Do Anabaptists still object to infant baptism?

[ohio jones]

Maybe read all Origens writings.

Right. From Wikipedia:

He was a prolific writer who wrote roughly 2,000 treatises in multiple branches of theology, including textual criticism, biblical exegesis and hermeneutics, homiletics, and spirituality....

As a direct result of the numerous condemnations of his work, only a tiny fraction of Origen's voluminous writings have survived. Nonetheless, these writings still amount to a massive number of Greek and Latin texts, very few of which have yet been translated into English.

[ken_sylvania]

I will find it, I cannot remember now but I’ve seen it more than once. Maybe read all Origens writings. He is questioned on some of his theology, but his statement that the Apistles taught to baptize your infants wasn’t his “theology”, it was a statement that obvious was handed down to him as he wasn’t born yet at time the Apostles started Churches.
I completely understand why Anabaptists would want to reject this with all their hearts, there are however former Anabaptists who do believe the historical understanding.

Who is this Origen you speak of? Are you referring to the heretic Origen, condemned as a heretic by Pope Theophilus I as well as by the 543 Synod of Constantinople? The Origen described by the 553 Second Council of Constantinople as "insane"?

his statement that the Apistles taught to baptize your infants wasn’t his “theology”, it was a statement that obvious was handed down to him as he wasn’t born yet at time the Apostles started Churches.

So... hearsay. Like the story about George Washington chopping down the cherry tree... and a bunch of other fables.

[Valerie]

I will find it, I cannot remember now but I’ve seen it more than once. Maybe read all Origens writings. He is questioned on some of his theology, but his statement that the Apistles taught to baptize your infants wasn’t his “theology”, it was a statement that obvious was handed down to him as he wasn’t born yet at time the Apostles started Churches.
I completely understand why Anabaptists would want to reject this with all their hearts, there are however former Anabaptists who do believe the historical understanding.

Who is this Origen you speak of? Are you referring to the heretic Origen, condemned as a heretic by Pope Theophilus I as well as by the 543 Synod of Constantinople? The Origen described by the 553 Second Council of Constantinople as "insane"?

his statement that the Apistles taught to baptize your infants wasn’t his “theology”, it was a statement that obvious was handed down to him as he wasn’t born yet at time the Apostles started Churches.

So... hearsay. Like the story about George Washington chopping down the cherry tree... and a bunch of other fables.

Origin was a teacher in the early church. I loaned my book out that goes into more information about origin. Kind of like Menno Simmons- better nights don’t go along with all he taught. That doesn’t make all he taught incorrect. Origin apparently was told that the apostles‘s taught to baptize her infants. It’s not something he just made up as his own theory. It was information that was passed down to him if he introduced other heresy, that was not one of them.

[ken_sylvania]

I will find it, I cannot remember now but I’ve seen it more than once. Maybe read all Origens writings. He is questioned on some of his theology, but his statement that the Apistles taught to baptize your infants wasn’t his “theology”, it was a statement that obvious was handed down to him as he wasn’t born yet at time the Apostles started Churches.
I completely understand why Anabaptists would want to reject this with all their hearts, there are however former Anabaptists who do believe the historical understanding.

Who is this Origen you speak of? Are you referring to the heretic Origen, condemned as a heretic by Pope Theophilus I as well as by the 543 Synod of Constantinople? The Origen described by the 553 Second Council of Constantinople as "insane"?

his statement that the Apistles taught to baptize your infants wasn’t his “theology”, it was a statement that obvious was handed down to him as he wasn’t born yet at time the Apostles started Churches.

So... hearsay. Like the story about George Washington chopping down the cherry tree... and a bunch of other fables.

Origin was a teacher in the early church. I loaned my book out that goes into more information about origin. Kind of like Menno Simmons- better nights don’t go along with all he taught. That doesn’t make all he taught incorrect. Origin apparently was told that the apostles‘s taught to baptize her infants. It’s not something he just made up as his own theory. It was information that was passed down to him if he introduced other heresy, that was not one of them.

Nor do better nights rely Menno Simmons as an authority on what the church practiced 100 years before he was born. Rather they accept what he taught only to the extent that it lines up with Scripture.

In contrast, some nights seem entirely ready to accept Origen as an authority when he says something they like, and ignore what he said that they don't like. I'm not saying everything Origen taught is incorrect - I'm saying there's no good reason to accept him as an authority on things that he thinks happened years before he was born.

[JohnH]

An open question is when nights started being able to understand the church fathers.

[Southerner]

An open question is when nights started being able to understand the church fathers.

"Nights"????? Knights?????

[Neto]

Who is this Origen you speak of? Are you referring to the heretic Origen, condemned as a heretic by Pope Theophilus I as well as by the 543 Synod of Constantinople? The Origen described by the 553 Second Council of Constantinople as "insane"?


So... hearsay. Like the story about George Washington chopping down the cherry tree... and a bunch of other fables.

Origin was a teacher in the early church. I loaned my book out that goes into more information about origin. Kind of like Menno Simmons- better nights don’t go along with all he taught. That doesn’t make all he taught incorrect. Origin apparently was told that the apostles‘s taught to baptize her infants. It’s not something he just made up as his own theory. It was information that was passed down to him if he introduced other heresy, that was not one of them.

Nor do better nights rely Menno Simmons as an authority on what the church practiced 100 years before he was born. Rather they accept what he taught only to the extent that it lines up with Scripture.

In contrast, some nights seem entirely ready to accept Origen as an authority when he says something they like, and ignore what he said that they don't like. I'm not saying everything Origen taught is incorrect - I'm saying there's no good reason to accept him as an authority on things that he thinks happened years before he was born.

Marking myself safe from being a "better night".

[R7ehr]

Isn’t that just another name for the Kingdom Christian, Charity groups what have you? The better-nights?

[ohio jones]

It's the opposite of the German-speaking groups; they have the wurst nights. Here is a link.

[Soloist]

It's the opposite of the German-speaking groups; they have the wurst nights. Here is a link.

Wife: do you have an extra link for me?