PDA

View Full Version : Cyprian and infant baptism


Cajun Huguenot
2nd January 2005, 04:23 AM
Last year (2004) I read the correspondences of St. Cyprian, the 3rd Century Bishop of Carthage who was martyred in 258 because of his faith in Christ. As Bishop Cyprian experienced the heavy persecution of Rome during the reigns of Emperor Decius (249-251) and Emperor Valerian (253–260).



There are eighty-two letters in this series and they are worth the time it takes to read them all. I found the epistles of Cyprian to be a joy to read.

He was Bishop of Carthage during a time of intense persecution. One of the interesting things in his letters is his the discussion of the “lapsed.” These were Christians who, one way are another, compromised at some point during the persecution. How was the church supposed to deal with these people when others were being tortured, exiled and killed for the faith? Should the Church cast them off, or should it try to restore them, and if to restore them than how? It’s great stuff.


In Epistle LVIII Cyprian is responding to a letter from Fidus. Fidus believes that baptism of infants should not be performed until the child is eight days old. His reasons are that circumcision was not preformed until the eighth day, and since baptism replaces circumcision this too should be preformed on the eighth day as well.



This was discussed during a council of the church in North Africa and Cyprian wrote the response to Fidus. He wrote “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.”



I found part of the reason Cyprian gives to be very interesting. He wrote “For in respect of the observance of the eighth day in the Jewish circumcision of the flesh, a sacrament was given beforehand in shadow and in usage; but when Christ came, it was fulfilled in truth. For because the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, was to be that on which the Lord should rise again, and should quicken us, and give us circumcision of the spirit, the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, and the Lord's day, went before in the figure; which figure ceased when by and by the truth came, and spiritual circumcision was given to us… For which reason we think that no one is to be hindered from obtaining grace by that law which was already ordained, and that spiritual circumcision ought not to be hindered by carnal circumcision, but that absolutely every man is to be admitted to the grace of Christ, since Peter also in the Acts of the Apostles speaks, and says, "The Lord hath said to me that I should call no man common or unclean." ”



I found this explanation to be a very good one and thought I would pass it along.



Coram Deo,
Kenith

Phoebe
3rd January 2005, 09:35 AM
Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them...
I find it strange that some think it is wrong to baptize a child until he can "decide for himself," yet they feel it is okay to reject Christ for their child.
Some feel it is important to immunize the child, and this decision is made for the child, to ward off life threatening illnesses. Isn't Spiritual/ eternal life also important?

Organist
4th January 2005, 03:31 PM
Would someone mind expounding more on the baptism taking the place of the circumcision? How does this work for girl babies? :confused:

Is this an expansion of I Corinthians 12:13 ?

"For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and all were made to drink of one Spirit."

Phoebe
4th January 2005, 09:55 PM
Circuncision was part of the Old Covenant.
Baptism is a part of the New Covenant.

AngelusSax
5th January 2005, 01:56 AM
It amazes me that a procedure done for men (although it CAN be done for a woman, albeit much more painfully I think... and it may not be called circumcision, what I'm thinking of) was the Old Covenant... and something that is, really, painless and very much available to BOTH genders is in the New Covenant.

I guess the days of second-hand personhood for women is over in Christ, hallelujah!

Cajun Huguenot
5th January 2005, 05:37 AM
[QUOTE=SerenityBlue]Would someone mind expounding more on the baptism taking the place of the circumcision? How does this work for girl babies? :confused:

Is this an expansion of I Corinthians 12:13 ? [QUOTE]

When God Covenanted with Abraham he gave a Covenant sign that applied only to men, but women were born into and were always apart of the covenant under the headship of the father, husband, kinsman.

All the ritual bloodletting of the OC pointed to Christ. In the NC bood is replaced by wine in the Eucharist and the "cutting" (blood) of circumcision is replaced by the washing of water.

The covenant also now expands from the small group of people centered at Jerusalem to the whole world. Paul hints at this in Roams 4:13 and Eph. 6:2-3.

The reciever of the covenant sign of memebership in the covenant also expands and women are admitted to receive the New Covenant sign.

Anyway those are my thoughts about what you ask.

Kenith

KagomeShuko
5th January 2005, 09:32 AM
I guess the days of second-hand personhood for women is over in Christ, hallelujah!

Hallelujah, indeed!!!

Stein Auf!
Bridget

CrossWiseMag
5th January 2005, 02:47 PM
I guess the days of second-hand personhood for women is over in Christ, hallelujah!


Not sure what you mean by this, but we have to be careful not to use terms like "second-hand personhood for women" in describing God's plan for salvation of mankind. Whether Old or New Testament, God's ascribing different roles to men and women does not equate to Him ascribing greater and lesser values to them.

If women have been treated as less valuable than men, it has been solely because of sinful humanity, and not at all because God assigned some kind of inferior status to women, even in the Old Testament.

I'm sure that's what you meant, Angelus, but you know how people misread things around here. ;)

AngelusSax
5th January 2005, 03:04 PM
Not sure what you mean by this, but we have to be careful not to use terms like "second-hand personhood for women" in describing God's plan for salvation of mankind. Whether Old or New Testament, God's ascribing different roles to men and women does not equate to Him ascribing greater and lesser values to them.

If women have been treated as less valuable than men, it has been solely because of sinful humanity, and not at all because God assigned some kind of inferior status to women, even in the Old Testament.

I'm sure that's what you meant, Angelus, but you know how people misread things around here.

Yeah, and thank you for clarifying so we don't have some heekak around here. And that's how I spell it... heekak. ;)