying that the Church did not believe that in Irenaeus' time? If so, please show some evidence for that.

Can you also explain this:

There also this:

St. Irenaeus was the disciple of St. Polycarp, who was the disciple of the Apostle John himself (as well as an associate of the Apostle Philip). And, in AD 155, St. Polycarp said this at his execution:

"Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury. How can I blaspheme my King and Savior?" (Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp 9 c. AD 156)

Now, it is well documented that "The Martyrdom of Polycarp" was written the year after the saint's execution; and so the quote above is extremely reliable. It is also well documented that Polycarp was 86 years old at the time of his death. Therefore, if the saint claims to have served Jesus for 86 years, it therefore follows that he was Baptized as an infant. And, in another place, we are told that Polycarp was Baptized by none other than the Apostle John! Therefore, at least in the case of St. John, we can show conclusively that the Apostles Baptized infants.

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a26.htm

How do you explain away that?

Or what about this, from the 2nd century:

St. Justin Martyr:

"And both men and women who have been Christ's disciples since infancy, remain pure, and at the age of sixty or seventy years ..." (Justin Martyr, First Apology,15:6 -- AD 110-165)

And can you show evidence that infant baptism just sprung up randomly in the 3rd century, addressing the points TER made in his last post? Can you show any sources denouncing infant baptism in the early Church? Or any evidence showing that baptism was limited to adults?

 

[TER]

My own answer for me is, I don't know.

How humble. Yet you know that Irenaeus wrote in a time when infant baptism was not practiced. How nice. And with no evidence to support your claim. How very convincing.

 

[erowe1]

By the third century the Christian Church was composed of five patriarchates

No it wasn't.

It was composed of millions of individual people and individual assemblies. Some of these assemblies were united with one another in larger overarching hierarchies. Others weren't. There was no worldwide structure dividing them all into 5 patriarchates.

 

[erowe1]

How humble. Yet you know that Irenaeus wrote in a time when infant baptism was not practiced. How nice. And with no evidence to support your claim. How very convincing.

What I'm saying is that we can't interpret his words on the assumption that they were written when it was practiced, and then turn around and claim that they are evidence that it was.

Either you read him with that assumption, or you appeal to him for evidence that it was practiced then. But you can't do both at once. And his words provide no evidence that it was practiced then until you read them with the assumption that you already know it was.

 

[TER]

What I'm saying is that we can't interpret his words on the assumption that they were written when it was practiced, and then turn around and claim that they are evidence that it was.

What you are saying is that you don't want to believe he indeed is referring to infant baptism because it might mean other doctrines you follow might also be against the Apostolic faith. So you do your mental gymnastics in order to justify your beliefs.

 

[TER]

No it wasn't.

It was composed of millions of individual people and individual assemblies. Some of these assemblies were united with one another in larger overarching hierarchies. Others weren't. There was no worldwide structure dividing them all into 5 patriarchates.

You are a revisionist through and through. The VAST majority of Christians who considered themselves to be so for the first three centuries on and afterwards were baptized members of ONE CHURCH which St. Paul alluded to and all the Apostles preached about. And those VAST majority of Christians partook of the Holy Eucharist in ONE FAITH as ONE BODY. Stop distorting history. There was indeed ONE CHURCH in FIVE PATRIARCHATES in the third century no matter how much you want to pretend it wasn't so.

 

[TER]

The Church which believed, taught, preserved, defended and died for the Faith of the Apostles since the Day of Pentecost 2000 years ago.

 

[erowe1]

He doesn't need to explicitly say the word baptism. There is no other way in which we are reborn in Christ. Regeneration happens through baptism. Are you saying that the Church did not believe that in Irenaeus' time? If so, please show some evidence for that.

He does need to say it if you're going to use that line for evidence of infant baptism. The earlier church did associate baptism and regeneration. But they never did this with baptism that did not go along with faith and repentance.

That passage in Irenaeus is for the purpose of countering a heresy of Jesus not living a normal human life with all stages. It is not meant to address infant baptism.

Can you also explain this:

Again, Justin doesn't mention baptism there. Look where he does mention baptism. It was for people who had already repented.

The bit about Polycarp isn't evidence of anything. Polycarp didn't write that, and it's not a real quote from him. It's a reverential work about his martyrdom by someone who depicts him that way. They say 86 years because that's what the tradition was about how old he was. They didn't know anything about whether or not he was baptized as an infant, if they had even heard of such a thing.

And can you show evidence that infant baptism just sprung up randomly in the 3rd century, addressing the points TER made in his last post? Can you show any sources denouncing infant baptism in the early Church? Or any evidence showing that baptism was limited to adults?

What points did TER make? I didn't see any.

Also, notice what Tertullian says about baptism in On Baptism. He specifically advises that children should not be baptized until after they have spent time learning and become able to know Christ.

This from Tertullian is definitely evidence of it having been a matter of discussion at the beginning of the third century. I would grant that this must mean that there were people by this time beginning to practice it. But this also means that it was not the norm yet either.

By Origen's time, 40 year later, it seems to be the other way around, at least in Alexandria.