Matt Black Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Similarly with respect to the Real Presence, I'd be grateful for patristic citings of this doctrine and also paedo-baptism; I will check out the reading room but would be grateful for posters' input here too... Yours in Christ Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neal4Christ Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 I don't have time to write it all out, so I will take the easy way out: read [i]Crossing the Tiber[/i]. He deals with ECFs and their beliefs about the Eucharist and Baptism. Some he cites that believe in baptismal regeneration are: Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Hippolytus of Rome, just to name a few. He gives many, many more early fathers in support of baptismal regeneration (with their quotes, of course). This might not be much help, but I don't have a lot of time. Someone may have a list of quotes (Adam or phatcatholic, probably do ). Also, as an aside, John 3 only really makes sense when it is understood to be baptismal regeneration. Sorry I couldn't be of more help right now! Neal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 Matt, I believe you would benefit from the articles at Catholic.com. I have them all printed out lol. Most of them list quotes from Church Fathers. Also, if you are interested, please email me your address and I will send you free of charge a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (if you do not have one) and a cd with the 38 volume set of the Early Church Fathers writings, along with a pelanthera of other Church documents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Black Posted March 31, 2005 Author Share Posted March 31, 2005 Hmmm...not entirely convinced...less strong than evidence for the Real Presence in the ECFs in that I've not come across a quote in support prior to c180AD ie: nearly a century after the NT era - plenty of time for error to creep in. Yours in Christ Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Chapter 7 of the Didache, circa 90-110 AD. Covenantal theology necessitates baptismal regeneration in as much as it does the Real Presence. If error had 'crept in' Christian authority would have decared it to be error, such as when they fought the gnostics. The idea that all true Christian teaching was lost immeadiately after the life of the Apostles and it took a mentally instable man to start to bring us back 1500 years later is far fetched at best. The earliest, and best source as Neal offers, is Sacred Scripture itself. John 3:5, nor do the passages in Titus or Corinthians lend itself to mere empty baptism. (I use empty instead of symbolic because even mere symbolic baptism shows the power of baptism in some sense by the root of the word 'symbol'). More to come when I'm at home. God Bless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 The following also reveal explicitely baptismal regeneration: Letter to Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Aphraates, St. Ambrose... I strongly suggest the book "The Teaching of the Church Fathers" by John R. Willis; and Four Witnesses by Rod Bennett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 It is interesting that you say "Well, error could have crept in". In reality, error was being taught already on the same day that Christ rose from the tomb. Which speaks all the more to who is our authority. It's why 'scripture alone' and 'private interpretation' don't make sense. Anyone can read an English Bible with a Greek lexion and come up with all sorts of ideas on how to interpret scripture, all drastically different from each other. Private interpretation simply cannot rule as supreme authority on matters of faith and morals and scripture never gives rise to the idea that it does. And if private interpration is not the final end, then scripture alone, even less, can be the final end. The "Not by" triology by Sungenis does and excellent job showing this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Black Posted April 1, 2005 Author Share Posted April 1, 2005 (edited) The Didache merely refers to the mode of baptism (in 'living' water where possible with a Trinitarian formula); it does not state the effect or purpose of baptism nor the age of the candidate. Yours in Christ Matt Edited April 1, 2005 by Matt Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 What are you really looking for? I noticed from the Baptist board that you have no intention of leaving the fundamentalist realm. There attitude to the Pope's passing makes me realize how blinded to the truth I once was as a baptist. You can see in their answers to your sola scriptura thread how lost for real answers they are. Please show fundamentalist soteriology anywhere before a few very uncharitable people invented it in the 1500's. It's not there. Prove sola fide, sola scriptura, symbolic communion. It's absent. Justify private interpretation in light of history. You're being offered overwhelming evidence for the Church and seem to be grasping for any small sign that could raise some kind of doubt. Faith is what it is all about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Black Posted April 4, 2005 Author Share Posted April 4, 2005 (edited) [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Apr 1 2005, 09:49 PM'] I noticed from the Baptist board that you have no intention of leaving the fundamentalist realm. [/quote] Please show me where I have said that I am remaining in the fundamentalist fold - if I ever was there in the first place. In my postings over the last few days, I have said that whilst I remain in my current Baptist church that is more because of a lack of clarity as to where else to go than because I continue to subscribe to Baptist norms; for that reason I have said publicly that I will no longer post in the Baptist Only sections. I am trying to work through a large number of theological issues which are for me epistemologically vital and I need to do that before I can be convinced that the Catholic Church or indeed any other Christian body has 'got it right'. That's why I'm asking these questions - here, on Baptist Board, and on a number of other Christian websites on which I post: try www.ship-of-geniuses.com and www.fellowshipchat.com What am I looking for? Greater epistemological certainty than I currently have Yours in Christ Matt Edited April 4, 2005 by Matt Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now