The heretics were already coming into the churches back then
And being thrown out in due course.
The only remedy is to get back to the Bible, and if a doctrine or a practice can't be found there, don't do it.
Where's that in the Bible? Oh, it's not found there? Well I guess I shouldn't do it, then.
It doesn't require catechumens publicly to renounce Satan etc. You get someone else to do it on their behalf.
I could make a case on top of all that that technically babies aren't understood to be made catechumen first in any real way, because that phase itself implies teaching and preparation of the intellectual powers that is not necessary for the child because that faculty is not yet active. So, since the renunciation of Satan is properly in the making of a catechumen, and not part of the baptismal rite
per se, then it shouldn't matter to the question of baptismal regeneration whether or not someone speaks on their behalf or not.
But I'm not going to, because the simple fact is that the Church
does require catechumens to publicly renounce Satan as part of the rite to make a catechumen, which, if not done previously, is attached to the front of the baptismal service, in which case, if they are not capable of speaking for themselves in order to fulfill the requirement, the Church appoints someone to speak for them, so that they, through the one appointed can fulfill the requirement -- because it
is a requirement.
Now you've already stated your disagreement as to the viability/reality of this solution, and I feel like I'm repeating myself, so I won't burden you with it further, other than to answer your question, "Where is that in the Bible". To which I point to a) the paralytic -- who was not capable of walking himself to Jesus, so his friends tore open the roof and let him down, whereupon Jesus, seeing
their faith, healed him -- and b) to Jesus' own injunction: "Suffer the little children to come to me, and forbid them not." You will obviously disagree that these apply, but I'm not defending it; just reporting saying that's where we see it or things like it.
But this is a fundamental difference between us.
Even if it weren't in the Bible at all, it wouldn't cause us to stop teaching it. Because we do NOT hold to the idea that we should only do what's in the Bible. Even if we did hold that, we would be holding it based on tradition, and not on the Bible, because that idea is not itself
in the Bible. Rather, there we find the command to hold onto what has been handed to us in writing OR by word. And we also find there explicit statements that NOT everything that Jesus (and the Apostles, having received from Him) taught has been written down (e.g. "And the rest I will set in order when I come").
So I don't think we're going to agree on this because our fundamental approach to the Scripture is different. Given which, unless something changes on your end (it won't on mine), I don't think continuing to repeat ourselves is going to help much.
To say that maybe some guy wrote something that no one knows about and therefore you should follow what there's no evidence for him teaching is just crazy.
Yeah, it is. I agree. That's not what we're doing. (You either still don't understand, or, understanding, you choose to misrepresent it intentionally.)
but don't tell me that it is following Cyril,
It is claiming to following some guy from the 4th Century
This is where you're still not getting it.
We don't follow Cyril. At no point have I ever claimed that, nor has the Church. You brought him up, not me! I merely responded that contrary to supporting you, Cyril is actually a good witness to what we have received from the Apostles. His is not a plenary witness (he doesn't talk about infants), but it doesn't have to be, because we don't follow Cyril; we follow Christ. Cyril followed Christ as well, and, having received from the Apostles the same thing as we, wrote about some of them, and this writing now serves as a witness to our common receipt.
Men and women. No babies.
You're adding to the Scriptures. Just as it does not say, "and they baptized babies" (or similar), so it does not say, "No babies." You're assuming that based on your soteriological and ecclesiological pre-commitments.
The delaying of baptism was a direct result of Cyril and others teaching that the rite of baptism forgave sins previous to it.
I don't think we are going to agree on this, either. I maintain that the delay was a direct result of the erroneous restriction of repentance post-baptism. The forgiveness of sins through baptism was taught prior to that, but didn't lead to delayed baptisms until that component was added. And it doesn't lead to delayed baptisms now, since that component has been removed. If your logic was correct, we would still delay baptisms, because the teaching that baptism is (among other things, of course)
for the remission of sins hasn't gone away, but is confessed every day: "I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins." If you were correct that the delaying of baptism was a direct result of this teaching being (supposedly) introduced as a new thing, then we could reasonably expect that people would still delay baptism, since the teaching is still present.
No, the teaching was there already. It was the addition of hyper-strictness closing off the possibility of post-baptismal repentance that turned baptism into the "one shot deal" under which it actually makes sense to delay it for as long as possible. Once that error was handled, the delay ceased to make sense, and the Apostolic practice remained.
I've already given you some verses. 'This people honours Me with their lips; but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'