What is the purpose of infant baptism?

[GodsGrace]

Yes, you DID.

And that's why I told you in my last post - "Knowing isn’t the same as “understanding”. You posted an excerpt from Irenaeus's Against Heresies - -and STILL denied what he said.

Against Heresies is broken up into chapter and verse. In the verse that precedes the listing of Popes in Chapter 3 that lists the Bishops of Rome from Peter down to Eleutherius in Irenaeus’s time – we read the following:
“For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority” (Against Heresies, 3:3:2).

Additionally - in his Letter to the Corinthians, Pope Clement had to get involved and make a ruling on a matter taking place in the Church at Corinth.

Now, WHY would the Bishop of Rome need to rule ono a matter in another Bishops diocese??
Because he is the POPE – the Bishop of Rome - and he has Primacy over the others.

Finally, as I have already mentioned – Pope Victor I made the ruling on the Quartodeciman Controversy in the 2nd century.

NONE of these facts line up with YOUR phony 4th century timeline . . .

I explained why the Pope of Rome had preeminence over the other Popes.

I can't help it if you don't know, or understand, church history.

 

[Taken]

First, your definition of "born again" seem to always subtract water from spirit.

Jesus never did that. The bible doesn't do that. Having an emotional experience with a major moral turn-around at a church service is a good thing in itself, but it fails to meet the definition Jesus gave in John 3:5, that water phobic Christians always run from.

TYPICAL…

Accusation…
Jesus was water baptised.
the Bible mentions water baptism.
Snarky implication.

Missing…substance…
Point of water baptism?
Necessity of water baptism?
Resulting effect with water baptism?
Resulting effect without water baptism?

 

[Taken]

Second, BofL gave several verses demolishing OSAS; it's either blindness or you are just plain lying.

TYPICAL
Snarky implication.

CLAIM - several Scriptural verses demolish once Salvation IS Received, it can be lost.

List of scriptures…
NO scripture reveals Claim.
No Presented Scripture, “HIGHLIGHT”…”EXPRESSLY REVEAL…
* ANY named person.
* ANY named person having RECEIVED Baptism of the Holy Spirit.
* The SAME NAMED person THEREAFTER, Having the Holy Spirit Baptism UNDONE, REMOVED, Departed FROM that man.
* The SAME NAMED person HAVING BECOME “MADE” a new Creature….BEING “MADE AGAIN” his OLD CREATURE.

Instead of you and BOL repeating WRONG and snarky remarks, in attempts to cover your own failures of UNDERSTANDING…

Perhaps you and BOL together could REVEAL the “MISSING SCRIPTURES” that Actually support and HIGHLIGHT your claims within such Scriptures.

 

[Taken]

Third, you automatically ignore or reject the UNANYMOUS CONSENT of Early Church Fathers, such as Christian giants like Justin Martyr or St. Cyril of Jerusalem on the topic of "born again", out prejudice or intellectual suicide, or both. This is why reasonable discussion with you is impossible.

The Head of Christ Jesus’ Church IS Christ Jesus….which I do not ignore.

The Early Church Teachers OF Christ Jesus’ Church WERE Jewish men Jesus Himself Chose and They Agreed and They DID so Teach…which I do not ignore.

You can select…ANY Scriptural Verse…WHICH Jesus Himself or ANY of Jesus’ Chosen Teachers were Sent OUT to teach;
THAT any man WHO RECEIVES the BAPTISM of the HOLY SPIRIT AND IS become MADE a new Creature…REMAINS IN DANGER OF LOSING his Salvation and AGAIN becomes “MADE” the old Creature.

So? Have at it…Reveal what YOU PREACH IS WHAT the Gospel of Jesus Christ SAYS.

 

[Marymog]

What is fides aliena?

Well, clearly you aren't talking about fides aliena. So what is your theory on The Church changing it's reason for infant baptism after Augustine?

 

[RedFan]

This has nothing to do with the authority principle in post #1614.

The Authority Principle Revisited: The Key to the Formation of Culture​

If you look around the world today (or in any era), you’ll find that human culture expresses the dominant values of a society. For example, in the United States we have a predominately commercial culture because we have predominately commercial values. The lives of huge numbers of people in our society are more or less defined by endless getting and endless spending. A tremendous amount of our time and energy goes into the two sides of business—producing and consuming goods and services. The hallmark of our larger culture is ubiquitous advertising.

All of this is very worldly, and undoubtedly very shallow, and it ultimately falls to religion to attempt to overcome this worldly shallowness by orienting us to more permanent values. Thus religion typically acts as a brake upon the passing preoccupations of a worldly culture, pointing us to deeper truths which transcend time and which relate to our ultimate purposes and ends. The fact that religion has proven capable of such cultural transformations again and again throughout history suggests that it is a very powerful generator of human values.

But the monkey wrench in the works of religion in the modern world is its diversity. We are all exposed, at a very high level of sophistication, not only to the sad and crippling divisions of Christianity and to the great gaps among the major religions of the world, but to endless claims and counter-claims about nearly everything under the sun. We might agree philosophically that truth is the mind’s conformity to reality, but with so many conflicting truth-statements on offer, we cannot escape the conclusion that most people are wrong about most things most of the time.

Even if we think we are right, we are haunted by the possibility that we could be wrong, and also by the futility of proving anything, and even by the apparent discourtesy of pressing forward with our own understanding in the face of so much confusion and doubt. None of this helps us build culture; we are, rather, ripe for having what little culture we find comfort in washed away.

What brings these thoughts to mind is a bizarre objection to my previous On the Culture entry, Apologetics: Give Me that Old Time Authority Principle. Someone claimed that my insistence on the uniqueness of the Catholic authority principle was simply a form of “boasting”. But nothing could be farther from the truth. The Catholic authority principle is not a boast but a gift. And this gift is the key to the formation of the next Christian culture, just as it was the key to the last one.

Catholicism as a Cultural Engine

The Catholic religion has been an extraordinarily powerful engine of culture down through history precisely because of its unchanging certainty about the fundamental truths of God and the fundamental values of human life. Had Catholicism lacked an authority principle, as (for example) all forms of Protestantism do, then it would have been constantly reformed by culture rather than forming it, just as Protestantism has been over the centuries. And in fact this happens with most religions, once a society is “opened”, as it were, to powerful influences which challenge a religion’s assumptions. The religion changes in fundamental ways to accommodate new ideas. The tail very decidedly wags the dog. In response to changing fashions, people put on a new religion as they would a new suit of clothes.

Of course this same phenomenon can be observed on a personal level even within the Church. Insofar as we are weak our own lives in our Catholic faith, our own lives begin to be dominated by a different sort of culture, a culture with its own prophets and celebrities. One recalls the well-known passage from St. Matthew’s Gospel: “For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect” (24:24). Such signs and wonders are not confined to religion; we have them aplenty to fulfill our sensual and material desires, complete with philosophers to justify them.

Thus the authority principle in Catholicism is not a cause for boasting but a cause for confidence. Culture does not grow from tentative values but from confident values which compel us to reorder our lives to be consistent with them. And it seems to me that Catholics have a pressing need for greater confidence today,
first because of the growing hostility of the secular world,
second because of the immense divisions within Christianity, and
third because of the tremendous weaknesses introduced even into the Church herself by the widespread failure of Catholics to adhere faithfully to what they really ought to be able to know to be true.

Now what ought they to be able to know to be true? It can only be that which is guaranteed by the Catholic authority principle. This remains the sole criterion by which we can sift the wheat from the chaff, both within and outside of the Church. This authority principle—represented tangibly in the succession of the vicars of Christ in the See of Peter—can alone serve as an essential source of unshakeable confidence. It is precisely this which enables us to cut through the claims and counter-claims of the world, other religions, and the various squabbling factions within the Church herself, and to leave them behind without a moment’s regret. It is precisely this which enables us to know God’s will and live it confidently.

Too often we make things more difficult than they need to be, allowing ourselves to be sidetracked by endless arguments, and to have our resolve weakened by a hundred caveats. The result is constant uncertainty. Sometimes we think we know something, but we are frighteningly aware that people are often wrong, and so we could be too, and we dare not press things too hard. It is only a fundamental grasp of the ultimate source of authority which can preserve us from this endless hesitation. This alone enables us to bypass interminable doubts and keep our eyes fastened on God:


What I am saying is simple: Only the Catholic authority principle makes this truly possible. Only the Catholic authority principle can remove all legitimate hesitation. Since its inception, it has been the best of starting points. But in an age in which truth claims are not traditionally felt—an age justly sensitive to uncertainty—it is the only starting point. If we are to build a new culture, we must start here.
+++
Jeffrey Mirus holds a Ph.D. in intellectual history from Princeton University. A co-founder of Christendom College, he also pioneered Catholic Internet services. He is the founder of Trinity Communications and CatholicCulture.org. See full bio.

Maybe you and I disagree on the definition of "authority principle." I define it as as shared value of the members of a given group (be it ecclesiastical, political, social, whatever) to accept the authority of the group's governing body (or person) having jurisdiction and to submit to its (or his) pronouncements. If you have a better definition, lay it on me.

But if my definition is acceptable, Jeff Mirus is mistaken in claiming that the papacy, the Catholic authority principle, "represented tangibly in the succession of the vicars of Christ in the See of Peter—can alone serve as an essential source of unshakeable confidence." Not true. Regardless of whether all Catholics have that "unshakeable confidence," I can tell you that most Anglicans have the same unshakeable confidence in their "authority principle," which recognizes their bishops in communion, rather than the Vatican, as authoritative.

 

[GodsGrace]

Well, clearly you aren't talking about fides aliena. So what is your theory on The Church changing it's reason for infant baptism after Augustine?

Will explain but rather hesitantly since you don't seem like the type of person with whom I can have a decent conversation.

However, I'd appreciate a reply.
What is files aliena?
Never heard of it and little time to look it up or ask someone.

 

[RedFan]

The Apostles didn't quibble with it, but you do.....very interesting.

I don't know whether the Apostles quibbled with Peter's invocation of Psalm 69 here or not. Do you? I haven't asked them. Have you? Nothing is recorded about their subsequent conversations with Peter later that night -- which for all we know might have gone something like this: "Hey Pete, what you said today about filling Judas's position -- Psalm 69 says "May their place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in their tents." That's the exact opposite of what you argued today! Why not just stand on Psalm 109? You feelin' OK?"

 

[Marymog]

Will explain but rather hesitantly since you don't seem like the type of person with whom I can have a decent conversation.

However, I'd appreciate a reply.
What is files aliena?
Never heard of it and little time to look it up or ask someone.

Fides aliena is the parent's faith/belief is passed to the infant.

 

[Marymog]

I don't know whether the Apostles quibbled with Peter's invocation of Psalm 69 here or not. Do you?

YES, I do: 24 Then they prayed and said, ‘Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which one of these two you have chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.’ 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.

No quibbling. THEY all prayed, and THEY cast lots. Not Peter alone, ALL of them.

 

[GodsGrace]

Fides aliena is the parent's faith/belief is passed to the infant.

No. It's not that----which can't even be true.
However, it does maybe have something to do with it.
Must leave for a while....

 

[RedFan]

YES, I do: 24 Then they prayed and said, ‘Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which one of these two you have chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.’ 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.

No quibbling. THEY all prayed, and THEY cast lots. Not Peter alone, ALL of them.

Of course. What they did is clear from the text. What they thought of Peter's reference to Psalm 69 is not. And we both know it says the opposite of what Peter invoked it for.

 

[Taken]

Fourth, here some more Scripture citations, followed by a brief exegesis, for you to ignore:

TYPICAL…
Snarky remark.

TYPICAL…
Ignorance…”cherry picking” scriptures that APPLY to YOU…Identifying the Scripture BY Book, Chapter, Verse….but writing your own word, according to YOUR limited spiritual understanding and attempting to APPLY them to others.

I am not subject to YOUR limited Understanding.

IV. Jesus’ Teaching on Losing Salvation​

Matt. 7:18 – Jesus says that sound trees bear good fruit. But there is no guarantee that a sound tree will stay sound. It could go rotten.

I am not a tree.

Matt. 7:21 – all those who say “Lord, Lord” on the last day will not be saved. They are judged by their evil deeds.

Every many IS JUDGED…the saved and unsaved.
EACH will have WORKS that did not glorify God and those works shall be burned.

Matt. 12:30-32 – Jesus says that he who is not with Him is against Him, therefore (the Greek for “therefore” is “dia toutos” which means “through this”) blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. This means that failing to persevere in Jesus’ grace to the end is the unforgivable sin against the Spirit. We must persevere in faith to the end of our lives.

Correct…No hope of fence sitting. One is either WITH Him or WITHOUT Him.
* While a man IS ALIVE in his FLESH, he can be with, without, with, without the Lord God.
And so ALSO, shall the Lord God be with, without, with, without that individual man.
(That Applies to you.)
* While a man IS ALIVE in his FLESH, he can PLEDGE the whole of his LIFE, body, soul, spirit unto BEING WITH the Lord God FOREVER…The Lord God, Searches the mans HEART, that the word of his Pledge be TRUE…
“IF” that mans PLEDGE be TRUE…”THAT” mans WHOLE life, body, soul, spirit “IS” Accepted by God…AND … Gods SPIRIT enters “THAT” man, dwells “WITHIN” “THAT” man and “THAT” man dwells “WITHIN” the risen body of Christ Jesus…(until the day that man’s OWN body is risen UP in it’s own glory)….
THIS ONE TIME act, BETWEEN the Lord God and “THAT” one man…SEALS FOREVER The Lord God and “THAT” man shall BE one “WITH” the other.
(This is called a man’s LIVING SACRIFICE).
THIS applies to me.

Matt. 22:14 – Jesus says many are called but few are chosen. This man, who was destined to grace, was at God’s banquet, but was cast out.

Correct…FOR ONE to BE forever with another….REQUIRES the “TWO” to BE IN AN AGREEMENT based IN TRUTH.

Luke 8:13 – Jesus teaches that some people receive the word with joy, but they have no root, believe for a while, and then fall away in temptation. They had the faith but they lost it.

Correct…Some men can RECEIVE the hearing, the reading of the word of the Invisible God…and feel joy in the hope of His words, while others dismiss to believe what they can not see…and some begin to believe in the hope, encounter a hardship, reject the hope…BECAUSE THEY FAILED to recognize the Perfect Peace God Offers, is in a Spiritual Life…NOT a Moral life.

Luke 12:42-46 – we can start out as a faithful and wise steward, then fall away and be assigned to a place with the unfaithful.

Of course. FAITH is a trusting BELIEF…IN Something. God never PROMISED to “MAKE” a mans NATURAL FLESH “PERFECT”… So when a mans “Natural flesh” suffers a hardship…men IGNORANT of what God DID PROMISE…boo hoo…reject the invisible God…and LOOK for something “tangible” to put their BELIEF and TRUST IN.

Luke 15:11-32 – in the parable of the prodigal son, we learn that we can be genuine sons of the Father, then leave home and die, then return and be described as “alive again.”

The prodigal son, did not DIE. He left the fathers home, Unprepared IN Godly Knowledge, squandered his inheritance on foolish behaviors and lustful desires and ended up with…nothing…broke, that even other people/women did not desire him…without God, whom he himself left behind …
AND…? Returned to his dad, whom the son could NOW SEE, putting God FIRST, (as did his dad)…then shall God bless and continue to bless a man with needs.

John 6:70-71 – Jesus chose or elected twelve, yet one of them, Judas, fell. Not all those predestined to grace persevere to the end.

Correct… CALLING is a Two WAY necessity.
The Lord CALLS…He CALLS MANY. He CALLED TWELVE…
ELEVEN CALLED BACK to the Lord.
ONE did Not Call Back to the Lord.

John 15:1-10 – we can be in Jesus (a branch on the vine), and then if we don’t bear fruit, are cut off, wither up and die. Paul makes this absolutely clear in Rom. 11:20-23.

Correct. You want the comparison view…
A Literal shell with a seed is planted in Dirt.
The shell Opens (dying) and a seed is revealed.
The seed IN dirt begins growing, developing, sprouts roots in the dirt.
The plants springs forth above the dirt.
The plant develops buds.
The buds begins growing fruit.
The ROOTS feeds the plant.
The ROOTS spread out in search of NUTRIENTS to send forth up to the plant.
“IF” and “WHEN” the dirt is Depleted of Nutrients…the Roots will begin to wither, the plant will begin to wither, the fruit will begin to wither…and BECOME DEAD, and of NO USE for the benefit of the man to eat and receive necessary nutrients to sustain his body of flesh.

Spiritually it is a parallel to man … who begins “TASTING” the Word of God…(ie the GOOD FRUIT of God)…mmmm yummy…yum yum mans taste buds in his mouth….BUT WAIT…
Oooh….some of Gods Words (Fruit) are SCARY…Some of Gods Words REQUIRE a “COMMITMENT”….IF one chooses TO go beyond “TASTING”….and “EAT” Gods words….GEE…For some…
The “TASTING” is not bad…but..but…but..”IF” I “EAT”…. what exactly do I have to give up “eating”….that my FLESH desires?
…..For some…Chocolate?, Coffee?, Daily case of Beer?Whipped cream smeared on the naked bodies of random available whores?, Sopping my bread on the blood of a rare cut of beef?.
….For some…GEE….I don’t think, I am ready to commit to “EATING” what the Lord provides…When there are SOOOOO many choices, that manKIND provides…with NO nutrimental value, but tastes good and eating is satisfying… seriously…it’s SO COOL…men can mix chemical compounds that does not even require dirt, roots, plants and all that effort… ya individual have choices.

 

[Taken]

@Jude Thaddeus
John 17:12 – we can be given to Jesus by the Father (predestined to grace) and yet not stay with Jesus, like Judas.

Your understanding of “predestiny” is obtuse.
Predestiny IS God KNOWS ALL THINGS.
He CALLS whom He wills.
He ALREADY KNOWS who (and when) will and will not CALL Him.

John 6:37 – those who continue to come to Jesus He won’t cast out. But it’s a continuous, ongoing action. We can leave Jesus and He will allow this because He respects our free will.

Of course Gods OFFERING is ongoing…
NOT a big secret, men continue being naturally born…
SILLY…
Ya think Gods OFFERING…ENDED because You were naturally born…and NO future born men have the SAME OFFERING FROM God?

OF course YOU can exercise your FREEWILL to BELIEVE…and exercise your FREEWILL to stop BELIEVING…

You CAN exercise your FREEWILL to CALL ON THE Lords Name…DO IT….RIGHT NOW…CALL on His NAME…it’s JESUS…
AND TELL Him, YOU TRUELY Heartfully BELIEVE IN Him and PLEDGE by your TRUE WORD to Surrender your whole LIFE, body, soul, spirit UNTO Him…

And THEN…in a day, a year, 10 years….CALL on Him AGAIN…and give HIM AGAIN your TRUE WORD…that YOU denounce BELIEVING IN Him.

LOL…seriously…YOU THINK the FIRST TIME you CALLED on the “ALL Knowing Lord”…YOU FOOLED Him…and HE gave YOU, A LIAR, His Gift of Salvation?

The ONLY one being FOOLED and a FOOL is staring back at you in your mirror.

John 6:39 – Jesus will not lose those the Father gives Him, but we can fall away, like Judas. God allows us not to persevere.

Good Grief…ALL these Scriptures that YOU drench yourself in, that APPLIES to YOU…
DO not apply to me…OR anyone else WHO has Honestly Accepted the Lords OFFERING and called on the Lord giving THEIR TRUTHFUL Word of Surrendering their WHOLE, body, soul, spirit unto His Offering, His Promise, His Care, His POWER, His Trust, His Keeping that individual WITH Him Forever.

John 6:40 – everyone who sees the Son and believes means the person “continues” to believe. By continuing to believe, the person will persevere and will be raised up. Belief also includes obedience, which is more than an intellectual belief in God.

ya, ya…nothing new. IF YOU, or any other not in spiritual understanding of Gods Offering and Power…BELIEVES…and by his OWN POWER (without Gods POWER “IN” him)…
CAN (despite the roaming influential powers of cunning evil spirits…AND the influential powers of wicked men) Continue BELIEVING to the DAY your BODY drops Physically DEAD….WELL…THEN “shall” the Lord God “GIVE you” His gift of Salvation…and Raise your body UP…in glory…AFTER Christ Jesus’ 1,000 year reign…

See…God raises UP those who BODILY DIE Believing “IN” JESUS.

1 Thes 4:
[14] For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

See…WHEN Gods raises UP BODIES that have DIED believing IN JESUS.

Rev 20:
[5] But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Bored with all the Scriptures you list which applies to you and others who think making a FALSE commitment to the Lord is mans FREEWILL cleverness that FOOLS and TRICKS the All knowing Lord God into giving a man His Gift of salvation.

Taken, stop making a fool of yourself with your "carnal mind" mantra, your favorite escape phrase when you get caught lying.

LOL…seriously you think someone such as yourself who PREACHES God LIES when He GIVES His GIFT of Eternal LIFE to a man…that God meant “ETERNAL” means it ALL Dependent on “IF” the man exercises his FREEWILL and CHANGES “his MIND”…

DUH…God DIDN’T ACCEPT your FREEWILL Carnal MINDED “confession”…to begin with!

So have at it…Exercise your freewill…change your mind…

Guess you haven’t LEARNED…A Confession made TO the Lord…IS Spiritual…NOT Carnal.

And ONCE a Spiritual CONFESSION IS MADE…duh…that OLD SPIRIT DIes…and a NEW Spirit is born…

SO smarty pants…DO TELL How an OLD, DEAD SPIRIT OF a MAN…”calls on the Lord to tell Him He has been rejected”…

 

[GodsGrace]

Fides aliena is the parent's faith/belief is passed to the infant.

The church always baptized infants from most probably the time of the Apostles.
Jesus commanded that everyone was to be baptized....for the forgiveness of sins and, with Jesus' baptism, with fire and power.
But always for the forgiveness of sins.

Babies are born with the sin nature, or concupiscense as Catholics call it, but they are not born with sin.
Or are they?

So now, back to the beginning, and here is why babies were baptized:

“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]).
Ireneaus of Lyon



Moreover, belief in divine Scripture declares to us, that among all, whether infants or those who are older, there is the same equality of the divine gift. Elisha, beseeching God, so laid himself upon the infant son of the widow, who was lying dead, that his head was applied to his head, and his face to his face, and the limbs of Elisha were spread over and joined to each of the limbs of the child, and his feet to his feet. If this thing be considered with respect to the inequality of our birth and our body, an infant could not be made equal with a person grown up and mature, nor could its little limbs fit and be equal to the larger limbs of a man. But in that is expressed the divine and spiritual equality, that all men are like and equal, since they have once been made by God; and our age may have a difference in the increase of our bodies, according to the world, but not according to God; unless that very grace also which is given to the baptized is given either less or more, according to the age of the receivers, whereas the Holy Spirit is not given with measure, but by the love and mercy of the Father alike to all. For God, as He does not accept the person, so does not accept the age; since He shows Himself Father to all with well-weighed equality for the attainment of heavenly grace.
Cyprius

There are more writings but I have little time.
Basically infants were baptized so that they could recieve the blessings from God that baptism gives, to invite them to the Christian commuity, Cyprian went on to say this in the above.

It must be remembered that Christians comprised whole communities and that they felt very much a part of this community and that the chidlren should also be a part, not only physically but spiritually. Christians were persecuted but were devoted to their faith and parents had the full intention of raising their children as Christians.

Something that has been lost.

After Augustine....
This is why infants were baptized:

“[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]).
Council of Mileum II

Original sin always existed in the church.
It was understood to be an effect of the sin of Adam, which caused death to all men.
Augustine taught that original sin was the actual sin of Adam imputed to all mankind, and so as soon
as the baby is born.

But the bible teaches that we are guilty only of our own sin...
not the sin of others.

This imputation of the sin makes all babies born guilty and so baptism is no longer a grace giving sacrament, but become absolutely necessary because, if the infant dies, he will not see heaven. Revelation 23.

So infants were always baptized....
but for different reasons.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You have claimed repeatedly that born again men can lose their Salvation…

You have posted repeatedly the Same Scriptures as “proof”…which NONE of your posted Scriptures verify your claim…

Nothing new…

WRONG.

Aking with the other DOZEN or so Scriptural warnings I gave you - I have shown you the following verses a well. So far, you have FEILED to address what they mean:

Rev. 3:5
He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels.

God cannot blot out a name that was never there in the first place. He is talking about CHRISTIANS who are already saved and how they can LOSE their salvation.


Rev. 22:19
And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

How can God “take away” somebody’s “share” of heaven if they never had it to begin with? This is about CHRISTIANS who may or may NOT make it into Heaven.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I explained why the Pope of Rome had preeminence over the other Popes.

I can't help it if you don't know, or understand, church history.

Pope of Rome??
What "other" Popes??

Thhe anti-Popes that arose during the early centuries were NOT Popes.
They were self-appointed counterfeits.

I'm emarrassed for you.
Do your homework . . .

 

[GodsGrace]

Pope of Rome??
What "other" Popes??

Thhe anti-Popes that arose during the early centuries were NOT Popes.
They were self-appointed counterfeits.

I'm emarrassed for you.
Do your homework . . .

Ditto.

I can't help it if you don't know church history.
You should learn and stop lying about Peter being The First Pope.

Not historical.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Ditto.

I can't help it if you don't know church history.
You should learn and stop lying about Peter being The First Pope.

Not historical.

It's absolutely historical - and I've provided the documented evidence.
If you think I'm wrong - then REFUTE me.

If you hsve documnted evidence for your claims - let's HAVE it.
So far - ALL you've been able to do is vomit out denials and riddles . . .

 

[Marymog]

The church always baptized infants from most probably the time of the Apostles.
Jesus commanded that everyone was to be baptized....for the forgiveness of sins and, with Jesus' baptism, with fire and power.
But always for the forgiveness of sins.

Babies are born with the sin nature, or concupiscense as Catholics call it, but they are not born with sin.
Or are they?

So now, back to the beginning, and here is why babies were baptized:

“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]).
Ireneaus of Lyon



Moreover, belief in divine Scripture declares to us, that among all, whether infants or those who are older, there is the same equality of the divine gift. Elisha, beseeching God, so laid himself upon the infant son of the widow, who was lying dead, that his head was applied to his head, and his face to his face, and the limbs of Elisha were spread over and joined to each of the limbs of the child, and his feet to his feet. If this thing be considered with respect to the inequality of our birth and our body, an infant could not be made equal with a person grown up and mature, nor could its little limbs fit and be equal to the larger limbs of a man. But in that is expressed the divine and spiritual equality, that all men are like and equal, since they have once been made by God; and our age may have a difference in the increase of our bodies, according to the world, but not according to God; unless that very grace also which is given to the baptized is given either less or more, according to the age of the receivers, whereas the Holy Spirit is not given with measure, but by the love and mercy of the Father alike to all. For God, as He does not accept the person, so does not accept the age; since He shows Himself Father to all with well-weighed equality for the attainment of heavenly grace.
Cyprius

There are more writings but I have little time.
Basically infants were baptized so that they could recieve the blessings from God that baptism gives, to invite them to the Christian commuity, Cyprian went on to say this in the above.

It must be remembered that Christians comprised whole communities and that they felt very much a part of this community and that the chidlren should also be a part, not only physically but spiritually. Christians were persecuted but were devoted to their faith and parents had the full intention of raising their children as Christians.

Something that has been lost.

After Augustine....
This is why infants were baptized:

“[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]).
Council of Mileum II

Original sin always existed in the church.
It was understood to be an effect of the sin of Adam, which caused death to all men.
Augustine taught that original sin was the actual sin of Adam imputed to all mankind, and so as soon
as the baby is born.

But the bible teaches that we are guilty only of our own sin...
not the sin of others.

This imputation of the sin makes all babies born guilty and so baptism is no longer a grace giving sacrament, but become absolutely necessary because, if the infant dies, he will not see heaven. Revelation 23.

So infants were always baptized....
but for different reasons.

Thanks GG.

In regards to what Irenaeus wrote: “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...
Baptism, thru water and Spirit, is how one is "reborn in God"! When one is baptized their sins are washed away (Acts 22:16). With that said it is possible that Irenaeus is saying that an infant's sin is washed away at baptism.

Here is MORE from Cyprius that, for some reason, you didn't quote: “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” [A.D. 253].

You even said there are more writings, but you have little time. Well GG, those more writings prove your wrong:
“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” (Origen, Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Gregory of Nazianz“ Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. [A.D. 388])​

Council of Carthage V“ 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]).​

Soooooo GG, notice how all these things were written BEFORE your alleged evidence of Augustine changing the reason The Church changed its reason for baptizing infants. But like you said, there were more writings and you had little time to present those writings. Why did you not present those writings GG. Probably because those writings prove you wrong?

Mary