I know exactly what to do with them: believe them!
the church fathers are who exactly?
That is a rather open-ended question. Let me refer you to the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on that subject. Click here.
Remember, I told you that I am one of those who view the Bible as the sole rule of faith.
I understand. It may be helpful for us to focus our discussion. What I am challenging is precisely 'sola scriptura'. There are very good reasons to believe that 'sola scriptura' is false. I have discussed some of them earlier in this thread. I have also mentioned Robert Sungenis's book Not by Scripture Alone. Sugensis defends the Catholic position. On the other side of the issue, you can read John White's Scripture Alone, Don Kistler's Sola Scriptura, Keith Mathison's The Shape of Sola Scriptura, and William Webster's Holy Scripture. If you would like to read any of these, and discuss them here, I'd be glad to do so.
And so the fact that only believers are baptised in scriptures is not persuasive?
You don't know that for sure. Paul baptized the "household of Stephanas" (1 Cor 1:16), and household of Lydia (Acts 16), and the family of the jailer in Philippi (Acts 16). Presumably, baptizing households and families was commonplace. So, it is quite possible that the children were baptized as well.
All believers are in heaven.
How do you know that? (I take it you mean that everyone who died in a believing state is in heaven.)
Not all those who are in heaven have been baptised.
Not if what Christ says about baptism is true. "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit" (John 3:5).
Not everyone who has been baptised is in heaven.
That is perfectly compatible with Catholic theology.
There is no precedent in scripture for the Bishop of Rome to exercise authority over any other church.
Precedent? Christ gives the keys to Peter. Christ clearly makes Peter the chief of the Apostles. Of the twelve Apostles, he is the official, designated leader. Christ prayrs for Peter in a unique way, and commands Him to strengthen his brethren. Peter is the first man to whom the resurrected Christ appears. And I could go on and on. Now, the authority of a bishop depends upon the authority of the one who ordains him. If the one who 'ordains' him lacks the authority to do so, then the ordination is invalid. Otherwise, any Joe Blow could just ordain anyone he wanted. (Sadly, we see that sort of thing all the time in the tv evangelists.) So, the authority of the bishops ordained by the Apostles, in all the cities to which the Apostles travelled, depended upon the authority of the Apostles. Therefore, since Peter's authority was greater than the authority of the other Apostles, as explained above, the authority of the bishop appointed by Peter is greater than that of the other bishops. Otherwise, as I pointed out earlier, the keys would cease to exist when Peter died.
But the fact that Scripture does not spell all this out in detail is not a problem unless you hold to 'sola scriptura'. (Though, 'sola scriptura' people usually believe in the Trinity and the creeds, etc., even though they are not spelled out in detail in the Scriptures.
There is the remaining question of how do you know when an utterance by Christ is literal or figurative?
The authority of the Church has the final say on the interpretation of Scripture. Just as Peter and the Apostles had the final say on the interpretation of the OT during the days of the early Church.
Having said that, there are literary ways to determine when a person is speaking figuratively or literally, though this takes some exegetically training, and I can't go into it here.
There is also the unanswered question of where, in scripture, is authority to only a few to understand scripture while the laymen shouldn't worry their pretty little heads.
Again, your question, "where in scripture ..." is based on 'sola scriptura'. But 'sola scriptura' is false. I myself used to be a strong proponent of sola scriptura. So, I understand your question, and where you are coming from. The worn out cliche "paradigm shift" is highly applicable here. There is no way to go from 'sola scriptura' to 'sola ecclesia' on the basis of sola scriptura. Logically, that it impossible. It is like yelling loudly, "I AM NOT YELLING!" You have to think about Church history, and how the Bible even came about, and how the early Christians functioned before the Scriptures were even written down. Then, in that context, you see that 'sola ecclesia' makes sense, and 'sola scritura' makes no sense. For 1500 years, people didn't have 'personal' Bibles. So, the 'sola scriptura' teaching requires you to believe that the Church was left in the lurch for 1500 years. And that requires you to believe that Christ completely blew it in His promise to guide His Church into all truth. It is that same deistic notion that allows Mormons to claim that the Gospel was lost for 1800 years, until it was recovered by Joseph Smith. The Evangelical and the Mormon are both deists in that sense, i.e. regarding Christ's promised care of His Church.
And speaking of scripture and understanding it, which is more authoritative - scripture or the writings of the church fathers?
First, let us be clear that both of these are the property of the Church, as guardian, steward, and expositer. But Scripture is greater in authority than any Church Father, because the authority of the Fathers comes from the Apostles. And yet, we are to read and understand the Scriptures through the light and teaching of the Fathers, for their authority does not diminish because they are now in glory and we remain yet on Earth.
I won't quibble with your brief summary of the Fathers' positions on infant baptism. There are many websites that list numerous quotations.
Here are a few quotations:
In 244 AD, Origen (in cap. vi, Ep. ad Rom.) declares: "The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants".
Around that same year (244 AD) Origen writes, "Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous." (Homily on Leviticus,8:3)
In 251 AD St. Cyprian (Ep. ad Fidum) writes: "From baptism and from grace . . . must not be kept the infant who, because recently born, has committed no sin, except, inasmuch as it was born carnally from Adam, it has contracted the contagion of the ancient death in its first nativity; and it comes to receive the remission of sins more easily on this very account that not its own, but another's sins are forgiven it." There also he writes, "But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day...And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism...we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons.." St. Cyprian also points out that the Council of Carthage in 253 rejected the notion that the baptism of infants should be delayed until the eighth day.
In 387 AD, St. Ambrose writes, "'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.' No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by necessity." (Abraham,2,11:79)
St. Augustine (Serm. xi, De Verb Apost.) says of infant baptism: "This the Church always had, always held; this she received from the faith of our ancestors; this she perseveringly guards even to the end."
In 412 AD Augustine writes, "Now, seeing that they [Pelagians] admit the necessity of baptizing infants,--finding themselves unable to contravene that authority of the universal Church, which has been unquestionably handed down by the Lord and His apostles,--they cannot avoid the further concession, that infants require the same benefits of the Mediator, in order that, being washed by the sacrament and charity of the faithful, and thereby incorporated into the body of Christ, which is the Church, they may be reconciled to God, and so live in Him, and be saved, and delivered, and redeemed, and enlightened. But from what, if not from death, and the vices, and guilt, and thraldom, and darkness of sin? And, inasmuch as they do not commit any sin in the tender age of infancy by their actual transgression, original sin only is left." (On forgiveness of sin, and baptism,39[26])
(The Pelagians were a heretical group that denied original sin. Augustine refutes them here by showing that even the Pelagians practiced infant baptism.)
In 416, the Council of Milevis anathematized anyone who claimed that infants should not be baptized.
But this history is only useful. It is not necessary with the previous examples of scripture where only believers are baptised.
Only if 'sola scritura' is true. So, I hope see (even if we disagree about 'sola scriptura') that some much comes down to 'sola scriptura'. If 'sola scriptura' is not true, then the paucity of information about infant baptism in Scripture is completely irrelevant to whether it should or should not be practiced by Christians. At the very least, can you admit that faith/belief is more important than baptism?
I'm open to the possibility, but offhand I don't know any reason (for sure) to agree that faith is more important than baptism.
And someday maybe we'll get back to that catechism which started our whole dialog?
Gladly! Peace.
-A8