Thinkingstuff
Active Member
You face the following problems with your litmus test. 1) No where in scriptures does it speak out against infant baptistm. 2) The New Testament connects baptism to circumcision which both are the symbols of the covenant God has with man. Col 2:11-13. Since the OT foreshadows the New and circumcision was required of infants and circumcision is related to the covenant of baptism it simply follows that infants can be baptized. And we know from the ECF long before the 4th century that infant baptism was common among the christian churches. This quote from Ireneaus proves the pointThe litmus test for all of the strawman arguements thus far: Do you baptize your infants? Why or why not?
3) Your "litmus test" isn't applied evenly to all Christians or Christian denominations. Lutherans practice infant baptism, Methodist, Presbyterian and other reformed churches. These other groups you would hardly challenge as to the authenticity of their Christianity or the "gospel" which they preach. Therefore your "litmus test" isn't really any such thing. Its just a special "test" that for you only applies to Catholics whereas another denomination who has a similar practice is quickly over looked as just a misunderstanding. Where their Christianity isn't even called into question. Therefore you have exemplified not a "litmus test" but a bona fide prejudiced accusation in which prejudice is defined as"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]).
(1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge (and) an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics
As I've just shown you this is a falacious statement when 1) Scripture no where speaks against infant baptism and 2) We see as early as Ireneaus more than two hundred years before your supposed "shows up in the 4th century as apostates joining forces with paganized Imperial Rome". And not him alone. Archeolgical and historical evidence shows that infant baptism in Christian churches were common practice long before Constantine. Also if you study history you will find Pegan Rome Never allied itself with Christians. In fact Pagan Rome was thoroughly over thrown by Christians.Baptismal regeneration is the heresy which got most of the apostates started early in the history of New Testament Churches. This shows up in the 4th century as apostates joining forces(more at they were given special privileges)with paganized Imperial Rome.
If you knew history you know that this was an entirely different animal whose lands and Government weren't even Roman But Frankish the forerunners of the Germans and French countries.Later there was the "Holy Roman Empire".
At least you were charitable to call Catholics Christians though with the "nominal" discriptifier.These apostates are still headquartered in Rome and they are still defining nominal Christianity.
Yes, and will be so again.Rome has been reformed and reformed,
Which is something you fail to prove. Scriptures to which you hail as your sole testament of instruction to practices of faith does not speak out against infant baptism. So you must be relying on some other authoritative source for your citicism. And neither do you condemn other Christians who practice this same infant baptism. And in fact the Baptist practice of "baby dedication" alludes to the ancient practice of infant baptism. Because deep down baptist know this is a covenant issue which they are responsible for the rearing of their Children in the Faith to which they will when the child is ready - give that faith to the Child.but baptismal regeneration is still the leaven which pervades her daughters as well. This is still a false gospel worthy of anathema according to the Apostle Paul. They are bringing another gospel.
And interesting to note that this was during the reformation not in the 4th century.Read the history of anti-pedobaptists--the ones who died refusing to baptize their infants. They were among those called heretics in the Inquisitions. "Recant or die." Not many recanted.
Clearly.How soon we forget
Amen.Even so, come Lord Jesus.