Paul Owen posted an article today arguing that the second century church father Irenaeus believed in infant baptism. None of the passages Paul cites refer to infant baptism, but Paul assumes that the practice is implied. In past responses to Paul, I've given some examples of Christians of the patristic era opposing his claims about infant baptism, and I've cited the patristic scholar David Wright commenting on the subject. Even if Irenaeus had believed in infant baptism, Paul's original assertions would still be false. But does the evidence suggest that Irenaeus believed in infant baptism?
Paul writes:
"In his treatise Against Heresies (II.22.4) he [Irenaeus] writes: '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.' Irenaeus clearly believed that 'infants' in the Church were 'born again' to God, the same as children, youths and adults."
And:
"Like all other Catholic Christians, he believed that the new birth was received through water baptism: 'And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, He said to them, Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost' (Against Heresies, III.17.1). Cf. also Irenaeus: 'As we are lepers in sin, we are made clean by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes' (cited by J. Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), p. 164)."
I'm departing from that thread being that it's focus is not on the sin nature.
The sin nature is that aspect in man that makes him rebellious against God.
When we speak of the sin nature, we refer to the fact that we have a natural inclination to sin,
Not obeying that inclination doesn't mean we got rid of the inclination.
It is so abundantly there, that if you cannot detect it, you are deceived."
With the Holyspirit we can defeat the nature but that doesn't rid us of it.
Even amongst the Brothern there is always an urge to get praise and Glory and that is a sin.
What about partiality, Haughtiness, Selfishness, Greed, puffing one another up with feel good messages when it's not sincere.
You can be spot on with a message but refuse to be at the table with your Brothern.
What about refusing to show mercy.
What about refusing to forgive.
When you can't stomach the Brothern to where you alienate yourself that's a sign that you have conflicting Spirit's or atleast a very carnal driven Christian.
God Spirit is what baptizes us, and performs a union unexplained!
All of these desires or works of the flesh "or by the flesh", Not the fruit of the Spirit.
These are the laws of God that should be written in our hearts.
These are the laws of God that our laws in our flesh rejects.
In the first passage Paul cites, Irenaeus is addressing the claim that Jesus' public ministry lasted for only one year. This is from the well known section in Irenaeus where he incorrectly asserts that Jesus lived to be over 40 years old. Irenaeus is explaining that Jesus lived through every stage of life, including old age, which would result in His public ministry having lasted more than one year. Jesus experienced every stage of life, from infancy to old age, in order to save people from all age groups. The immediate context says nothing of the baptism of these people. Paul includes baptism by means of combining this passage in Irenaeus with what Irenaeus says elsewhere about baptism. But there's an assumption he's making in combining the two.
Would a belief in baptismal regeneration as normative require that every person regenerated is regenerated through baptism? No, advocates of baptismal regeneration will acknowledge some exceptions, such as the thief on the cross. Paul's assumption that Irenaeus believed that infants are born again through infant baptism is therefore possible, but unproven, at this point in the argument. Hendrick Stander and Johannes Louw explain:
"It is rather pretentious to insist on substituting the notion of baptism every time a writer uses the term 'regeneration' unless the context clearly relates to baptism as such....[this passage in Irenaeus] merely tells us that the redeeming work of Christ extends to whatever person....The passage does not speak about the age when people were baptized." (Baptism In The Early Church [Webster, New York: Carey Publications, 2004], pp. 53, 55)
But we can take this a step further. Irenaeus is one of the fathers who commented on the issue of infant salvation, so we can examine those passages to see if he mentions infant baptism as part of the process. Irenaeus writes:
"And again, who are they that have been saved and received the inheritance? Those, doubtless, who do believe God, and who have continued in His love; as did Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun, and innocent children, who have had no sense of evil." (Against Heresies, 4:28:3)
And elsewhere, concerning the Slaughter of the Innocents:
"For this cause, too, He suddenly removed those children belonging to the house of David, whose happy lot it was to have been born at that time, that He might send them on before into His kingdom; He, since He was Himself an infant, so arranging it that human infants should be martyrs, slain, according to the Scriptures, for the sake of Christ, who was born in Bethlehem of Judah, in the city of David." (Against Heresies, 3:16:4)
Irenaeus doesn't limit his comments in the first passage to children of believers, he says nothing of baptism, and he says nothing of the Bethlehem children being saved only because they had been circumcised. It seems that Irenaeus believed that all children who die in infancy are saved because of "innocence". There's no need to assume infant baptism in order to explain why Irenaeus would refer to Christ regenerating infants.
"'And dipped himself,' says the Scripture, 'seven times in Jordan.' It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'" (Fragments, 34)
If Paul only intends this passage as another example of Irenaeus' belief in baptismal regeneration, then I have no objection. However, if Paul is suggesting that the reference to "new-born babes" is about infant baptism, then I reject that suggestion. Irenaeus is addressing Christians in general. Christians are born again. Regeneration is like becoming a spiritual infant, being born spiritually. This passage says nothing about infant baptism.
Nothing Paul Owen has cited from Irenaeus leads to the conclusion that he believed in infant baptism. To the contrary, it appears that Irenaeus believed in universal infant salvation, like other church fathers of the second century. Thus, the concern some later fathers had for baptizing infants in order to ensure their salvation apparently wouldn't have been a concern to Irenaeus. And when we look at the many passages in Irenaeus that explicitly address baptism, the baptism of infants is never mentioned. So, Paul has attempted to arrive at a conclusion of infant baptism by an indirect means, but, as I've shown above, the argument is inconclusive. There's no logical requirement that infants be baptized in order to be regenerated, and there are passages in Irenaeus in which he discusses infant salvation without any involvement of baptism.
It's significant that Paul Owen has to rely on such speculative reasoning in order to argue for infant baptism in the earliest centuries. It's not as if baptism and the issues related to it aren't discussed much in the earliest sources. They're discussed often in the gospels, Acts, the writings of Paul, The Didache, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, etc. Yet, the first explicit reference to the concept of infant baptism is found in Tertullian, who is writing against it.
It's also significant that Paul has so far chosen to ignore large portions of the evidence I've cited, including my citation of David Wright and his discussion of the conclusions of modern scholarship. Even in discussing the little evidence he's addressed so far, Paul has made some comments that aren't consistent with his original article. He claims that Tertullian and others who didn't want to baptize infants differed from Baptists in their motivations. But they wouldn't have to have all of the same motives as Baptists in order to be inconsistent with Paul's concept of the catholicity of infant baptism.
I wanted to post this earlier but couldn't get away from work.
It's very hard to get anything definite when researching the early church.
We have to go with what is in front of us as they did and that's the written word.
I also believe in a certain age of accountability and that differ between individuals.
The reason for such a thing as an age of accountability is because one would have to have a clear and mature understanding of they have a sin nature that is incurable. And that we are in need of a savior and you can not add to the grace provided.
So, in doing so a child should feel the need to repent.
If there is a 5 year old child that can understand and make the decision for salvation then there is also a 5 year old child that can go to hell.
Hi S Spencer: If the sin nature is incurable then what is sanctification, how does the Holy Spirit enter into an unclean temple? You may accept the teaching that we are not wholly sanctified until we are raptured ,when God removes it before we enter in, but I don't see how that can be. I believe we can and must lose our sin nature, after salvation, by simply asking God to remove the desire; the want to sin from us and if we are sincere, ready to truly give up our sinful life, then He sanctifies us wholly and removes the nature of Adam from us. The teaching from the KJB, about the infilling of the Holy Ghost, as happened on the day of Pentecost is for all of God's children; His Church. This marvelous blessing and gift from God was meant for the Church until the rapture. Revelations 19:7-8 7) "Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and HIS WIFE HAS MADE HERSELF READY. 8) And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white." Jesus didn't let His gift fade away as if it was only meant for the early church. It started with the 120 members and the blessing has continued and will continue until the rapture. This gift was given to the Church so she will be a "beautiful bride, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing," when Jesus comes for her.The Adamic nature it one big mess of spots and wrinkles. We will still have faults, character weaknesses, according to the dictionary, which we learn to overcome with the help of the Holy Ghost. Faults are NOT sins.
I do totally agree about what you say regarding children being born innocent. No matter what their life is before they have come to knowing right from wrong they are not condemned. God Bless :)
My past sins were forgiven and remembered no more by God when I sincerely asked Him for forgiveness. When He forgave me I was justified in His sight because of the divine sacrifice of Jesus. I was regenerated and became spiritually born again. A new creature in Christ. Justification is through the atonement of Christ. The only part I play in becoming perfect is my obedience to God's word. Do you not want to discuss this with me anymore because you can't answer the questions and comments I made. Because you didn't. Not a single one. But I will quit discussions if you want to.
You and I never had the discussion on ridding the sin nature.
You never asked me anything on the topic.
I was making mention of you being in the debate with someone else.
Then several joined!
That topic branched over into several topics.
This is why I said I am aware of your stance on this and I didn't want to re-visit it.
Besides that, my post has nothing to do with whether one can loose his or her sin "NATURE"
Momsage
When we're talking about sin we're talking about "transgression of the law of God.and this is not JUST breaking any of the commands of God,
IT'S NOT ONLY SPEAKING OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS.
However you described Justification as I do.
Justification is freely given to us through faith in Christ, therefore we have an atonement. Sanctification Is also a work of God! Philippians 1:6
Nowhere in scripture it says Justification or Sanctification rids us of our FLESH/SIN NATURE.
They do rid us the penalty of our sins! Past, Present, and future.
And Sanctification rids ys of the love of sin.
Anything we do that is not of the spirit is sin!
Now we're perfectly justified we have the Holy Spirit that prompts us to do God's will but we have a nature that combats God's will and that nature never leaves us.
God is Holy and perfect. He doesn't has to resist any evil.
We're imperfect. We have emotional sin that we resist everyday because we have a nature in this body of sin that the Holyspirit deals with daily.
When we're talking about "SIN NATURE" this can be anything that our flesh prompts us to do something that the Spirit has not.
Winning the battle over our sin nature doesn't mean we got rid of it.
We can do something that appears to be a good deed on the outside but on the inside it's for praise, that's also caused by our sin nature.
God shares his praise and Glory with no man.
You can tell me how wonderful I am to be kind towards me, but if you don't truly feel that way then it's a lie.
Hi S. Spencer: The reason I mentioned the Adamic nature to you is because in your discussion; "Irenaeus And Infant Baptism" you basically said: "the sin nature is incurable." Plus, as to the questions, I got you mixed up with someone else, so sorry. I know you don't want to discuss this but I must respond to what you have said. The Holy Ghost wrote the bible so we would have to study it like a person learning a trade would if he wants to please his employer. Study it diligently ourselves. Honestly ask yourself; do you believe what you are saying because you did a thorough study of sanctification, the infilling of the Holy Ghost and speaking in tongues, or do you believe that way you do about the Adamic nature because you have studied it yourself? You say there are no scriptures that the Adamic nature is removed by sanctification, however, there are scripture that teaches us that it does. Sanctification means to be set apart, to be made Holy, this is how it deals with our love for sin by removing it permanently. Jesus gave the Holy Ghost to His Bride for strength to have power against the weapons of the enemy and to be the perfect, beautiful Bride who has prepared HERSELF for the marriage supper of the Lamb. Revelations 19:7 "Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready." At the rapture He can meet a beautiful bride, in fine linen and clean and white which is the righteousness of the saints. Jesus will not have to eradicate the Adamic nature before She can be raptured or else She hasn't made herself ready, He has. God has a plan for His church and it is a perfect plan. In Part 2 you seem to say that there are sins that that are not part of the 10 commandments? What are those? If you don't answer, I understand but if you do please address my questions. I guess I've type enough. God Bless :)
Thank you bro. S. Spencer for sharing that article & your thoughts on this matter of 'infant baptism'.
That was an interesting read for sure, but I do particularly note at your Part 4 (2nd para), quoting Paul Owen, "being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be BORN AGAIN through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven". Here, Paul Owen is quoting John 3:5, which actually says, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God"; Jesus is not speaking of being born again of water, but of being born of water (of = 'ek', from, from out of), which Jesus qualifies in verse 6, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit". So Jesus is equating "being born of water" with the physical natural birth (which Nicodemus was specifically questioning in verse 4), and only the birth of (from) the Spirit is what is needed to enter "the kingdom of God". So Paul Owen's slight change of verse 5 to read "except a man be born again through water and the Spirit", can easily lead one to accept that Jesus was proclaiming baptismal regeneration.
And of course, as you rightly stated, a child (of whatever age), when he/she is able to understand what sin is & their own falling short of God's perfection, and that the only remedy is not found in them but in God's Provision of a Savior, then that little one must be led to the Cross, in faith & love, embracing Christ. In this, I see a full warrant for 'child baptism', or else a premature sprinkling on an innocent unaware child would amount to simply a type of 'child dedication' by the parents, which dedication of course, is highly commendable, sans the sprinkling. Blessings brother.
In my church babies are dedicated to God. When they are of an age, more than say one-one and a half months old they are brought by their parents to the church and they are dedicated to the Lord by the pastor. So God takes officially control of their lives and is leading them to His will as they grow up. They learn the Bible gradually as they are growing up until the time they realize that they are sinners and they are eventually regenerated by God. Then water baptism comes next. Not in an standard age, that differs from a child to an other. Some before 10, other after 10, other after 20, other never.
And here is where the responsibility of the church starts. It has to minister these kids to become true christians when they are grown adults. It is also the responsibility of the family. Families that attend the congregation frequently and send their kids to child and youth studies, pray together, study together and do everything to protect their kids from the outside world have good results. Families that are generally careless and don't avoid mixing with the sinful world have usually disasterous results. The problem nowadays in the christian community that looses its young people to the world is that we don't avoid the world as the older generations were doing. We are a bit careless, we underestimate the dangers or we have been compromized with the world. We have become neither hot nor cold. And the kids do what they see in us. GBU
Thanks bro Giannis for those additional thoughts. If I might address your first paragraph, re: Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus. You mentioned, "Jesus said that except one is not born again (or from above)", or as the Bible quotes, "Except a man be born again"; ordinarily, I can see that there's a difference in meaning here, but can also see that the difference can also be seen as negligible, or just creating an argument on semantics. For the word 'except', I could use it equivalent, 'unless', which then correctly addresses Jesus' Words, that 'unless a man IS born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God', as opposed to, "unless a man is NOT born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God".
Also, I take your point on, "he cannot SEE the kingdom of God", as honestly I've never observed any difference between 'see' & 'enter' (as in John 3:5), yet I stand corrected in my understanding. But, I note the difference in the Greek words in this respect & also how it cannot apply to infant baptism. But are you of the general persuasion that John 3:5 "born of water and of the Spirit" applies to water baptism & Spirit baptism, rather than my understanding that it applies to 'physical and spiritual births', as an answer to Nicodemus' perplexity? Or, if to the former (i.e. to water baptism), then the necessity of water baptism which must be essential for salvation. GBU.
Some say, look at Abraham, look at Paul, God revealed Himself to them directly like He has not done in other people. Yes but He knew they would accept and obey Him. The same way He revealed Himself to Saul the king (as well to other kings), to Judas, to Balaam, to Demas, to name a few. To the Pharisees and Sadducees that had seen so many miracles but still paid the guards of Jesus' tomb to say that the disciples had stolen His body or they wanted to kill Lazarus together with Jesus because they understood that people would believe to Jesus. So it is not a matter of God's will but a matter of people's response to Him. Others say that if God doesn't grand repentance to people, nobody will repent. This is true but we have to understand how that repentance is granted by God. Not in a "magical" (again) way. Miracles are something that God uses for this purpose. His word is another way. His appearance to one is another way God uses, and so on. Often healings is also another way God uses to soften people's heart.. But again the response is not always acceptance by people.
And something else. There are verses in the scriptures where the word "chosen" in grk has the meaning of "precious, valuable". Like in Matthew 22:14, "For many are called, but few are chosen". Here the proper translation of the grk "eklektos" is precious. Which means that many have been called but few have accepted that invitation and for God they are precious, valuable. It is our response to Him that makes us precious to Him, not a somehow discriminative approach of God whom He selects and whom not.
Thank you again brother for your comments. I would have much trouble equating 1 Peter 1:23-25 ('being born again by the Word of God') with John 3:5 ('one being born of water'): that as you believe, water here represents the Word of God. Maybe, Ephesians 5:26 ('sanctify & cleanse the Church with the washing of water by the Word') might bear some resemblance of the Word to water.
Yet, in both cases, I really can't place such a meaning here, since Jesus was answering the question posed to Him by Nicodemus ('how can a man have a second physical birth?'). And so Jesus answered him, not in some mysterious, confusing way, but clearly, that one's birth onto the Earth can only come in a physical way, but to enter God's Kingdom, man needs to be re-born by God's Spirit & not by human involvement. And of course, Nicodemus did not query this (though he may not have fully understood Jesus' Words), rather went on in verse 9 to ask, "How can these things be?" So, I see that water in John 3:5 equates to the physical/the earthly, & the Spirit to the immaterial/heavenly. And Jesus again confirms this in verse 6, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh (earthly = water/physical birth); and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit (heavenly = Spirit/spiritual birth)." Anyway, I will keep your understanding in mind, if I can find some support in my further readings.
To the rest of your comment, I do find complete agreement, in respect to infant baptism and God's Foreknowledge of those who will respond to the Gospel. GBU.
Sory but I quoted that passage incorrectly. You are right, it says "Except a man be born again...".
As far as my belief in what "water" stands for in John 3:5, is concerned, it means the Word of God. As I said before it is the seed that is sowed by the Sower in all people's heart. When the soil/heart is a good and soft soil then that seed gets inside it and it sprouts, in other words when a heart is soft then the word of God gets inside it and causes repentance and regeneration, 1 Peter 1:23-25 describes that clearly. So without the word of God nothing can be done. I don't agree at all with a "magical" (sorry for the expression, I know many believe it like this) regeneration. There is no possible way that God regenerates infants that most possibly will become atheists afterwards. The idea of predestination the way some believe it leaves me in complete disagreement. If God chooses whom to select and save, then He would have been a racist and discriminative God. But in 1 Timothy 2:2-4 says clearly, " For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;Who will have ALL MEN to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth". So if God wants ALL people to be saved why does He choose some for salvation? Because the whole interpetation of that is wrong, in my opinion. God knows who is going to accept Jesus and had His plans for the salvation of all mankind completed before the foundation of the world. So His choice has to do with our decisions made with our free will. It is obvious in the parable of the Sower and the good seed where Gods tries to plant His seed in every heart. But the result is due to our heart.
Lets go back to that conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus. Jesus said that except one is not born again (or from above, both translations can be right, the latter more possible) then he can not SEE the kingdom of God. Pay attention to that "SEE". It doesn't say ENTER but SEE. For one to "see" which means to have a knowledge, an understanding, realize, about the Kingdom of God. they must be of an age that they understand, isn't it so? Later on Jesus explains that "born from above". He says that except one is born from water and (from) the Spirit he can not enter the kingdom of God. So that "born again" is explained by Jesus as "born from water and from the Spirit". We know who the Spirit is. But water? If Jesus means the water of baptism (for infants) then that contradicts that "see" above. It also contradicts the verses in 1 Peter 1:23-25 where we are told that new birth occurs by the Word of God which was prached to us by the gospel. So according to these at least infant baptism is out of any consideration.
What about children that can have an understaning? I know many cases that little children can sometime in their lives understand that they do sins, eg say a lie, steal a toy, disobey their parents, little things that kids do. They can not understand the fullness of sin as the adults do but they know they do something wrong and want to be forgiven by God. How do they know they do some things wrong? Because they hear the Word of God that is preached to them in church and by their parents back home. So I believe that although they are not in the age of accountability still God regenerates them. I have seen kids that they have changed completely after new birth and have stopped being naughty after regeneration. They pray to God and try to live properly as the Bible says. So I think those are eligible for water baptism.
Part 1.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Paul Owen posted an article today arguing that the second century church father Irenaeus believed in infant baptism. None of the passages Paul cites refer to infant baptism, but Paul assumes that the practice is implied. In past responses to Paul, I've given some examples of Christians of the patristic era opposing his claims about infant baptism, and I've cited the patristic scholar David Wright commenting on the subject. Even if Irenaeus had believed in infant baptism, Paul's original assertions would still be false. But does the evidence suggest that Irenaeus believed in infant baptism?
Paul writes:
"In his treatise Against Heresies (II.22.4) he [Irenaeus] writes: '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.' Irenaeus clearly believed that 'infants' in the Church were 'born again' to God, the same as children, youths and adults."
And:
"Like all other Catholic Christians, he believed that the new birth was received through water baptism: 'And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, He said to them, Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost' (Against Heresies, III.17.1). Cf. also Irenaeus: 'As we are lepers in sin, we are made clean by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes' (cited by J. Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), p. 164)."
See part 2.
Part 2.
I'm departing from that thread being that it's focus is not on the sin nature.
The sin nature is that aspect in man that makes him rebellious against God.
When we speak of the sin nature, we refer to the fact that we have a natural inclination to sin,
Not obeying that inclination doesn't mean we got rid of the inclination.
It is so abundantly there, that if you cannot detect it, you are deceived."
With the Holyspirit we can defeat the nature but that doesn't rid us of it.
Even amongst the Brothern there is always an urge to get praise and Glory and that is a sin.
What about partiality, Haughtiness, Selfishness, Greed, puffing one another up with feel good messages when it's not sincere.
You can be spot on with a message but refuse to be at the table with your Brothern.
What about refusing to show mercy.
What about refusing to forgive.
When you can't stomach the Brothern to where you alienate yourself that's a sign that you have conflicting Spirit's or atleast a very carnal driven Christian.
God Spirit is what baptizes us, and performs a union unexplained!
All of these desires or works of the flesh "or by the flesh", Not the fruit of the Spirit.
These are the laws of God that should be written in our hearts.
These are the laws of God that our laws in our flesh rejects.
This is what Paul is saying in Romans 7:20-23.
God bless.
Part 2.
In the first passage Paul cites, Irenaeus is addressing the claim that Jesus' public ministry lasted for only one year. This is from the well known section in Irenaeus where he incorrectly asserts that Jesus lived to be over 40 years old. Irenaeus is explaining that Jesus lived through every stage of life, including old age, which would result in His public ministry having lasted more than one year. Jesus experienced every stage of life, from infancy to old age, in order to save people from all age groups. The immediate context says nothing of the baptism of these people. Paul includes baptism by means of combining this passage in Irenaeus with what Irenaeus says elsewhere about baptism. But there's an assumption he's making in combining the two.
Would a belief in baptismal regeneration as normative require that every person regenerated is regenerated through baptism? No, advocates of baptismal regeneration will acknowledge some exceptions, such as the thief on the cross. Paul's assumption that Irenaeus believed that infants are born again through infant baptism is therefore possible, but unproven, at this point in the argument. Hendrick Stander and Johannes Louw explain:
"It is rather pretentious to insist on substituting the notion of baptism every time a writer uses the term 'regeneration' unless the context clearly relates to baptism as such....[this passage in Irenaeus] merely tells us that the redeeming work of Christ extends to whatever person....The passage does not speak about the age when people were baptized." (Baptism In The Early Church [Webster, New York: Carey Publications, 2004], pp. 53, 55)
See Part 3.
Part 3.
But we can take this a step further. Irenaeus is one of the fathers who commented on the issue of infant salvation, so we can examine those passages to see if he mentions infant baptism as part of the process. Irenaeus writes:
"And again, who are they that have been saved and received the inheritance? Those, doubtless, who do believe God, and who have continued in His love; as did Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun, and innocent children, who have had no sense of evil." (Against Heresies, 4:28:3)
And elsewhere, concerning the Slaughter of the Innocents:
"For this cause, too, He suddenly removed those children belonging to the house of David, whose happy lot it was to have been born at that time, that He might send them on before into His kingdom; He, since He was Himself an infant, so arranging it that human infants should be martyrs, slain, according to the Scriptures, for the sake of Christ, who was born in Bethlehem of Judah, in the city of David." (Against Heresies, 3:16:4)
Irenaeus doesn't limit his comments in the first passage to children of believers, he says nothing of baptism, and he says nothing of the Bethlehem children being saved only because they had been circumcised. It seems that Irenaeus believed that all children who die in infancy are saved because of "innocence". There's no need to assume infant baptism in order to explain why Irenaeus would refer to Christ regenerating infants.
See Part 4.
Part 4.
Paul also cites the following from Irenaeus:
"'And dipped himself,' says the Scripture, 'seven times in Jordan.' It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'" (Fragments, 34)
If Paul only intends this passage as another example of Irenaeus' belief in baptismal regeneration, then I have no objection. However, if Paul is suggesting that the reference to "new-born babes" is about infant baptism, then I reject that suggestion. Irenaeus is addressing Christians in general. Christians are born again. Regeneration is like becoming a spiritual infant, being born spiritually. This passage says nothing about infant baptism.
Nothing Paul Owen has cited from Irenaeus leads to the conclusion that he believed in infant baptism. To the contrary, it appears that Irenaeus believed in universal infant salvation, like other church fathers of the second century. Thus, the concern some later fathers had for baptizing infants in order to ensure their salvation apparently wouldn't have been a concern to Irenaeus. And when we look at the many passages in Irenaeus that explicitly address baptism, the baptism of infants is never mentioned. So, Paul has attempted to arrive at a conclusion of infant baptism by an indirect means, but, as I've shown above, the argument is inconclusive. There's no logical requirement that infants be baptized in order to be regenerated, and there are passages in Irenaeus in which he discusses infant salvation without any involvement of baptism.
See Part 5.
Part 5.
It's significant that Paul Owen has to rely on such speculative reasoning in order to argue for infant baptism in the earliest centuries. It's not as if baptism and the issues related to it aren't discussed much in the earliest sources. They're discussed often in the gospels, Acts, the writings of Paul, The Didache, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, etc. Yet, the first explicit reference to the concept of infant baptism is found in Tertullian, who is writing against it.
It's also significant that Paul has so far chosen to ignore large portions of the evidence I've cited, including my citation of David Wright and his discussion of the conclusions of modern scholarship. Even in discussing the little evidence he's addressed so far, Paul has made some comments that aren't consistent with his original article. He claims that Tertullian and others who didn't want to baptize infants differed from Baptists in their motivations. But they wouldn't have to have all of the same motives as Baptists in order to be inconsistent with Paul's concept of the catholicity of infant baptism.
I wanted to post this earlier but couldn't get away from work.
It's very hard to get anything definite when researching the early church.
We have to go with what is in front of us as they did and that's the written word.
I also believe in a certain age of accountability and that differ between individuals.
The reason for such a thing as an age of accountability is because one would have to have a clear and mature understanding of they have a sin nature that is incurable. And that we are in need of a savior and you can not add to the grace provided.
So, in doing so a child should feel the need to repent.
If there is a 5 year old child that can understand and make the decision for salvation then there is also a 5 year old child that can go to hell.
God bless and good night for now.
I do totally agree about what you say regarding children being born innocent. No matter what their life is before they have come to knowing right from wrong they are not condemned. God Bless :)
I'm aware of your stance on mans ability to become perfect,
You made that clear a few months ago.
And, I'm sure you heard mine.
There is no virtue in revisiting that debate with you and I. Perhaps others may be willing.
However, I would like to ask you a question or two.
What is sin?
If you can become sinless, Would you being sinless wipe away your past transgressions?
How are we JUSTIFIED by becoming perfect or by Christ atonement?
God bless you Momsage.
My past sins were forgiven and remembered no more by God when I sincerely asked Him for forgiveness. When He forgave me I was justified in His sight because of the divine sacrifice of Jesus. I was regenerated and became spiritually born again. A new creature in Christ. Justification is through the atonement of Christ. The only part I play in becoming perfect is my obedience to God's word. Do you not want to discuss this with me anymore because you can't answer the questions and comments I made. Because you didn't. Not a single one. But I will quit discussions if you want to.
God Bless :)
Part 1
You and I never had the discussion on ridding the sin nature.
You never asked me anything on the topic.
I was making mention of you being in the debate with someone else.
Then several joined!
That topic branched over into several topics.
This is why I said I am aware of your stance on this and I didn't want to re-visit it.
Besides that, my post has nothing to do with whether one can loose his or her sin "NATURE"
Momsage
When we're talking about sin we're talking about "transgression of the law of God.and this is not JUST breaking any of the commands of God,
IT'S NOT ONLY SPEAKING OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS.
However you described Justification as I do.
Justification is freely given to us through faith in Christ, therefore we have an atonement. Sanctification Is also a work of God! Philippians 1:6
Nowhere in scripture it says Justification or Sanctification rids us of our FLESH/SIN NATURE.
They do rid us the penalty of our sins! Past, Present, and future.
And Sanctification rids ys of the love of sin.
Anything we do that is not of the spirit is sin!
Now we're perfectly justified we have the Holy Spirit that prompts us to do God's will but we have a nature that combats God's will and that nature never leaves us.
God is Holy and perfect. He doesn't has to resist any evil.
We're imperfect. We have emotional sin that we resist everyday because we have a nature in this body of sin that the Holyspirit deals with daily.
When we're talking about "SIN NATURE" this can be anything that our flesh prompts us to do something that the Spirit has not.
Winning the battle over our sin nature doesn't mean we got rid of it.
We can do something that appears to be a good deed on the outside but on the inside it's for praise, that's also caused by our sin nature.
God shares his praise and Glory with no man.
You can tell me how wonderful I am to be kind towards me, but if you don't truly feel that way then it's a lie.
See part 2.
Sorry but I do believe we have covered everything there is to cover on this topic for now.
If not you and I certainly others have and it has certainly been covered in the past.
Can you and I agree to disagree peacefully on this?
Thanks for responding,
God bless.
I don't believe God gives the ability to one to respond to the Gospel without his foreknowledge.
God knows who is going to come to him.
To believe you can baptize an infant so he can receive salvation later is no different than paying a down-payment on it.
God judges our motives and he shares his glory with no man.
God bless.
That was an interesting read for sure, but I do particularly note at your Part 4 (2nd para), quoting Paul Owen, "being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be BORN AGAIN through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven". Here, Paul Owen is quoting John 3:5, which actually says, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God"; Jesus is not speaking of being born again of water, but of being born of water (of = 'ek', from, from out of), which Jesus qualifies in verse 6, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit". So Jesus is equating "being born of water" with the physical natural birth (which Nicodemus was specifically questioning in verse 4), and only the birth of (from) the Spirit is what is needed to enter "the kingdom of God". So Paul Owen's slight change of verse 5 to read "except a man be born again through water and the Spirit", can easily lead one to accept that Jesus was proclaiming baptismal regeneration.
And of course, as you rightly stated, a child (of whatever age), when he/she is able to understand what sin is & their own falling short of God's perfection, and that the only remedy is not found in them but in God's Provision of a Savior, then that little one must be led to the Cross, in faith & love, embracing Christ. In this, I see a full warrant for 'child baptism', or else a premature sprinkling on an innocent unaware child would amount to simply a type of 'child dedication' by the parents, which dedication of course, is highly commendable, sans the sprinkling. Blessings brother.
God bless.
In my church babies are dedicated to God. When they are of an age, more than say one-one and a half months old they are brought by their parents to the church and they are dedicated to the Lord by the pastor. So God takes officially control of their lives and is leading them to His will as they grow up. They learn the Bible gradually as they are growing up until the time they realize that they are sinners and they are eventually regenerated by God. Then water baptism comes next. Not in an standard age, that differs from a child to an other. Some before 10, other after 10, other after 20, other never.
And here is where the responsibility of the church starts. It has to minister these kids to become true christians when they are grown adults. It is also the responsibility of the family. Families that attend the congregation frequently and send their kids to child and youth studies, pray together, study together and do everything to protect their kids from the outside world have good results. Families that are generally careless and don't avoid mixing with the sinful world have usually disasterous results. The problem nowadays in the christian community that looses its young people to the world is that we don't avoid the world as the older generations were doing. We are a bit careless, we underestimate the dangers or we have been compromized with the world. We have become neither hot nor cold. And the kids do what they see in us. GBU
Also, I take your point on, "he cannot SEE the kingdom of God", as honestly I've never observed any difference between 'see' & 'enter' (as in John 3:5), yet I stand corrected in my understanding. But, I note the difference in the Greek words in this respect & also how it cannot apply to infant baptism. But are you of the general persuasion that John 3:5 "born of water and of the Spirit" applies to water baptism & Spirit baptism, rather than my understanding that it applies to 'physical and spiritual births', as an answer to Nicodemus' perplexity? Or, if to the former (i.e. to water baptism), then the necessity of water baptism which must be essential for salvation. GBU.
Some say, look at Abraham, look at Paul, God revealed Himself to them directly like He has not done in other people. Yes but He knew they would accept and obey Him. The same way He revealed Himself to Saul the king (as well to other kings), to Judas, to Balaam, to Demas, to name a few. To the Pharisees and Sadducees that had seen so many miracles but still paid the guards of Jesus' tomb to say that the disciples had stolen His body or they wanted to kill Lazarus together with Jesus because they understood that people would believe to Jesus. So it is not a matter of God's will but a matter of people's response to Him. Others say that if God doesn't grand repentance to people, nobody will repent. This is true but we have to understand how that repentance is granted by God. Not in a "magical" (again) way. Miracles are something that God uses for this purpose. His word is another way. His appearance to one is another way God uses, and so on. Often healings is also another way God uses to soften people's heart.. But again the response is not always acceptance by people.
And something else. There are verses in the scriptures where the word "chosen" in grk has the meaning of "precious, valuable". Like in Matthew 22:14, "For many are called, but few are chosen". Here the proper translation of the grk "eklektos" is precious. Which means that many have been called but few have accepted that invitation and for God they are precious, valuable. It is our response to Him that makes us precious to Him, not a somehow discriminative approach of God whom He selects and whom not.
Blessings
Yet, in both cases, I really can't place such a meaning here, since Jesus was answering the question posed to Him by Nicodemus ('how can a man have a second physical birth?'). And so Jesus answered him, not in some mysterious, confusing way, but clearly, that one's birth onto the Earth can only come in a physical way, but to enter God's Kingdom, man needs to be re-born by God's Spirit & not by human involvement. And of course, Nicodemus did not query this (though he may not have fully understood Jesus' Words), rather went on in verse 9 to ask, "How can these things be?" So, I see that water in John 3:5 equates to the physical/the earthly, & the Spirit to the immaterial/heavenly. And Jesus again confirms this in verse 6, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh (earthly = water/physical birth); and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit (heavenly = Spirit/spiritual birth)." Anyway, I will keep your understanding in mind, if I can find some support in my further readings.
To the rest of your comment, I do find complete agreement, in respect to infant baptism and God's Foreknowledge of those who will respond to the Gospel. GBU.
Sory but I quoted that passage incorrectly. You are right, it says "Except a man be born again...".
As far as my belief in what "water" stands for in John 3:5, is concerned, it means the Word of God. As I said before it is the seed that is sowed by the Sower in all people's heart. When the soil/heart is a good and soft soil then that seed gets inside it and it sprouts, in other words when a heart is soft then the word of God gets inside it and causes repentance and regeneration, 1 Peter 1:23-25 describes that clearly. So without the word of God nothing can be done. I don't agree at all with a "magical" (sorry for the expression, I know many believe it like this) regeneration. There is no possible way that God regenerates infants that most possibly will become atheists afterwards. The idea of predestination the way some believe it leaves me in complete disagreement. If God chooses whom to select and save, then He would have been a racist and discriminative God. But in 1 Timothy 2:2-4 says clearly, " For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;Who will have ALL MEN to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth". So if God wants ALL people to be saved why does He choose some for salvation? Because the whole interpetation of that is wrong, in my opinion. God knows who is going to accept Jesus and had His plans for the salvation of all mankind completed before the foundation of the world. So His choice has to do with our decisions made with our free will. It is obvious in the parable of the Sower and the good seed where Gods tries to plant His seed in every heart. But the result is due to our heart.
See pt 2
May I add a few things on baptism?
Lets go back to that conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus. Jesus said that except one is not born again (or from above, both translations can be right, the latter more possible) then he can not SEE the kingdom of God. Pay attention to that "SEE". It doesn't say ENTER but SEE. For one to "see" which means to have a knowledge, an understanding, realize, about the Kingdom of God. they must be of an age that they understand, isn't it so? Later on Jesus explains that "born from above". He says that except one is born from water and (from) the Spirit he can not enter the kingdom of God. So that "born again" is explained by Jesus as "born from water and from the Spirit". We know who the Spirit is. But water? If Jesus means the water of baptism (for infants) then that contradicts that "see" above. It also contradicts the verses in 1 Peter 1:23-25 where we are told that new birth occurs by the Word of God which was prached to us by the gospel. So according to these at least infant baptism is out of any consideration.
What about children that can have an understaning? I know many cases that little children can sometime in their lives understand that they do sins, eg say a lie, steal a toy, disobey their parents, little things that kids do. They can not understand the fullness of sin as the adults do but they know they do something wrong and want to be forgiven by God. How do they know they do some things wrong? Because they hear the Word of God that is preached to them in church and by their parents back home. So I believe that although they are not in the age of accountability still God regenerates them. I have seen kids that they have changed completely after new birth and have stopped being naughty after regeneration. They pray to God and try to live properly as the Bible says. So I think those are eligible for water baptism.
This comment thread is locked. Please enter a new comment below to start a new comment thread.
Note: Comment threads older than 2 months are automatically locked.
Do you have a Bible comment or question?
Posting comments is currently unavailable due to high demand on the server.
Please check back in an hour or more. Thank you for your patience!
Report Comment
Which best represents the problem with the comment?