• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Is there any historical evidence for the Baptist position on Baptism?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Thinkingstuff

Active Member
[/COLOR]

So the assumption of mary, the sacramentalism, the immaculate conception, saints interceding for us etc are ALL in the scriptures themselves?

You believe in the assumption of Enoch and Elijah. You believe God can sanctify an object like the ark of the covenant which held the presence of God. Why not a person who held the very presense of God with in her. Revelation speaks about saints interceding for us
the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints
 

Michael Wrenn

New Member
You believe in the assumption of Enoch and Elijah. You believe God can sanctify an object like the ark of the covenant which held the presence of God. Why not a person who held the very presense of God with in her. Revelation speaks about saints interceding for us

Which of the following has a scriptural basis, and which does not? (1) The assumption of Enoch and Elijah, (2) The assumption of Mary.
 

Zenas

Active Member
Which of the following has a scriptural basis, and which does not? (1) The assumption of Enoch and Elijah, (2) The assumption of Mary.
In Revelation 12:1 she is in Heaven wearing a crown. She had to get there somehow. It sure looks like an assumption to me.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
In Revelation 12:1 she is in Heaven wearing a crown. She had to get there somehow. It sure looks like an assumption to me.
Revelation 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

Revelation 12:2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

Revelation 12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

Revelation 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

Revelation 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
--There is no woman clothed with the sun and with a crown of twelve stars in heaven.
Revelation is an apocalyptic book with many symbols written in symbolic language. It requires the interpretive skills of the reader to discern which parts are to be taken literally and which are not, just as in the parables of Jesus. The woman represents Mary, but Mary is figurative and not in heaven. The resurrection has not happened yet, and Mary doesn't look like that.

Furthermore, in verse two Mary has already given birth to Christ. Obviously this is a history, though all the facts are not chronologically in order. It is written as a story.

In verse three, there is no dragon in heaven. The dragon obviously represents Satan.

In verse four, the story takes us back to an event that happened sometime in the garden of Eden but in heaven when Satan rebelled against God and took one third of the angels with him. Lucifer, that great angelic being fell.
It also gives his purpose--to devour or defeat the Christ, as soon as he was born, referring to the slaughter of infants by Herod.

In verse five the narrative returns to the birth of Christ. That is not happening in heaven. It has already happened. It immediately refers to his rule in the Millennial Kingdom, an event yet to come, a time when Christ will rule the world with a rod of iron. And then the last part of the verse refers to the ascension.
There is no woman with a crown of 12 stars in heaven!
 
In Revelation 12:1 she is in Heaven wearing a crown. She had to get there somehow. It sure looks like an assumption to me.
Revelation 12:1 does NOT describe Mary. Revelation 12 describes Israel at the heart of God’s program and the devil’s hatred toward her.

There is no scriptural proof of the assumption of Mary...nor is Mary Queen of Heaven. Although there is no Scripture describing her death, a more likely scenario would be that she died, was buried and her soul/spirit is present with the Lord. The last time Mary (mother of Jesus) is mentioned in Scripture is in Acts 1:14.
 

Zenas

Active Member
Revelation 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

Revelation 12:2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

Revelation 12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

Revelation 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

Revelation 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
--There is no woman clothed with the sun and with a crown of twelve stars in heaven.
Revelation is an apocalyptic book with many symbols written in symbolic language. It requires the interpretive skills of the reader to discern which parts are to be taken literally and which are not, just as in the parables of Jesus. The woman represents Mary, but Mary is figurative and not in heaven. The resurrection has not happened yet, and Mary doesn't look like that.

Furthermore, in verse two Mary has already given birth to Christ. Obviously this is a history, though all the facts are not chronologically in order. It is written as a story.

In verse three, there is no dragon in heaven. The dragon obviously represents Satan.

In verse four, the story takes us back to an event that happened sometime in the garden of Eden but in heaven when Satan rebelled against God and took one third of the angels with him. Lucifer, that great angelic being fell.
It also gives his purpose--to devour or defeat the Christ, as soon as he was born, referring to the slaughter of infants by Herod.

In verse five the narrative returns to the birth of Christ. That is not happening in heaven. It has already happened. It immediately refers to his rule in the Millennial Kingdom, an event yet to come, a time when Christ will rule the world with a rod of iron. And then the last part of the verse refers to the ascension.
There is no woman with a crown of 12 stars in heaven!
Actually, DHK, that is a pretty good explanation and it contains some things I had not considered before. I won't take issue with any of it except the last paragraph. I am amillennial in my outlook so I won't buy into the part about Christ in the millennial kingdom. Also, this woman, wherever she is, is clearly exalted. She stands above the moon, she is clothed with the sun and she wears a crown. It would be difficult to portray a figure with more honor than this woman has in Revelation 12:1.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
In Revelation 12:1 she is in Heaven wearing a crown. She had to get there somehow. It sure looks like an assumption to me.

that is the ole RCC interpreatation there!

Most would see it being either isreal or the Church, NOT mary!
 

Zenas

Active Member
Revelation 12:1 does NOT describe Mary. Revelation 12 describes Israel at the heart of God’s program and the devil’s hatred toward her.

There is no scriptural proof of the assumption of Mary...nor is Mary Queen of Heaven. Although there is no Scripture describing her death, a more likely scenario would be that she died, was buried and her soul/spirit is present with the Lord. The last time Mary (mother of Jesus) is mentioned in Scripture is in Acts 1:14.
Do you know if anyone has ever identified Mary's tomb or place of burial? If they had, don't you think it would be one of the most visited shrines in the world?
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Actually, DHK, that is a pretty good explanation and it contains some things I had not considered before. I won't take issus with any of it except the last paragraph. I am amillennial in my outlook so I won't buy into the part about Christ in the millennial kingdom. Also, this woman, wherever she is, is clearly exalted. She stands above the moon, she is clothed with the sun and she wears a crown. It would be difficult to portray a figure with more honor than this woman has in Revelation 12:1.

again, ONLY RCCwould see Mary being there! majority see it either isreal, my view, or the Church proper, Bride of Chrsit!
 
Do you know if anyone has ever identified Mary's tomb or place of burial? If they had, don't you think it would be one of the most visited shrines in the world?
Does anybody know where Moses is buried? There is a reason why God does not reveal such things to us. Worship of a burial place and making it a shrine, is idolatry!

If people knew where Mary's burial place was, there would be millions of Roman Catholics making "pilgrimages" to her gravesite, making it a shrine, and worshipping her corpse (which is probably a heap of bones now). That would be just one more way to "venerate" and "worship" Mary. That is probably the reason why God has not revealed to anyone where she is buried..."veneration" and "worship" of a dead saint....which is idolatry.

Since the Roman Catholic Church had to have some way to continue venerating and worshipping Mary, and since God did not reveal where her burial place is located, therefore the false doctrine of a "bodily" assumption (similar to the ascension of Jesus) had to be somehow "forced" into the RCC Tradition. There is no "bodily" assumption of any human into heaven found anywhere in Scriptures---except for the bodily ascension of Jesus Christ, 40 days after His resurrection in Acts 1:9, and Enoch (Genesis 5:18-24; Hebrews 11:5), and Elijah (2 Kings 2:9-13).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Wittenberger

New Member
Well I'm not yet a Catholic but, I am certainly closer to them than many of the baptists in our area (South Alabama). Therefore...

Baptism per the Early Church

The Didache

After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days (Didache 7:1 [ca. A.D. 70]).

Justin Martyr

As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father... and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven" (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).

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]).

Tertullian

[N]o one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, "Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life" (On Baptism 12:1 [A.D. 203]).

When we are about to enter the water — no, just a little before — In the church and under the hand of the bishop, we solemnly profess that we renounce the devil and his pomps and his angels. Thereupon we are immersed three times (The Crown 3:2 [A.D. 211]).

Hippolytus

Where there is no scarcity of water the stream shall flow through the baptismal font or pour into it from above; but if water is scarce, whether on a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available. Let them remove their clothing. 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]).

Recognitions of Clement

But you will perhaps say, 'What does the baptism of water contribute toward the worship of God?' In the first place, because that which has pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because when you are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so . . . you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For thus has the true prophet [Jesus] testified to us with an oath: "Verily, I say to you, that unless a man is born again of water . . . he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Recognitions of Clement 6:9 [A.D. 221]).

Origen

The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is 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]).

Cornelius I

As [the heretic Novatian] seemed about to die, he received baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring. . . . (Letter to Fabius of Antioch 6:43 [A.D. 251]).

Cyprian

[l]t behooves those to be baptized . . . so that they are prepared, in the lawful and true and only baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God . . . because it is written "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (Epistles 72 [73]: 21 [A.D. 252]).

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]).

In the saving sacraments, when necessity compels and when God bestows his pardon, divine benefits are bestowed fully upon believers, nor ought anyone be disturbed because the sick are poured upon or sprinkled when they receive the Lord's grace" (Letter to a Certain Magnus 69(76):12 [A.D. 254]).

Ambrose

The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ's blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed, he must circumcise himself from his sins [in baptism (Col. 2:11-12)] so that he can be saved . . . for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the sacrament of baptism.... "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (On Abraham 2:11:79-84 [A.D. 387]).

Augustine

It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated . . . when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, "Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents" or "by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him," but, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit." The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam (Letters 98:2 [A.D. 408]).

Well, there you go - and now let the love begin!

P.s. The reason you've gotten no historical proof from the Baptist side is because - THERE ISN'T ANY

WM

Excellent post, my friend. I was going to leave some of these quotes next, but I'm very happy that you did all the work for me!

When our Baptist brothers and sisters read the quotes from the early Christians that you have quoted above, I hope that they will keep this in mind: Constantine did not legalize Christianity until 300 AD, and it didn't become the state religion until years later, so any quote from above that occurred before 400 AD represented our early Christian forefathers who had not yet come under any authority by a Pope or an emperor.

If Baptists have statements from early Christians that support their belief that baptism is OUR act of public profession of faith, please share it with us.
 

Thinkingstuff

Active Member
Which of the following has a scriptural basis, and which does not? (1) The assumption of Enoch and Elijah, (2) The assumption of Mary.

Scriptures set the presedent.

Which of the following has scriptural basis?

(1) Saints at the time of Jesus were raised from the dead (2) You are raised from the dead?

Does that mean because the scriptures didn't identify that specifically you will be raised from the dead that you won't be raised from the dead? Or are they the fore runners of us who will be raised from the dead? Scriptures are both regional and specific to salvation history. Scriptures don't comment on North America or South America why because there was no regional contact with either continent from the people of Judea. Does that mean scriptures doen't apply to them? Of course not.
 

Thinkingstuff

Active Member
Does anybody know where Moses is buried? There is a reason why God does not reveal such things to us. Worship of a burial place and making it a shrine, is idolatry!

If people knew where Mary's burial place was, there would be millions of Roman Catholics making "pilgrimages" to her gravesite, making it a shrine, and worshipping her corpse (which is probably a heap of bones now). That would be just one more way to "venerate" and "worship" Mary. That is probably the reason why God has not revealed to anyone where she is buried..."veneration" and "worship" of a dead saint....which is idolatry.

Since the Roman Catholic Church had to have some way to continue venerating and worshipping Mary, and since God did not reveal where her burial place is located, therefore the false doctrine of a "bodily" assumption (similar to the ascension of Jesus) had to be somehow "forced" into the RCC Tradition. There is no "bodily" assumption of any human into heaven found anywhere in Scriptures---except for the bodily ascension of Jesus Christ, 40 days after His resurrection in Acts 1:9, and Enoch (Genesis 5:18-24; Hebrews 11:5), and Elijah (2 Kings 2:9-13).

Yet both Moses and Elijah spoke with Jesus on the Mountain and he conversed with them and three apostles saw Moses and Elijah as well. So its clear you can converse with people who have left this world and are with God in Heaven. After all Jesus did it and no one credits him with necromancy.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yet both Moses and Elijah spoke with Jesus on the Mountain and he conversed with them and three apostles saw Moses and Elijah as well. So its clear you can converse with people who have left this world and are with God in Heaven. After all Jesus did it and no one credits him with necromancy.

what is clear is that God clearly said that living people do NOT talk with, converse, deal with those who have died!

God raised up Samual, God brought back Elijah/Moses, but that was God doing it, as he ALONE can do that!
 
Yet both Moses and Elijah spoke with Jesus on the Mountain and he conversed with them and three apostles saw Moses and Elijah as well.
Moses and Elijah did not appear "in person" on that mountain. When all was said and done, Jesus told the apostles (Peter, James, and John) who were with Him, "Tell the vision to no man..." (Matthew 17:9)

The "vision" of the transfiguration was nothing more than a revealing of a future event.

So its clear you can converse with people who have left this world and are with God in Heaven. After all Jesus did it and no one credits him with necromancy.
Also note that Jesus was not asking Moses and Elijah questions, nor does Scripture say that He was praying to them. The vision of the transfiguration can nowhere be compared to the idolatrous act of praying to Mary or any dead saint. The fact that the transfiguration was a vision is proof that Jesus was not "speaking to dead saints in heaven".

Wow...you folks really have to stretchhhhhhhhhhh the Truth in order to "force" your tradition to fit Scripture.
Matthew 17:1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,

Matthew 17:2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.

Matthew 17:3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.

Matthew 17:4 Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

Matthew 17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

Matthew 17:6 And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid.

Matthew 17:7 And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid.

Matthew 17:8 And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only.

Matthew 17:9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.
 

Wittenberger

New Member
Moses and Elijah did not appear "in person" on that mountain. When all was said and done, Jesus told the apostles (Peter, James, and John) who were with Him, "Tell the vision to no man..." (Matthew 17:9)

The "vision" of the transfiguration was nothing more than a revealing of a future event.


Also note that Jesus was not asking Moses and Elijah questions, nor does Scripture say that He was praying to them. The vision of the transfiguration can nowhere be compared to the idolatrous act of praying to Mary or any dead saint. The fact that the transfiguration was a vision is proof that Jesus was not "speaking to dead saints in heaven".

Wow...you folks really have to stretchhhhhhhhhhh the Truth in order to "force" your tradition to fit Scripture.

Wow! You guys are really going off topic! The question of THIS thread is:

Is there any historical evidence for the Baptist position on Baptism, not proving that we should all be saying prayers to the Virgin Mother of God.

Here are quotes from early Christians supporting the orthodox position on baptism. Some have already been mentioned above. We orthodox Christians are still waiting for similar quotes from early Christians who supported the Baptist position.

Early Church witness from within the first two centuries of Christianity, showing continuity with apostolic teaching concerning the efficacy of God’s saving Word spoken purposefully and specifically during holy baptism. As the apostles taught in Scripture, so too their immediate successors taught:

Didache: 9:5 “And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for of a truth the Lord hath said concerning this, Give not that which is holy unto dogs.” (circa 80-100)

“He was born and baptized so that by His passion He could purify the water.” St Ignatius (c. 105)

“There is no other repentance than that which takes place, when we descended into the water and received the remission of our former sins.” Hermas (circa 150)

“Before a man bears the name of the Son of God, he is dead. But when he receives the seal, he lays aside his deadness and obtains life. The seal, then, is water. They descend into water dead, and they arise alive.” Hermas (circa 150)



“This washing of repentance and knowledge of God has been ordained on account of the transgression of God’s people, as Isaiah cries. Accordingly, we have believed and testify that the very baptism which he announced is alone able to purify those who have repented. And this is the water of life. For what is the use of that baptism which cleanses only the flesh and body? Baptize the soul from wrath and from covetousness, from envy, and from hatred.” St Justin Martyr (circa 160)

“We who have approached God through His Son have received, not carnal, but spiritual circumcision, which Enoch and those like him observed. And we have received it through baptism by God’s mercy, since we were sinners.” Justin Martyr (circa 160)

“But there is no other way than this: to become acquainted with this Christ; to be washed in the fountain spoken of by Isaiah for the remission of sins.” St Justin Martyr (circa 160)

“Christ has redeemed us by being crucified on the tree and by purifying us with water.” St Justin Martyr (circa 160)

“The things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also could be a sign of men being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and bath of regeneration- as many as come to the truth and are born again.” Theophilus (circa 180)

“When we come to refute them [the Gnostics], we will show in its proper place that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God. Thus, they have renounced the whole faith. For the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was for the remission of sins.” St Irenaeus (circa 180)

“But there are some of them [Gnostics] who assert that it is unnecessary to bring persons to the water. Rather, they mix oil and water together, and they place its mixture on the heads of those who are to be initiated . . . This they maintain to be the redemption. Other heretics, however, reject all these practices, and maintain that the mystery of the unspeakable and invisible power should not be performed by visible and corruptible creatures . . . These claim that the knowledge of the unspeakable Greatness is itself prefect redemption.” St Irenaeus (circa 180)

“Man, with respect to that formation which was after Adam, having fallen into transgression, needed the bath of regeneration. Therefore, the Lord said of [the blind man] after He had smeared his eyes with the clay, ‘Go to Siloam and wash.” By this means, He restored to him both confirmation and regeneration that takes place by means of the bath.” St Irenaeus (circa 180)

“Scripture says, ‘And he dipped himself seven times in the Jordan.’ It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was a symbol for us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean from our old transgressions by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord. We are spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, just as the Lord has declared: ‘Unless a man is born again through water and the Spirit, he will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’” Irenaeus (circa 180)

“Being baptized, we are illuminated. Illuminated, we become sons. This work is variously called grace, illumination, perfection, and washing. Washing, by which we cleanse away our sins. Grace, by which the penalties accruing to the transgressions are remitted. Illumination, by which that holy light of salvation is beheld, that is, by which we see God clearly.” Clement of Alexandria (circa 195)




“And he who has just been regenerated- as the name necessarily indicates- and has been enlightened, is immediately delivered from darkness, and instantly receives the light… Thus, also, we who are baptized, having wiped off the sins that obscure the light of the Divine Spirit, have the eyes of the spirit free, unimpeded, and full of light, by which alone we contemplate the Divine, the Holy Spirit flowing down to us from above.” Clement of Alexandria (circa 195)

“John prophesied up until the baptism of salvation.” Clement of Alexandria (circa 195)

“Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life . . . We, like little fishes, after the example of our Ichthus, Jesus Christ, are born in water.” Tertullian (circa 198)

“Oh, miserable unbelief that denies to God His own properties, simplicity, and power! What then? Is it too wonderful that death should be washed away by washing?” Tertullian (circa 198)

St Irenaeus (d. 202) remarks, “For He came to save all through means of Himself all, I say, who through Him are born again to God, infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men” (Against Heresies, Book 1, Ch. 22.4).

In his commentary on Romans, Origin (d. 254) writes, “The Church has received from the apostles the custom of administering baptism even to infants. For those who have been entrusted with the secrets of divine mysteries, knew very well that all are tainted with the stain of original sin, which must be washed off by water and spirit” (Romans Commentary, 5.9).

St Cyprian (d. 258) writes, “In respect of the case of infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized 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 . . . Spiritual circumcision ought not to be hindered by carnal circumcision . . . we ought to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at 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 sins, but the sins of another” (Letter 58 to Fidus).

And in his Enchiridion, St Augustine (d. 430) declares, “For from the infant newly born to the old man bent with age, as there is none shut out from baptism, so there is none who in baptism does not die to sin" (Enchiridion, ch. 43).
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Wow! You guys are really going off topic! The question of THIS thread is:

Is there any historical evidence for the Baptist position on Baptism

Catholics and Reformed Catholics (Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc.) flee to uninspired sources to substantiate their doctrine of infant baptism. However, I view the Apostate-Nicene Father's as the history of apostasy.

This should be evident as the Post-Nicene Apostate Fathers is the logical consequence of the Nicene Apostate Father's and the Nicene Apostate Father's is the logical consequence of the Apostate Ante-Nicene Fathers.

The New Testament predicts the future historical characteristics of both Apostolic Christianity and apostate Christianity. The Apostate Church Father's fit every apostate characteritic predicted in Scripture.
 

Wittenberger

New Member
Catholics and Reformed Catholics (Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc.) flee to uninspired sources to substantiate their doctrine of infant baptism. However, I view the Apostate-Nicene Father's as the history of apostasy.

This should be evident as the Post-Nicene Apostate Fathers is the logical consequence of the Nicene Apostate Father's and the Nicene Apostate Father's is the logical consequence of the Apostate Ante-Nicene Fathers.

The New Testament predicts the future historical characteristics of both Apostolic Christianity and apostate Christianity. The Apostate Church Father's fit every apostate characteritic predicted in Scripture.

Once again, I must ask you: how do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is accurate other than trusting your own feelings of being right or thinking that the Holy Spirit has given you a special revelation telling you that you are right?
 

Wittenberger

New Member
Catholics and Reformed Catholics (Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc.) flee to uninspired sources to substantiate their doctrine of infant baptism. However, I view the Apostate-Nicene Father's as the history of apostasy.

This should be evident as the Post-Nicene Apostate Fathers is the logical consequence of the Nicene Apostate Father's and the Nicene Apostate Father's is the logical consequence of the Apostate Ante-Nicene Fathers.

The New Testament predicts the future historical characteristics of both Apostolic Christianity and apostate Christianity. The Apostate Church Father's fit every apostate characteritic predicted in Scripture.

So when do you believe that the early Church became apostate? What year? What evidence do you have?

The reason that I am not interested in debating you over the doctrine of baptism is that I have done this already with the Southern Baptist Convention and it will just end in a stalemate: we have "our" verses and you have "yours".

This thread asks for HISTORICAL evidence that supports the Baptist position on Baptism. If you aren't interested in doing that, maybe you should start your own thread and ask orthodox Christians to debate you on the subject.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top