When the Redeemer declares (John 3) that it is necessary to be born again of water and the Holy Ghost in order to enter the Kingdom of God, His words may be justly understood to mean that He includes all who are capable of having a right to this kingdom. Now, He has asserted such a right even for those who are not adults, when He says (Matthew 19:14): "Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such." It has been objected that this latter text does not refer to infants, inasmuch as Christ says "to come to me". In the parallel passage in St. Luke (18:15), however, the text reads: "And they brought unto him also infants, that he might touch them"; and then follow the words cited from St. Matthew. In the Greek text, the words brephe and prosepheron refer to infants in arms.
and
Moreover, St. Paul (Colossians 2) says that baptism in the New Law has taken the place of circumcision in the Old. It was especially to infants that the rite of circumcision was applied by Divine precept. If it be said that there is no example of the baptism of infants to be found in the Bible, we may answer that infants are included in such phrases as: "She was baptized and her household" (Acts 16:15); "Himself was baptized, and all his house immediately" (Acts 16:33); "I baptized the household of Stephanus" (1 Corinthians 1:16).
To the objection that baptism requires faith, theologians reply that adults must have faith, but infants receive habitual faith, which is infused into them in the sacrament of regeneration. As to actual faith, they believe on the faith of another; as St. Augustine (De Verb. Apost., xiv, xviii) beautifully says: "He believes by another, who has sinned by another."
And, the proof that the Early Church DID baptise infants is from here by St. Cyprian of CarthageIn respect to the case of infants, which you say ought not to be baptised within the second or third day after birth, and that hte law of ncient circumcision be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptised and sanctified within the eighth day,we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man.. we ought to shrink from hindering an infant, who being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh accrding to Adam, he has ontracted teh contagion of the ancient death as its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins -- that to him are remitted, not his own sincs, but the sins of another (Adam)and from Origen (185-254 AD)The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed teh secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spiritand from St. AugustineWho is so impious as to wish to exclude infants from the kindgom of heaven by forbidding them to be baptised and born again in Christ? This the Church always had, always held; this she received from the faith of our ancestors; this she perserveringly guards even to the end
Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without the participation of His Sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they can not possibly be vivified in Christ,"
3. Good point on 3
The Church does not say that Tradition is different from Scripture -- it isn't, it complements scripture. Scripture is written tradition, but not all -- The NT is the child of The Church -- the primary author IS the Holy Spirit -- God is the author. The writers were a part of the Church and the Church had the authority to recognise the inspired books and the authority to close the canon. Without the authority of The Church, how does a Protestant know which books belong in the New Testament? Reformed theologian R.C> Sproul says in Essential truths of the Christian faith that the Protestant position can at best claim "a fallible collection of infallibile books"
If Christ wanted us to have an infallible colleciton of writings, he needed to do one of two things:
1. Give us an authoritative list of writings, dictated by an apostle that would form the canon to provide certainty, so there would be no confusion OR
2. Establish an infallible community, a Church that could give us a list of infallible writings so we could be certain.
The did not do the first, and the Protestant viewpoint denies the second
The NT is the collected and inspired writings of the apostles and their immediate followers. It is not however, the sum total of all their teachigns and traditions
St. Epiphanius (315-403) wrote "It is needful to make use of Tradition; for not everything can be gotten from Sacred Scripture. The holy Apostles handed down some things in the Scriptures, other things in Tradition" (Panarion)
St. John Chrysostom (347-407) "So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours"
1. Because, as all four evangelists are careful to note, Christ rose from death on the “first day of the week,” i.e., Sunday. Another way to look at this is as Sunday being the eighth day (the significance of circumcision on the 8th day) or in other words, the first day of the next week, the first day of the new creation in Christ Jesus. Christians chose to “gather in Jesus’ name” (wherein He promised to be with them) on the “first of the week,” not because they were bound to do it, but because they were free to do it. Catholics in general, and here I intend no disrespect, tend to think in terms of law even when they are using the word gospel. Following the real basis of the Reformation, I distinguish sharply between law and gospel, as do the Holy Scriptures themselves. Remember, even in regard to the Sabbath, God’s intent was that man might have rest on the Sabbath, that is, to know that God and man are at peace because of the Promised One who was to come and set all things right. That peace was made at Calvary, once, for all, and forever. What more fitting day then to gather in Jesus’ name?
2. Sorry, I don’t see your point. Everything cited here simply agrees with the Holy Scriptures and, thus (here is the point), are correct. Scripture is the final authority in all matters of doctrine and right practice.
3. Yes, it is a good point. Conclusive I would say, and agrees with all of the Holy Scriptures.
Cronos also wrote:
“If Christ wanted us to have an infallible colleciton of writings, he needed to do one of two things:
1. Give us an authoritative list of writings, dictated by an apostle that would form the canon to provide certainty, so there would be no confusion OR
2. Establish an infallible community, a Church that could give us a list of infallible writings so we could be certain.
The did not do the first, and the Protestant viewpoint denies the second”
This argument is specious. You are asserting that God had to do something in a way to satisfy your given requirements or it has to be this other way. God did it the way He did it. End of story. We, His redeemed creation in Christ Jesus, accept what He has done as good and right. I reject utterly the false premise you put forth here.