Make a list of all your Anabaptist's doctrines, you will not find that combo in the Early Church Fat

[Daniel Marsh]

Make a list of all your Anabaptist's doctrines, you will not find that combo in the Early Church Fathers, Whom the Apostles taught. Yes, this is a challenge!!!

I will even give you a head start, Christian History | Page 1 of 1
Books on Early Christianity | Page 1 of 1

 

[Halbhh]

I only know that 5-second version of 'anabaptist', like the thumbnail version: "Anabaptists believe that baptism is valid only when the candidate confesses his or her faith in Christ and wants to be baptized. This believer's baptism is opposed to baptism of infants, who are not able to make a conscious decision to be baptized."
In which case I suppose one such would point to following the teaching from the Early Church 'father' Peter, in Acts 2:38, yes? It's not really controversial to suggest a person should make a choice to follow Christ, at some point or another. In our local church, with infant baptism, we do that same goal -- to make a choice to follow Christ -- with "confirmation", around which an emphasized teaching here is "remember your baptism", and the 'confirmation' actually is understood to mean 'confirmation of baptism' specifically: it's baptism that is being 'confirmed'. Going way back in time to the anabaptists, of which I only have the scantest history, knowing they were persecuted, and that's about it, it seems to me that in effect, it's like the anabaptists were saying, to rephrase: one must confess their faith in Christ, and thus be then born of the Spirit (John 3:5). What brings 'anabaptist' to mind for you? It might be best if you wish to challenge a Baptist church to recognize infant baptism, that you go to some length to explain it more instead. (I've never attended a baptist church past 1 visit to 1 or 2 of them, from curiosity. It was mostly like any other church (including Catholic) in the sound of the sermon). Interestingly to me, here this local church (not a denomination I grew up in myself) actually has water in a basin, in which some will dip their finger and touch their forehead, as it were, remembering or repeating or something their baptism. (I myself was baptized about age 11 or so, in another denomination).

 

[Major1]

Make a list of all your Anabaptist's doctrines, you will not find that combo in the Early Church Fathers, Whom the Apostles taught. Yes, this is a challenge!!!

I will even give you a head start, Christian History | Page 1 of 1
Books on Early Christianity | Page 1 of 1

I do not know what you are asking or looking for, however, here is a link to their doctrines...……..Anabaptists: Faith, Beliefs, Doctrines, Practices

 

[Major1]

Make a list of all your Anabaptist's doctrines, you will not find that combo in the Early Church Fathers, Whom the Apostles taught. Yes, this is a challenge!!!

I will even give you a head start, Christian History | Page 1 of 1
Books on Early Christianity | Page 1 of 1

A Baptist church that baptizes "infants" really is not a Baptist church. It may have "Baptist" in its name but not in its theology as Infant Baptism is not found in the Bible.....
NO, not even ONE TIME.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Make a list of all your Anabaptist's doctrines, you will not find that combo in the Early Church Fathers, Whom the Apostles taught. Yes, this is a challenge!!!

Not all of the ecf agreed with the Apostles, and likewise the ecf writings are often contradictory to the Scripture according to Anabaptists and some other groups/ believers, so we need to do as Jesus and the Apostles lived and did, trust God, stick with Scripture, and don't move away from Scripture. (don't accept what is not in line with Scripture, no matter where it comes from (like I suspect the links in the op at least have to be tested and proven true BEFORE accepting anything in them.... but I don't think anything in them is required for any believer to read today ) .....

 

[Major1]

Not all of the ecf agreed with the Apostles, and likewise the ecf writings are often contradictory to the Scripture according to Anabaptists and some other groups/ believers, so we need to do as Jesus and the Apostles lived and did, trust God, stick with Scripture, and don't move away from Scripture. (don't accept what is not in line with Scripture, no matter where it comes from (like I suspect the links in the op at least have to be tested and proven true BEFORE accepting anything in them.... but I don't think anything in them is required for any believer to read today ) .....

Ding, ding, ding...….we have a winner!

 

[D.A. Wright]

The idea that an infant can affirm faith by involuntary participation in an ordinance that is, by very definition, incorrectly administered is the height of absurdity. I don't care if the "early church fathers" decreed that peanut butter and jelly belong on the outside of the bread rather than in-between. Perhaps this is why the apostles used the word "baptizo" which literally meant to submerge or bury--a thing no one would wish to do with their helpless little ones. And perhaps that's why Pharoah's army was drowned (rather than splashed upon), assuring their consignment to the deep.

The OP seems to subsist largely upon some sense of delight in indulging in logical fallacies of the "red herring," "appeal to authority," and "appeal to ignorance" types, with a few "straw men" thrown in here and there for good measure.

 

[ViaCrucis]

a thing no one would wish to do with their helpless little ones.

God instructed the Israelites to literally cut off part of the penis of their male infants. Are you really going to argue that getting wet is any more potentially harmful to a child than cutting off the foreskin?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BobRyan]

The idea that an infant can affirm faith by involuntary participation in an ordinance that is, by very definition, incorrectly administered is the height of absurdity. I don't care if the "early church fathers" decreed that peanut butter and jelly belong on the outside of the bread rather than in-between. Perhaps this is why the apostles used the word "baptizo" which literally meant to submerge or bury--a thing no one would wish to do with their helpless little ones. And perhaps that's why Pharoah's army was drowned (rather than splashed upon), assuring their consignment to the deep.

The OP seems to subsist largely upon some sense of delight in indulging in logical fallacies of the "red herring," "appeal to authority," and "appeal to ignorance" types, with a few "straw men" thrown in here and there for good measure.

Thanks for sharing that

 

[D.A. Wright]

God instructed the Israelites to literally cut off part of the penis of their male infants. Are you really going to argue that getting wet is any more potentially harmful to a child than cutting off the foreskin?

-CryptoLutheran

Yes, drowning a baby would be worse than cutting off their foreskin. Although, since we are under no command to do either today, I'm not sure I follow your "straw man" argument.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yes, drowning a baby would be worse than cutting off their foreskin. Although, since we are under no command to do either today, I'm not sure I follow your "straw man" argument.

You may find it beneficial to go and look up the definition of what a straw man argument is. As you've done a marvelous job of presenting one.

Your argument was it is cruel to baptize children. I noted that, under God's covenant established with the Jews it was required of them to circumcise their male children. As such I made a comparison, that physically removing part of the sexual organ is certainly more severe than getting a child wet--and yet there is no outrage against this practice. That isn't a straw man, that is making a comparison to another biblical practice for the purpose of comparison of severity.

What you've done here, on the other hand, is absolutely a straw man. You have constructed a position I do not subscribe to (drowning babies) and then knocking it down.

Since nobody in the Christian Church advocates drowning children your argument is a straw man--it is fallacious and invalid.

Would you consider it a valid argument to say that circumcision is the slaughtering of a child? Of course not.

So how about you present an actual response.

On the other hand, if you actually believe that Christians drown their children, then perhaps we can work on correcting that absurd notion.

-CryptoLuthern

 

[D.A. Wright]

My original argument was that an infant is quite incapable of making a public profession of faith (the essence of the ordinance of baptism). The remark about completely submerging them in water (which goes a little further than merely "getting wet") was a sarcastic (but true) aside. Many people are dreadfully fearful of baptism by immersion (the kind implied by the word "baptizo" used in the Bible) because they know that one drop of water in the lungs can result in a drowning. According to the Scripture, the proper physical procedure for baptism would be "potentially harmful" to infants. Moreso than, say circumcision, the modern practice of which is approved by the AMA and performed daily upon thousands, as a medical recommendation to aid in improving lifelong hygiene. As I was careful to say that neither are commanded by God to modern believers, I fail to see the straw man.

On the other hand, using the example of a defunct ordinance to justify a grossly improper application of a truly binding one is, indeed, a straw man among straw men. And I somehow feel quite justified in asserting that without looking anything up.

 

[D.A. Wright]

In anticipation of decriers of circumcision,
Here is what WebMD.com has to say:

What are the benefits of circumcision?

There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits, including:

• A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
• A reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men.
• Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.
• Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
• Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).

Circumcision also makes it easier to keep the end of the penis clean.

Note: Some studies show that good hygiene can help prevent certain problems with the penis, including infections and swelling, even if the penis is not circumcised. In addition, using a condom during sex will help prevent STDs and other infections.


What are the risks of circumcision?
Like any surgical procedure, there are risks associated with circumcision. However, this risk is low. Problems associated with circumcision include:

• Pain
• Risk of bleeding and infection at the site of the circumcision
• Irritation of the glans
• Increased risk of meatitis (inflammation of the opening of the penis)
• Risk of injury to the penis

 

[ViaCrucis]

My original argument was that an infant is quite incapable of making a public profession of faith (the essence of the ordinance of baptism).

Except, of course, the essence of Baptism isn't a public profession of faith. The essence of Baptism is that through it we joined to Jesus Christ, joined to His death, buried with Him, and then given new life with Him; having received new birth, forgiveness of sins, and new life. John 3:5, Acts 2:38, Romans 6:3-4, Galatians 3:27, Colossians 2:11-12, Titus 3:5.

The remark about completely submerging them in water (which goes a little further than merely "getting wet") was a sarcastic (but true) aside. Many people are dreadfully fearful of baptism by immersion (the kind implied by the word "baptizo" used in the Bible) because they know that one drop of water in the lungs can result in a drowning. According to the Scripture, the proper physical procedure for baptism would be "potentially harmful" to infants. Moreso than, say circumcision, the modern practice of which is approved by the AMA and performed daily upon thousands, as a medical recommendation to aid in improving lifelong hygiene. As I was careful to say that neither are commanded by God to modern believers, I fail to see the straw man.

On the other hand, using the example of a defunct ordinance to justify a grossly improper application of a truly binding one is, indeed, a straw man among straw men. And I somehow feel quite justified in asserting that without looking anything up.

Seeing as 1) Baptism does not require a full immersion nor is that implied by the word itself (in spite of protests by certain Neo-Protestants to the contrary) and that 2) There is no risk of injuring the child then this whole "Won't someone think of the children!?" response is nothingness.

Human infants have the mammalian diving reflex. There is an instinctive reflex to hold one's breath, kick, paddle.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[D.A. Wright]

The "Won't someone think of the children?" straw man now appears to be using steroids.

Neo-Prorestantism and mystical rituals and mammalian diving reflexes, Oh, My!!!

 

[ViaCrucis]

The "Won't someone think of the children?" straw man now appears to be using steroids.

Neo-Prorestantism and mystical rituals and mammalian diving reflexes, Oh, My!!!

It would appear that you don't actually have a valid argument against the historic Christian practice of baptizing our children. And this has largely been an exercise in futility.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[D.A. Wright]

It would appear that you don't actually have a valid argument against the historic Christian practice of baptizing our children. And this has largely been an exercise in futility.

-CryptoLutheran

Only the Biblical one. Sorry.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Only the Biblical one. Sorry.

Such as these?

"Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, 'Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.'" - Luke 18:15-17

"Go and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit and instructing them in all which I have told you. See, I am with you always, even unto the end of the age." - Matthew 28:19-20

"And Peter said to them, 'Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.'" - Acts of the Apostles 2:38-39

"Then he brought them out and said, 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?' And they said, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.' And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God." - Acts of the Apostles 16:30-34

- Christ insists on not forbidding children from coming to Him, but that we should bring our children to Him. We do this by bringing them to Christ in Baptism, for Christ is there in Baptism as we read in Scripture, "All of you who were baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Galatians 3:27) and that we have received a spiritual circumcision and have been buried with Christ in Baptism, "In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead." (Colossians 2:11-12) So that all who are baptized are of Christ, for Christ is here in Baptism.

- The promises of God attached to Baptism are not merely for us, but also for our children, as St. Peter said, "For the promise is for you and for your children" for the calling of God is to us, our children, and to all. For this reason the Church preaches the Gospel and administers the Sacraments. As the Apostle has written in his epistle to the Romans, "How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent?" (Romans 10:14)

- So the Church goes forth with the word on her lips to the nations, doing as Christ commanded, preaching the Gospel and making disciples, baptizing them, and instructing them in what Christ has told us. We bring this word to those who have not heard, and we preach this to our children; and we invite all, impartially, to the waters of Baptism. We do not deny God's mercy and grace, we do not deprive our children of the Gospel, but obey Christ's command to preach the Gospel and to baptize. That is His command to His Church.

- When the Spirit works faith in the unbelieving, we do not then turn them away, but welcome them. We do not turn away their children, but welcome them. We do not reject those for whom Christ came, but welcome them. We declare the gates of the Church open, and proclaim all are welcome here in these precious waters, for here in Word and Sacrament Christ is present, and Christ is given.

So the command and promise of God is this: The command is to preach the Gospel and to baptize; and the promise is that God shows no impartiality but rather all sinners are welcome here, for God desires the salvation of all, and Christ has accomplished this for all. And so all have a place at God's Table. For God's Table is peace, for the young and for the old, for the poor and for the rich, for the weak and for the strong. Widow and orphan, homeless, hungry, thirsty, clothed and unclothed, slave and free, male and female. Christ's Table is for all. The invitation to the Banquet of the Lamb has gone forth and to all, and all are welcomed, all are invited, all have a seat at this Table. We deny none, for Christ denies none.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[D.A. Wright]

Such as these?

No, not these.

"Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, 'Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.'" - Luke 18:15-17

Laying on of hands is not baptism.

"Go and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit and instructing them in all which I have told you. See, I am with you always, even unto the end of the age." - Matthew 28:19-20

This is the Great Commission and has nothing to do with the improper baptizing of babies, who can hardly be discipled, and taught the ways of Christ.

"And Peter said to them, 'Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.'" - Acts of the Apostles 2:38-39

Not all children are babies, and babies can't be convicted of sin and repent.

"Then he brought them out and said, 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?' And they said, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.' And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God." - Acts of the Apostles 16:30-34

Were there babies that rejoiced that he had believed in God?

(-Cut to the chase-)
No amount of tradition, loose proof-texting, and mental gymnastics are going to negate the fact that:

1. Babies shouldn't be immersed in water.
2. No immersion - no baptisma
3. Babies can't repent.
4. Babies can't profess faith
5. Babies can't begin discipleship.
6. Babies aren't held accountable for sin. (James 4:17)

My understanding is that baptism is an outward sign (rite) of an inward condition (conversion), which would be a counterintuitive, at best, at the infancy stage of human development.

You are, of course, free to believe as you wish. I, however, will not concede to it.
-

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I have attended baby baptism, it is more like protestant dedication.