Posted on 05/17/2006 9:08:53 PM PDT by Full Court
font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="4" color="#990000">From Operation Rescue to Operation Convert
May 21-27, 2006 |
| by TIM DRAKE |
Also in the Register: Randal Terry, CatholicRandall Terry has become Catholic. Tell me about your family. How did you come to know Christ? How did you first get started in pro-life work? What led to the founding of Operation Rescue? How many times were you arrested? When did you first take an interest in the Catholic Church? Which theological hurdles were the most difficult for you to jump? I understand that you are awaiting word on the annulment of your first marriage. Can you tell me why you chose to be received into the Church (without being able to receive the Eucharist), before the resolution of your annulment? Tell me how your reception into the Church came about. What was your greatest fear? How do you expect your evangelical colleagues will react to news of your conversion? Do you anticipate that your conversion could hurt you in your Senate race in a predominantly Protestant state?
|
Who did it first? The mother or the daughter?
It's a Romanist practice.
Since all ancient orthodox Christians baptized infants please tell me how infant baptism was introduced by Rome.
Also, since we know that entire families, households were baptized in the NT and 8 day old infant Jewish boys were welcomed into the covenant through circumcision isn't it reasonable to think on those facts alone that infant baptism was not "introduced" by Rome but was always something of a Christian practice?
So is...church on Sunday, prayer, communion, scripture reading, works of charity, missions, Christian education...
And we also know from the NT that only believers were to be baptized.
That's your most worthwhile post of the night. Thanks.
So you assume. Again, how is an 8 day old boy a believer in Judaism? He isn't. Why would you think it different for Christian infants in that regard?
A blank post means 2 things
1 I have nothing else to say to you.
2 I like to have the last word
even when I have nothing to say.
WHERE DID THIS INFANT BAPTISM COME FROM?
Once has to go back to Genesis 10 and 11 where we read of Noah's Great grandson, NIMROD, and his wife SEMIRAMUS, who started the great pagan BABYLON MYSTERY RELIGION at the Tower of Babel. This great pagan religion was later known as 'BAAL WORSHIP' in the Old Testament, simply another name for Nimrod. The great book, TWO BABYLONS by Alexander Hislop gives us a little background on this Babylon Mystery Religion of 'BAAL WORSHIP' started by Nimrod and Semiramus.
BABYLON MYSTERY RELIGION
In this mysterious Babylonian Religious System, Nimrod and Semiramis, along with their priests, were the only ones who understood 'The great mysteries of God' and since it was the only true religion... all others were false... therefore, only the Babylonian Priests could forgive and absolve sins...and administer salvation. Salvation could be achieved thru various Sacraments performed during the person's life time. These SACRAMENTS were so-called 'Channels of grace' whereby salvation could be achieved. These Sacraments, necessary to salvation ..began at birth with Infant Baptism, other sacraments throughout life, ending with a final anointing with oil at death to prepare one for the hereafter. Now Since the Babylonian Priest was the only one who could administer these 'sacraments', the person was 'bound' to the Babylonian system helplessly for life! The first essential sacrament Semiramis taught was Baptism by water. The fact that such "Baptism" was practiced 2000 years before it was even mentioned and practiced in Christianity is an established fact, and it can be traced right back to Babylon and Semiramis herself! The ancient historian Bryant (vol.3 p2l,84) traces this pagan baptism back to the practice of commemorating Noah and his 3 sons deliverance thru the waters of the flood, emerging from the ark and entering a New life. To commemorate this event, the Priests of Nimrod would 'baptize' new-born infants the fathers chose to keep, and they would become 'born-again' and become members of the Babylonian Mystery Religion. (Hislop,Two Babylons, p134) The fact that the Devil practiced the ritual of Baptism over 2000 years before it was even used in Christianity has truly amazed historians!
WHERE DID THIS BABY BAPTISM COME FROM?
Armitage's History (p73) explains the pagan civil law and social customs of that day. These pagans had no standard of morality as you and I have. Their marriage rites were not on the basis ours are. One man might be the husband of a hundred women, and he might be the father of several hundred children. The mother had no right at all to determine whether the child she bore was to live or not, that was le ft up to the FATHER. Just as the farmer would go down to the pigpen and pick out the pigs he wanted to keep and do away with the runts, so was the father the one who decided if the child was to be kept and allowed to live. The mother could not even name the child if it was kept, the pagan priest did that. If the child was decided to be kept, the daddy would take it down to the pagan priest and the ceremony would be arranged. The Priest first must 'exorcise' evil spirits from the infant by anointing the baby's head with OIL. With the oil the priest puts the occult mark of Tammuz on the child's head by marking a "T" with the oil. (later to become the 'Sign of the Cross) The Priest then put SALT and SPITTLE on the baby's tongue to preserve it from future influence of evil spirits. "HOLY WATER" is now sprinkled or poured over the baby's head, and the baby is said to be cleansed from any original sin and is now "born-again" and a member of the Babylonian Religion. This process was known as INFANT CHRISTENING and was practiced hundreds of years before Christ, (Hislop,pl38) and is found NOWHERE in the Bible! There is not a single example of a baby being 'baptized' or 'christened' in the Bible! Knowing what you do now, WOULD YOU WANT YOUR BABY CHRISTENED?
This was called 'Baal Worship' in the Old Testament, and God called it an abomination!
MORE HISTORY ON BABY BAPTISM
The professed conversion of Emperor Constantine in A.D. 313 was looked upon by many as a great triumph for Christianity. However, it more than likely was the greatest tragedy in church history because it resulted in the union of church and state and the establishment of a hierarchy which ultimately developed into the Roman Catholic system. There is great question that Constantine was ever truly converted. At the time of his supposed vision of the sign of As we have said so many times, we believe all babies and children below the age of accountability am protected by the Lord respecting their eternal soul. I do not believe-that any child below the age of accountability has ever gone to hell. Of course, there is no differentiating between those who were baptized as infants and those who were not.
INFANT BAPTISM COMES TO THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
At around the 3rd Century, traces of the Babylon Mystery Religion, now known as Baal Worship, infiltrates the Christian Church. Immediately, Bible Believing Christians reject the idea of baptizing babies and Baptismal regeneration - the teaching that baptism is essential to salvation; or, if you want to turn it around, that water baptism saves the soul (or at least is a part of a person's salvation). These Bible Believing Christians were labeled slanderously as 'ANABAPTISTS' because they rejected this idea of baptizing babies as pagan and not Scriptural. They would 'RE-BAPTIZE these infants when they got older and trusted Christ as Savior! Thus the term, ANABAPTISTS...which meant "RE-BAPTIZERS"! It was later shortened to 'Baptists'. So you see, Baptists got the their name at this time, and the issue that started the name Baptists and separated them was this issue of 'Baby Baptism'!!!! These 'ANABAPTISTS' were persecuted greatly because of this issue!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Doctrines/infant_baptism_exposed.htm
You wrote:
"A blank post means 2 things 1 I have nothing else to say to you."
You never did really have much to say anyway.
"2 I like to have the last word
even when I have nothing to say."
And no word means no word, but still I did tell you that that was your most worthwhile comment of the night. In terms of value it was largely equal to your other posts, but at least the last one was most representative of that value.
I assume nothing.
Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
There are several problems with your post, but I'll focus on just two:
1) Hislop is slop. Every scholar knows Hislop largely made up most of his book. This is why it was disavowed by Woodrow -- in what can only be deemed a shockingly humble and embarrassing admission on his part.
2) Jews gave circumcision to 8 day old infants. Why would Christians be any different?
I'm not here to debate you on this Full Court. I've already explained that I don't practice/believe in infant baptism. I was merely correcting your error of calling it a "Romanist" tradition.
And that site you linked to has some serious credibility issues.
Yes, you assume.
One case from scripture or even several does not change the fact that early Christians used baptism on infants without any expectation of faith at that moment on the baby's part.
Again, 8 day old Jewish babies did not get to wait until they were old enough to believe in, or choose on their own, the covenant before being circumcision.
I am doing my best to rid myself
of this thread please drop me from the ping.
Please and Thank You.
BABY BAPTISM COMES TO AMERICA
Unaware to a lot of people, this thing came to the Americas well in the early days of this republic. Before the Massachusetts Bay Colony was twenty years old, the following was decreed by statute:
"If any person or persons within this jurisdiction shall either openly condemn or oppose the baptizing of infants, or go about secretly to seduce others from the approbation or use thereof, or shall purposely depart from the congregation at the administration of the ordinance after due time and means of conviction, every such person or persons shall be subject to banishment.."
Religious persecution existed even in the early days of the United States of America. Roger Williams and others were banished - when banishment meant to go and live with the Indians - because they would not submit to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration or the baptizing of infants.
However, it was the constitution of the Rhode Island Colony - founded by Roger Williams, John Clark, and others - that established religious liberty by law for the first time in thirteen hundred years (over the world).
Thus it was that Rhode Island, founded by a small group of believers, was the first spot on earth where religious liberty became the law of the land. The settlement was made in 1638, and the colony was legally established in 1663. Virginia followed, to be the second, in 1786.
A short, but good, article from Catholic Answers:
Early Teachings on Infant Baptism
Although many Protestant traditions baptize babies, Baptists—and "Bible churches" in the Baptist tradition—insist that baptism is only for those who have come to faith. Nowhere in the New Testament, they point out, do we read of infants being baptized.
On the other hand, nowhere do we read of children raised in believing households reaching the age of reason and then being baptized. The only explicit baptism accounts in the Bible involve converts from Judaism or paganism. For children of believers there is no explicit mention of baptism—either in infancy or later.
This poses a problem for Baptists and Bible Christians: On what basis do they require children of believers to be baptized at all? Given the silence of the New Testament, why not assume Christian baptism is only for adult converts?
This, of course, would be contrary to historical Christian practice. But so is rejecting infant baptism. As we will see, there is no doubt that the early Church practiced infant baptism; and no Christian objections to this practice were ever voiced until the Reformation.
The New Testament itself, while it does not explicitly say when (or whether) believers should have their children baptized, is not silent on the subject.
Luke 18:15–16 tells us that "they were bringing even infants" to Jesus; and he himself related this to the kingdom of God: "Let the children come to me
. . . for to such belongs the kingdom of God."
When Baptists speak of "bringing someone to Jesus," they mean leading him to faith. But Jesus says "even infants" can be "brought" to him. Even Baptists don’t claim their practice of "dedicating" babies does this. The fact is, the Bible gives us no way of bringing anyone to Jesus apart from baptism.
Thus Peter declared, "Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children" (Acts 2:38–39).
The apostolic Church baptized whole "households" (Acts 16:33; 1 Cor. 1:16), a term encompassing children and infants as well as servants. While these texts do not specifically mention—nor exclude—infants, the very use of the term "households" indicates an understanding of the family as a unit. Even one believing parent in a household makes the children and even the unbelieving spouse "holy" (1 Cor. 7:14).
Does this mean unbelieving spouses should be baptized? Of course not. The kingdom of God is not theirs; they cannot be "brought to Christ" in their unbelief. But infants have no such impediment. The kingdom is theirs, Jesus says, and they should be brought to him; and this means baptism.
Baptism is the Christian equivalent of circumcision, or "the circumcision of Christ": "In him you were also circumcised with . . . the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead" (Col. 2:11–12). Thus, like circumcision, baptism can be given to children as well as adults. The difference is that circumcision was powerless to save (Gal. 5:6, 6:15), but "[b]aptism . . . now saves you" (1 Pet. 3:21).
The first explicit evidence of children of believing households being baptized comes from the early Church—where infant baptism was uniformly
upheld and regarded as apostolic. In fact, the only reported controversy on the subject was a third-century debate whether or not to delay baptism until the eighth day after birth, like its Old Testament equivalent, circumcision! (See quotation from Cyprian, below; compare Leviticus 12:2–3.)
Consider, too, that Fathers raised in Christian homes (such as Irenaeus) would hardly have upheld infant baptism as apostolic if their own baptisms had been deferred until the age of reason.
For example, infant baptism is assumed in Irenaeus’ writings below (since he affirms both that regeneration happens in baptism, and also that Jesus came so even infants could be regenerated). Since he was born in a Christian home in Smyrna around the year 140, this means he was probably baptized around 140. He was also probably baptized by the bishop of Smyrna at that time—Polycarp, a personal disciple of the apostle John, who had died only a few decades before.
Irenaeus
"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).
"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).
Hippolytus
"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
Origen
"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).
"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).
"If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (ibid., 64:5).
Gregory of Nazianz
"Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!" (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).
"‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly [I respond], if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated" (ibid., 40:28).
John Chrysostom
"You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members" (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).
Augustine
"What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).
"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
"Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born" (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).
"By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).
Council of Carthage V
"Item: It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they [abandoned children] were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the [North African] legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such [abandoned children] from the barbarians" (Canon 7 [A.D. 401]).
Council of Mileum II
"[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration" (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]).
http://gospelcenterchurch.org/Infantbaptism.html
Ok, try this site.
That "new" site you linked to is also based on Hislop. Hislop was known to completely fabricate his information.
Even Protestants, except for those who are very poorly educated or read, know this: http://www.tektonics.org/guest/hislop01.html
What is your basis for assuming that these households included infants.
8 day old infant Jewish boys were welcomed into the covenant through circumcision...
Every child born into a Jewish family was automatically in a covenanted relation with God. Circumcision had nothing to do with that relationship. If so, how did Jewish girls enter the covented relationship?
isn't it reasonable to think on those facts alone that infant baptism was not "introduced" by Rome but was always something of a Christian practice?
Baptism has no relationship to circumcision. Only "believer baptism" was practiced by the NT church. Read Mark 16:16 for Jesus specific command on the subject. The Apostles taught, and the NT church practiced that which Jesus had commanded.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.