Evangelical Protestantism is Apostolic Christianity

Thanks to Pro for accepting. I will be arguing for a mix of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox view. Wikipedia will only be permitted if you can demonstrate that the information in Wikipedia is reliably sourced (in other words, it might be better to use the sources that Wikipedia cites). Arguments 1. Infant baptism was practiced in the early Church Scriptural In the Old Testament, the sign of faith (circumcision) is given to infants (Genesis 21:4). In the New Covenant, there is no declaration anywhere that the sign of faith is no longer to be given to infants, and therefore there is no reason to think that the sign of faith was no longer given to infants. Historical The vast majority of the pre-Nicene Fathers supported the baptism of infants: Irenaeus (hearer of Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John the Apostle, who was one of the 12 Apostles): "He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]). [1] This indicates that Irenaeus supported infant baptism because spiritual rebirth was considered the same as baptism in the early Church: “It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this 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 newborn 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’ [John 3:5]" (Irenaeus, Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]). [2] Hippolytus was more direct: "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 21:16 [A.D. 215]). [3] The same is true of Origen: "The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]). [4] And of Cyprian: "As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]). [5] In fact, there was only one early Church Father who opposed the baptism of infants: Tertullian. However, the reason he rejected it (among others) was because he held the view that no sin may be forgiven after baptism, which is a view that evangelicals reject: “If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.” (Tertullian, De Baptismo 18 [A.D. 210]) [6] 2. Penal substitution was not a model of the atonement that was used in the Apostolic times Penal substitution is the evangelical protestant model of the atonement that holds that Christ's sacrifice on the cross “paid the price” of our sin to the Father on the cross. This model of the atonement, however, was not held by the early Christians. Instead, they held views such as the “Christus Victor” view of the atonement, which views Christ's death and resurrection, and not His suffering on the cross, as defeating death and sin and liberating humanity from Satan's dominion. [7] Penal substitution, on the other hand, was invented during the reformation and cannot be found in pre-Nicene writings. Sources[1] http://www.newadvent.org...;[2] http://www.newadvent.org... [3] http://www.bombaxo.com...[4] http://books.google.com...[5] http://books.google.com...[6] http://www.newadvent.org...[7] http://books.google.co.uk...