Dialogue with Professing 2x2-er Josh Lang on Infant Baptism, Early Church Fathers, and More - June 2002
[Clay's original statement] I've already deleted your posts on baptism, > but I don't recall you citing a specific church > father. Are you aware that the same church fathers > you endorse also held beliefs very different from > yours?
[Josh replies] Deleting my posts was somewhat premature, wasn't it?
[Clay] I wasn't aware that I needed to keep a personal archive of every one of your posts, so from now on, I plan to publish our exchanges on my website. Anyway, I will ask my question again in hopes of an answer this time. Are you aware that the same church fathers you endorse also held beliefs very different from yours?
[Josh] The Church Fathers that I endorse, held the same beliefs as are practiced and preached in the Fellowship today. Whether their teachings differed is merely a matter of interpretation and opinion, considering that there was no institution such as the Papacy at the time to regulate and order their doctrines and values.
[Clay] And which church fathers do you "endorse", specifically - how about giving us some names so that we can see exactly what they believed? For example, give me a name (like Irenaeus) and we'll evaluate how closely his views mimic that of the Fellowship. Surely this request is not too unreasonable?
Thus, though you may cite one Church Father in your defense, or even a number of Church Fathers to validate your position, it doesn't disguise the fact that the complete content of what they wrote or said is based on their own views and cannot be considered authoritive of the christian people as a whole.
[Clay] I'm confused. You quote early church fathers as justification for some of your presuppositions, but now you're asserting that they "cannot be considered authoritative of the christian people as a whole"?
[Josh] In my authoritive text on sacramental theology, the (Catholic) theologian refers to the practice of infant baptism developing from a fear the common people had about unbaptised children. In their view, if unbaptised people go to hell, what about children who die before baptism? This was a very real consideration with infant mortality as high as it was. From this fear rose the concept of infant baptism. This is precisely why I object to the many "sacraments" of Orthodox Churches, because many of them were only developed six or seven hundred years after Christ. All of them underwent changes during the following six or seven hundred years. For example, if (as my text states) the ritual of confimation was only separated from the sacrament of baptism by 600 AD, then how does the church possibly defend its position that every practice was instituted by Christ?
[Clay] I've written an article on Infant Baptism, giving the scriptural basis for it, regardless its development within the church fathers' writings. Please read it here.
[Josh] According to my text, infant baptism only became a solid church law by 1442. Interestingly, this law even provided a time limit for the proceedure, in rather clinical tones. Later theologians such as Aquinas and Hugh of St. Victor attempted to define the "matter" of the the rite and tried to identify through what medium the Holy Spirit operated.
[Clay] Whenever something became "solid church law" is irrelevant to your argument, since you have attempted to "endorse" the early church fathers to support your presuppositions. In other words, does your text say when baptismal regeneration became "solid church law"? You have claimed that the early Christians believe the same way as the Fellowship - I'm just asking you to honestly look at what else they happened to believe (like in infant baptism).
[Josh] But, back to the topic of infant baptism. In order for infant baptism to become the "norm" there had to be a driving reason. This reason was the doctrine of "Original Sin", which was founded by Cyprian of Carthage in 258 AD and popularised by St. Augustine nearly 150 years later. In response to this "need", which ironically was only derived from a doctrine created by a man who based his idea on a single passage of St. Paul's writings, the practice of infant baptism grew.
[Clay] I've given you quotes from early Christians who believed in infant baptism long before Cyprian, but by what stretch of the imagination do you claim that Original Sin was based on a "single passage" in Paul's writings? the many became sinners through one man's sin (Rom 5:12-19), by a man came death; in Adam all die (1 Cor 15:21-23), we all once lived in the passions of our flesh (Eph 2:1-3).
[Josh] However it was not the "norm" for an infant to be baptised until the end of the 5th century.
[Clay] It was not the "norm" for the canon of Scripture to exist formally until the end of the 3rd Century. It was not the "norm" for the Trinity to be accepted until the 4th or 5th Century. The fact that a doctrine developed over time does not automatically disprove it.
[Josh] However, the church had a dilema, because baptism was only considered valid if there was faith on the part of the one being baptised.
[Clay] Ok, I'll play along. The "faith on the part of the one being baptised" comes from the parents for their children. The notion of an "age of reason" or "making your choice" does not exist in the Bible, whereas the Bible does have plenty of examples of someone else's faith saving another person: the firstborn of the Israelites were saved during the Passover because of their parents' faith (Ex 12), the paralytic was healed by his friends' faith (Mt 9:2-6), the servant was healed because of the centurion's faith (Mt 8:5), her daughter was healed because of the Canaanite woman's faith (Mt 15:21), "just say the words and let my servant be healed" (Lk 7:1).
[Josh] An infant child knows nothing of Christ, or the concepts of God let alone any understanding of the world in general. There was a problem, therefore, considering that an infant child is an instinctive creature, as I am sure you, Clay, a doctor could appreciate. Any child psychologist, or any individual with formal psychological training will also appreciate the mind of an infant child is in an almost animalistic. Thus the church decided the "faith" should be supplied by a sponsor on the child's behalf.
[Clay] How convenient for me that you used the medical analogy! Thank you very much. My infant child "knows nothing of acute otitis media" or "the concepts of" amoxicillin-clavulanate therapy, "let alone any understanding of the world in general". Should I wait until my infant child is able to come to an "age of reason" before treating his ear infection before he develops permanent deafness or life-threatening meningitis? I'm sure you would agree that this notion is patently ridiculous, and the underlying concept is the same for baptism of infants. In other words, I wouldn't wait until my child was old enough to understand infectious diseases to treat him, so why would I wait for the more important treatment of his soul by making sure he was regenerated in the Spirit, like the Bible says?
[Josh] This is a direct quotation from my text: "By the end of the fifth century, infant baptism had become the norm... this meant, of course, that the catechumate, that period of moral preparation, disappeared, as did the doctrinal preparation...
[Clay] As I've demonstrated, the baptism of infants was quite common in the 2nd Century, and I am prepared to cite other church fathers as well.
[Josh] the need for faith in the one to be baptised was supplied by a sponsor..." I find this incredibly false and artificial. To supply faith on anothers behalf? This equates spiritual values with something that can be shared and distributed around, when it is made quite clear throughout the bible, that no man can supply any "spiritual gift" to any other person. How does this happen? I have faith, you have faith, but I cannot give or supply you with my faith and neither can you supply me with yours.
[Clay] This is simply incorrect. Certainly it is possible for 12-year-old girls to be mature enough to profess her faith in God, but not when she is dead!. No, Jairus' daughter (Mark 5:21-24) was raised from the dead based on the faith of her parents, just as God gives his grace to infants because of parents who act on their behalf. This is how parents take care of their children - their own faith is transferred to their infant children so that they receive the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit. (Titus 3:5), so that they become holy (1 Cor 7:14). In A.D. 215 Hippolytus of Rome wrote, "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). Note the name of the work, The Apostolic Tradition - this was a tradition which they had received from the apostles!
[Josh] Additionally, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states (n. 1261) that unbaptised children have an excellent chance of being recieved by a merciful creator and the church commits them to him in confidence. Thus the whole practice of infant baptism seems somewhat bizarre. On the one hand it is a practice only popular by the end of the fifth century and then, only in response to another doctrine. Paradoxically, on the other hand, the church in its official document, states there is an excellent chance of salvation for the unbaptised! Why bother therefore?
[Clay] By this line of reasoning, why baptise at all?
[Josh] For the early Church Fathers, infant baptism was a non-issue.
[Clay] That's right, it was a "non-issue" because there was near-unanimous agreement that infants should be baptized.
[Josh]Even the Apostles didn't refer to any other but adult baptism.
[Clay] Please think more carefully about this. There had to be adult converts before there could be infant baptism! No Jew who rejected the Gospel would have baptized his children, but Jewish converts to Christianity were told that baptism had replaced circumcision which occurred at 8 days of age (Col 2:11-12).
Concerning your comments about transubstantiation, Eucharist and so forth, I haven't time to explain it at present. However let me say that the Eucharist developed over time and transubstantiation wasn't an official doctrine until much, much later.
[Clay] As I demonstrated, the canon of Scripture and the doctrine of the Trinity "developed over time", so this objection is irrelevant; however, the early church fathers also believed in transubstantiation. Going back to your original premise which was that the early Christians shared the same beliefs as the Fellowship, how do you reconcile the indisputable fact that the early Christians also believed in the Eucharist?
[Josh] Perhaps now you could explain a few of my questions? Perhaps you could explain to me how the Catholic Church in America (and around the globe) contains so many child molesterers?
[Clay] Yours is a statement based upon an absence of knowledge, so please allow me to educate you. I don't know what constitutes for you "so many", but I will relay what Tim Russert said just yesterday on NBC's Meet the Press television show. He said that 1000 to 1200 priests have been accused of sexual misconduct out of 45,000 total American priests. If every single accusation is actually true, this will come to whopping 2.7 % of all priests; or conversely, this means that about 98% of American priests are faithfully honoring their ecclesiastical vows. Furthermore, not all the cases are that of true pedophilia but with older people, and I refer you to the work of ex-Catholic Phillip Jenkins who has found that the incidence of pedophilia is actually higher in Protestant clergy. While I abhor these sins committed by priests, I hope that you are not so naive to believe that every single worker has never molested anyone. Most importantly, the sins committed by individual Catholics, priest or otherwise, have nothing to do with the veracity of Catholic teaching.
[Josh] Why do most police forces regard the Catholic Church as a protectorate for sex offenders? Why did so many bishops hide and cover up the truth? Where is the spirit of God in your "Holy Apostolic Catholic Church"?
[Clay] "Most police forces"? I am astounded by your ability to speak for "most" police forces in a country in which you don't even live. The bishops who tolerated this behavior have just as much to answer for as the molesting priests, and their policy of transferring molestors sickens me as a person, not just as a Catholic, but here's a newsflash for you - there are sinners in the Catholic Church, whether they be priests, bishops, the pope, or me. This is no different than for Lutherans, Baptists, Mormons, or your Fellowship.
[Josh] Why does the Pope live like a king in palaces whilst so many go hungry? Where is the spirit of "whom will be your master, let him be your servant"?
[Clay] You obviously don't know where the pope actually lives, which is a small room with little furniture. If large cathedrals disturb you, please read an article I wrote on this here.
[Josh] Or will you refuse to answer the question as you refused to answer and explain my earler queries regarding the Inquistion and other atrocities committed by aforementioned "Holy Church"?
[Clay] You didn't make a "query". You responded to my questions, in usual 2x2 fashion, by simply repeating the fact that you disagree with Catholic "theological excesses" and changing the subject by making a nebulous statement about various "atrocities". First, if you want to bring up atrocities committed by Catholics, you must be told about atrocities committed upon Catholics as well for a balanced perspective. Second, if you are truly interested in discussing the Inquisition (I'll assume you are referring to the Spanish one), I'll be happy to do so; however, if you are asking the question in order to deflect attention away from the discussion at hand, I will have to struggle to dignify your inflammatory evasions.
[Josh] I find this all very interesting that a church who professes such love for a little childs spiritual welfare, doesn't similarly regard their bodily and sexual welfare with such esteem. Or is that the church's problem? That they "loved" those poor little kids too much, but in all the wrong ways? Please explain.
[Clay] Wow. What a completely inappropriate and insensitive comment. I will try to help you understand anyway. The Catholic Church has always professed love for their spiritual and bodily welfare, going so far as to baptize them as infants and to consistently oppose abortion and birth control - how can you seriously believe that the Catholic Church does not love children? The Catholic Church does not advocate anyone " 'loving' little kids too much but in the wrong ways" as you so crassly put it, whether they are a priest or an accountant or a salesman or a bishop or.... It is the Church's problem to deal with, but it was not the Church that caused the problem. Sinners exist in every single solitary group of people, even your Fellowship. Jesus told us that there will be weeds among the wheat (Mt 13:24-30) but God remains faithful even when we are not (2 Tim 2:13).
Most genuine people are saddened by this situation and are actively praying for healing, whereas others try to use this scandal to their own advantage as some sort of "proof" against the Catholic Church. Into which group will you fall, Josh?
Clay
|Go to Part 2|
|back|