Infant vs. Believer Baptism

Azurestone

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Website
deum-quaerens.blogspot.com
FountainPen said:
I should have asked what Orthodox believe about the old and new covenants and what makes the new one, new but i thought that might be too broad and off topic even if relevant to Peter's link of circumcision and baptism.
I do think it's relevant.

Colossians 2:
4 Now this I say, that no man may deceive you by loftiness of words. 5 For though I be absent in body, yet in spirit I am with you, rejoicing, and beholding your order and the steadfastness of your faith which is in Christ. 6 As therefore you have received Jesus Christ the Lord, walk in him: 7 Rooted and built up in him and confirmed in the faith, as also you have learned: abounding in him in thanksgiving. 8 Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit: according to the tradition of men according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ. 9 For in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead corporeally. 10 And you are filled in him, who is the head of all principality and power. 11 In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand in despoiling of the body of the flesh: but in the circumcision of Christ. 12 Buried with him in baptism: in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God who has raised him up from the dead. 13 And you, when you were dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he has quickened together with him, forgiving you all offences: 14 Blotting out the handwriting of the decree that was against us, which was contrary to us. And he has taken the same out of the way, fastening it to the cross. 15 And despoiling the principalities and powers, he has exposed them confidently in open show, triumphing over them in himself.
http://newadvent.org/bible/col002.htm

 

FountainPen

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Aindriú said:
FountainPen said:
I should have asked what Orthodox believe about the old and new covenants and what makes the new one, new but i thought that might be too broad and off topic even if relevant to Peter's link of circumcision and baptism.
I do think it's relevant.

Colossians 2:
4 Now this I say, that no man may deceive you by loftiness of words. 5 For though I be absent in body, yet in spirit I am with you, rejoicing, and beholding your order and the steadfastness of your faith which is in Christ. 6 As therefore you have received Jesus Christ the Lord, walk in him: 7 Rooted and built up in him and confirmed in the faith, as also you have learned: abounding in him in thanksgiving. 8 Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit: according to the tradition of men according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ. 9 For in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead corporeally. 10 And you are filled in him, who is the head of all principality and power. 11 In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand in despoiling of the body of the flesh: but in the circumcision of Christ. 12 Buried with him in baptism: in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God who has raised him up from the dead. 13 And you, when you were dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he has quickened together with him, forgiving you all offences: 14 Blotting out the handwriting of the decree that was against us, which was contrary to us. And he has taken the same out of the way, fastening it to the cross. 15 And despoiling the principalities and powers, he has exposed them confidently in open show, triumphing over them in himself.
http://newadvent.org/bible/col002.htm
Yes, circumcision of the heart is now today.

Baptism has always been practiced, it's not a replacement.
 

genesisone

Archon
Joined
Aug 20, 2005
Messages
2,906
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
68
Location
Niagara Region, Ontario
FountainPen said:
genesisone said:
FountainPen said:
katherineofdixie said:
Do Scriptures record that whole households repented and were baptized?
It says they were saved, nothiing more than that.
Acts 16 says more than "nothing" twice (NKJV):

14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.
It says nothing about infants that's for sure. So a fundamental practice is based on no explicit command.
Unfortunately, it's pretty hard to believe that these families were without children of various ages. You can support your position only by adding "(family/household) except for the children" or "the adults of (the family/household)". Very strange that you suggest that the only families who converted to Christianity as recorded in the New Testament were families without children. Is that your position? i.e. that only individuals and families without children became Christians during the Apostolic era?
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
FountainPen said:
Aindriú said:
FountainPen said:
I should have asked what Orthodox believe about the old and new covenants and what makes the new one, new but i thought that might be too broad and off topic even if relevant to Peter's link of circumcision and baptism.
I do think it's relevant.

Colossians 2:
4 Now this I say, that no man may deceive you by loftiness of words. 5 For though I be absent in body, yet in spirit I am with you, rejoicing, and beholding your order and the steadfastness of your faith which is in Christ. 6 As therefore you have received Jesus Christ the Lord, walk in him: 7 Rooted and built up in him and confirmed in the faith, as also you have learned: abounding in him in thanksgiving. 8 Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit: according to the tradition of men according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ. 9 For in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead corporeally. 10 And you are filled in him, who is the head of all principality and power. 11 In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand in despoiling of the body of the flesh: but in the circumcision of Christ. 12 Buried with him in baptism: in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God who has raised him up from the dead. 13 And you, when you were dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he has quickened together with him, forgiving you all offences: 14 Blotting out the handwriting of the decree that was against us, which was contrary to us. And he has taken the same out of the way, fastening it to the cross. 15 And despoiling the principalities and powers, he has exposed them confidently in open show, triumphing over them in himself.
http://newadvent.org/bible/col002.htm
Yes, circumcision of the heart is now today.

Baptism has always been practiced, it's not a replacement.
It's not a replacement only in that we baptize even girls and women.
 

Marc1152

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
14,838
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
67
Location
Maryland
FountainPen said:
genesisone said:
FountainPen said:
katherineofdixie said:
Do Scriptures record that whole households repented and were baptized?
It says they were saved, nothiing more than that.
Acts 16 says more than "nothing" twice (NKJV):

14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.
It says nothing about infants that's for sure. So a fundamental practice is based on no explicit command.
And yet, clearly that's what they did. I wonder what the Apostles and direct disciples of Christ understood that you don't?

If there really was a change from the Apostles performing a Protestant styled "Believers Baptism " ( ie refusing to Baptize children) it would have been discussed.

Tertullian discusses infant Baptism somewhere around the year 200 to 206 A.D. It's clear from what he wrote that this was not some new innovation but was already a established sacrament. That means at the infant Baptism was norm before 200 AD.

And yet, no mention anywhere of the Church changing course from "Believers Baptism" (an obvious fantasy projection of a Protestant heresy onto the Apostles) to accepting children. Impossible.
 

FountainPen

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Points
0
genesisone said:
FountainPen said:
genesisone said:
FountainPen said:
katherineofdixie said:
Do Scriptures record that whole households repented and were baptized?
It says they were saved, nothiing more than that.
Acts 16 says more than "nothing" twice (NKJV):

14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.
It says nothing about infants that's for sure. So a fundamental practice is based on no explicit command.
Unfortunately, it's pretty hard to believe that these families were without children of various ages. You can support your position only by adding "(family/household) except for the children" or "the adults of (the family/household)". Very strange that you suggest that the only families who converted to Christianity as recorded in the New Testament were families without children. Is that your position? i.e. that only individuals and families without children became Christians during the Apostolic era?
No, my position is: if it doesn't say explicitly, then don't squish and squash verses and church fathers this way and that, to back up a practice that does not have an explicit directive from Christ.
 

FountainPen

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Marc1152 said:
FountainPen said:
genesisone said:
FountainPen said:
katherineofdixie said:
Do Scriptures record that whole households repented and were baptized?
It says they were saved, nothiing more than that.
Acts 16 says more than "nothing" twice (NKJV):

14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.
It says nothing about infants that's for sure. So a fundamental practice is based on no explicit command.
And yet, clearly that's what they did. I wonder what the Apostles and direct disciples of Christ understood that you don't?

If there really was a change from the Apostles performing a Protestant styled "Believers Baptism " ( ie refusing to Baptize children) it would have been discussed.

Tertullian discusses infant Baptism somewhere around the year 200 to 206 A.D. It's clear from what he wrote that this was not some new innovation but was already a established sacrament. That means at the infant Baptism was norm before 200 AD.

And yet, no mention anywhere of the Church changing course from "Believers Baptism" (an obvious fantasy projection of a Protestant heresy onto the Apostles) to accepting children. Impossible.
"no mention anywhere..." it's funny because when i tried to use that to qualify my position, it was dismissed.

I'm sure it was an established sacrament by that time, but not one that Christ commanded.
 

Azurestone

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Website
deum-quaerens.blogspot.com
FountainPen said:
genesisone said:
FountainPen said:
genesisone said:
FountainPen said:
katherineofdixie said:
Do Scriptures record that whole households repented and were baptized?
It says they were saved, nothiing more than that.
Acts 16 says more than "nothing" twice (NKJV):

14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.
It says nothing about infants that's for sure. So a fundamental practice is based on no explicit command.
Unfortunately, it's pretty hard to believe that these families were without children of various ages. You can support your position only by adding "(family/household) except for the children" or "the adults of (the family/household)". Very strange that you suggest that the only families who converted to Christianity as recorded in the New Testament were families without children. Is that your position? i.e. that only individuals and families without children became Christians during the Apostolic era?
No, my position is: if it doesn't say explicitly, then don't squish and squash verses and church fathers this way and that, to back up a practice that does not have an explicit directive from Christ.
We have been showing this:
-Jesus commanded to baptize.
-Baptism is necessary for salvation, as commanded by Jesus.
-The apostles baptized whole families.
-Baptism is the new circumcision.
-The early church baptized infants.

You desire to claim: That Baptism isn't necessary until someone decides it is? Don't let me mince your words, but I think that's where we are at.

The burden of proof is on you, as we are continually establishing precedent that Jesus intended baptism for ALL to include children.
 

FountainPen

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Aindriú said:
FountainPen said:
genesisone said:
FountainPen said:
genesisone said:
FountainPen said:
katherineofdixie said:
Do Scriptures record that whole households repented and were baptized?
It says they were saved, nothiing more than that.
Acts 16 says more than "nothing" twice (NKJV):

14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.
It says nothing about infants that's for sure. So a fundamental practice is based on no explicit command.
Unfortunately, it's pretty hard to believe that these families were without children of various ages. You can support your position only by adding "(family/household) except for the children" or "the adults of (the family/household)". Very strange that you suggest that the only families who converted to Christianity as recorded in the New Testament were families without children. Is that your position? i.e. that only individuals and families without children became Christians during the Apostolic era?
No, my position is: if it doesn't say explicitly, then don't squish and squash verses and church fathers this way and that, to back up a practice that does not have an explicit directive from Christ.
We have been showing this:
-Jesus commanded to baptize.
-Baptism is necessary for salvation, as commanded by Jesus.
-The apostles baptized whole families.
-Baptism is the new circumcision.
-The early church baptized infants.

You desire to claim: That Baptism isn't necessary until someone decides it is? Don't let me mince your words, but I think that's where we are at.

The burden of proof is on you, as we are continually establishing precedent that Jesus intended baptism for ALL to include children.
I don't dispute children can be baptised.

I don't dispute that baptism is necessary.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
FountainPen said:
Marc1152 said:
FountainPen said:
genesisone said:
FountainPen said:
katherineofdixie said:
Do Scriptures record that whole households repented and were baptized?
It says they were saved, nothiing more than that.
Acts 16 says more than "nothing" twice (NKJV):

14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.
It says nothing about infants that's for sure. So a fundamental practice is based on no explicit command.
And yet, clearly that's what they did. I wonder what the Apostles and direct disciples of Christ understood that you don't?

If there really was a change from the Apostles performing a Protestant styled "Believers Baptism " ( ie refusing to Baptize children) it would have been discussed.

Tertullian discusses infant Baptism somewhere around the year 200 to 206 A.D. It's clear from what he wrote that this was not some new innovation but was already a established sacrament. That means at the infant Baptism was norm before 200 AD.

And yet, no mention anywhere of the Church changing course from "Believers Baptism" (an obvious fantasy projection of a Protestant heresy onto the Apostles) to accepting children. Impossible.
"no mention anywhere..." it's funny because when i tried to use that to qualify my position, it was dismissed.
Arguments from silence are not always bad logic. If you can establish convincingly that the party whose silence you're citing had such compelling reason to say something that their silence clearly shows ignorance of the matter, then the silence can indeed be very loud. Your argument from silence was dismissed because you showed no evidence whatsoever that the apostolic council of Acts 15 had any reason to address the subject of baptism. Marc's argument from silence, OTOH, gives us some good background information to show why the silence of the early Fathers on any change in baptismal practice matters.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
FountainPen said:
genesisone said:
FountainPen said:
genesisone said:
FountainPen said:
katherineofdixie said:
Do Scriptures record that whole households repented and were baptized?
It says they were saved, nothiing more than that.
Acts 16 says more than "nothing" twice (NKJV):

14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.
It says nothing about infants that's for sure. So a fundamental practice is based on no explicit command.
Unfortunately, it's pretty hard to believe that these families were without children of various ages. You can support your position only by adding "(family/household) except for the children" or "the adults of (the family/household)". Very strange that you suggest that the only families who converted to Christianity as recorded in the New Testament were families without children. Is that your position? i.e. that only individuals and families without children became Christians during the Apostolic era?
No, my position is: if it doesn't say explicitly, then don't squish and squash verses and church fathers this way and that, to back up a practice that does not have an explicit directive from Christ.
And why is your personal opinion important in this discussion? What dogmatic precedent can you cite to suggest that we are to follow only those practices that Jesus mandated explicitly in the Scriptures?
 

Mivac

Sr. Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
248
Reaction score
0
Points
0
FountainPen said:
Aindriú said:
FountainPen said:
I should have asked what Orthodox believe about the old and new covenants and what makes the new one, new but i thought that might be too broad and off topic even if relevant to Peter's link of circumcision and baptism.
I do think it's relevant.

Colossians 2:
4 Now this I say, that no man may deceive you by loftiness of words. 5 For though I be absent in body, yet in spirit I am with you, rejoicing, and beholding your order and the steadfastness of your faith which is in Christ. 6 As therefore you have received Jesus Christ the Lord, walk in him: 7 Rooted and built up in him and confirmed in the faith, as also you have learned: abounding in him in thanksgiving. 8 Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit: according to the tradition of men according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ. 9 For in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead corporeally. 10 And you are filled in him, who is the head of all principality and power. 11 In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand in despoiling of the body of the flesh: but in the circumcision of Christ. 12 Buried with him in baptism: in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God who has raised him up from the dead. 13 And you, when you were dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he has quickened together with him, forgiving you all offences: 14 Blotting out the handwriting of the decree that was against us, which was contrary to us. And he has taken the same out of the way, fastening it to the cross. 15 And despoiling the principalities and powers, he has exposed them confidently in open show, triumphing over them in himself.
http://newadvent.org/bible/col002.htm
Yes, circumcision of the heart is now today.

Baptism has always been practiced, it's not a replacement.
If Baptism is the same and just about repentance both OT and NT, then why did Paul bother to rebaptized those who only had the Baptism of John?

Acts 19:19 And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples 2 he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”

So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”

3 And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?”

So they said, “Into John’s baptism.”

4 Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.”

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
 

FountainPen

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PeterTheAleut said:
FountainPen said:
genesisone said:
FountainPen said:
genesisone said:
FountainPen said:
katherineofdixie said:
Do Scriptures record that whole households repented and were baptized?
It says they were saved, nothiing more than that.
Acts 16 says more than "nothing" twice (NKJV):

14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.
It says nothing about infants that's for sure. So a fundamental practice is based on no explicit command.
Unfortunately, it's pretty hard to believe that these families were without children of various ages. You can support your position only by adding "(family/household) except for the children" or "the adults of (the family/household)". Very strange that you suggest that the only families who converted to Christianity as recorded in the New Testament were families without children. Is that your position? i.e. that only individuals and families without children became Christians during the Apostolic era?
No, my position is: if it doesn't say explicitly, then don't squish and squash verses and church fathers this way and that, to back up a practice that does not have an explicit directive from Christ.
And why is your personal opinion important in this discussion?
I was stating my position, not my opinion. I've given sources as to why i believe what i do.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
FountainPen said:
PeterTheAleut said:
FountainPen said:
genesisone said:
FountainPen said:
genesisone said:
FountainPen said:
katherineofdixie said:
Do Scriptures record that whole households repented and were baptized?
It says they were saved, nothiing more than that.
Acts 16 says more than "nothing" twice (NKJV):

14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.
It says nothing about infants that's for sure. So a fundamental practice is based on no explicit command.
Unfortunately, it's pretty hard to believe that these families were without children of various ages. You can support your position only by adding "(family/household) except for the children" or "the adults of (the family/household)". Very strange that you suggest that the only families who converted to Christianity as recorded in the New Testament were families without children. Is that your position? i.e. that only individuals and families without children became Christians during the Apostolic era?
No, my position is: if it doesn't say explicitly, then don't squish and squash verses and church fathers this way and that, to back up a practice that does not have an explicit directive from Christ.
And why is your personal opinion important in this discussion?
I was stating my position, not my opinion.
Position... opinion... What's the difference?

FountainPen said:
I've given sources as to why i believe what i do.
Such as...
 

Marc1152

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
14,838
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
67
Location
Maryland
FountainPen said:
genesisone said:
FountainPen said:
genesisone said:
FountainPen said:
katherineofdixie said:
Do Scriptures record that whole households repented and were baptized?
It says they were saved, nothiing more than that.
Acts 16 says more than "nothing" twice (NKJV):

14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.
31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.
It says nothing about infants that's for sure. So a fundamental practice is based on no explicit command.
Unfortunately, it's pretty hard to believe that these families were without children of various ages. You can support your position only by adding "(family/household) except for the children" or "the adults of (the family/household)". Very strange that you suggest that the only families who converted to Christianity as recorded in the New Testament were families without children. Is that your position? i.e. that only individuals and families without children became Christians during the Apostolic era?
No, my position is: if it doesn't say explicitly, then don't squish and squash verses and church fathers this way and that, to back up a practice that does not have an explicit directive from Christ.
Apparently the Apostles performed Infant Baptisms as did all those taught by them. Who are you again?
 

Azurestone

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Website
deum-quaerens.blogspot.com
Marc1152 said:
FountainPen said:
No, my position is: if it doesn't say explicitly, then don't squish and squash verses and church fathers this way and that, to back up a practice that does not have an explicit directive from Christ.
Apparently the Apostles performed Infant Baptisms as did all those taught by them. Who are you again?
:D ;D ;)
 

Attachments

FountainPen

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Marc1152 said:
Apparently the Apostles performed Infant Baptisms as did all those taught by them. Who are you again?
Not surprised you prefixed with "Apparently...".
 

Azul

High Elder
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
988
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Baptism is the door of entrance into the Church.. One cannot partake of the mysteries of the Church and actively participate in the life of the Church without Baptism.The Bible does not explicitly say that infants were baptized but it speaks of thousands being baptized at a time and of houses being baptized.While it wasn`t the general use infants were being baptized also.. We can see this from the writings of the fathers and even from the acts of early local councils such as the Council of Chalcedon in 256.

Baptism is given even to infants as a result to the Abrahamic Covenant whom like all covenants is transcended in Christ.Paul identifies Baptism with the Circumcision of Christ , or Christ was circumcised when he was an infant.In the Orthodox Tradition Christ circumcised circumcision, completed it, met its final fulfillment, ended it and made it obsolete.According to the Bible no one defiled (unregenerated by the waters of Baptism) should enter into the Church hence Baptism is the door of entrance into the Church.Much more Ezekiel prophecized of this in an allegory saying that no one uncircumcised will enter into the New Temple.This discussion can also go further unto what belief really is and if Baptism is only for believers.

 

Azurestone

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Website
deum-quaerens.blogspot.com
FountainPen said:
Marc1152 said:
Not surprised you prefixed with "Apparently...".
That all you got?

 
Is that all that matters to you is what i've "got"?
[/quote]

OOoooooh. Let's play the question game!


Do you really think that all that matters to me is what you've got?

Seriously, though. You didn't help above when I was trying to figure out what you're disputing.
 

FountainPen

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Aindriú said:
FountainPen said:
Marc1152 said:
FountainPen said:
Not surprised you prefixed with "Apparently...".
That all you got?
Is that all that matters to you is what i've "got"?
OOoooooh. Let's play the question game!

Do you really think that all that matters to me is what you've got?

Seriously, though. You didn't help above when I was trying to figure out what you're disputing.
I wasn't trying to be helpful.

I have decided to be indifferent.
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,641
Reaction score
0
Points
0
FountainPen said:
Aindriú said:
FountainPen said:
Marc1152 said:
FountainPen said:
Not surprised you prefixed with "Apparently...".
That all you got?
Is that all that matters to you is what i've "got"?
OOoooooh. Let's play the question game!

Do you really think that all that matters to me is what you've got?

Seriously, though. You didn't help above when I was trying to figure out what you're disputing.
I wasn't trying to be helpful.

I have decided to be indifferent.
Ah, the mark of someone who realizes she's lost the argument.  ::)
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
FountainPen said:
Aindriú said:
FountainPen said:
Marc1152 said:
FountainPen said:
Not surprised you prefixed with "Apparently...".
That all you got?
Is that all that matters to you is what i've "got"?
OOoooooh. Let's play the question game!

Do you really think that all that matters to me is what you've got?

Seriously, though. You didn't help above when I was trying to figure out what you're disputing.
I wasn't trying to be helpful.

I have decided to be indifferent.
Just a hint: If you really want to engage us in a discussion/debate, respectfully put forth your argument and let us voice our opinion of it. You do your arguments no good at all to get overly involved in the petty tit for tat as you do.
 

FountainPen

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Peter, what's the point!? I mean, my final authority is Holy Scripture, yours is the Church. So when i give you sources and evidence for a thing and you disagree, there isn't anywhere to go other than "...because the Church says so." thus there is nothing more i could ever produce that would effect a change of view because the Church says it's the True Church and has the correct belief and of course that must be true because the Church said it!

I've decided it's pointless.
 

FountainPen

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Points
0
LBK said:
FountainPen said:
Aindriú said:
FountainPen said:
Marc1152 said:
FountainPen said:
Not surprised you prefixed with "Apparently...".
That all you got?
Is that all that matters to you is what i've "got"?
OOoooooh. Let's play the question game!

Do you really think that all that matters to me is what you've got?

Seriously, though. You didn't help above when I was trying to figure out what you're disputing.
I wasn't trying to be helpful.

I have decided to be indifferent.
Ah, the mark of someone who realizes she's lost the argument.  ::)
That's quite sad because this isn't about arguing and winning, it's about life and truth!
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Wichita, KS
FountainPen said:
Peter, what's the point!? I mean, my final authority is Holy Scripture, yours is the Church. So when i give you sources and evidence for a thing and you disagree, there isn't anywhere to go other than "...because the Church says so." thus there is nothing more i could ever produce that would effect a change of view because the Church says it's the True Church and has the correct belief and of course that must be true because the Church said it!

I've decided it's pointless.
Why is scripture what we say it is? Because the Church said so... ;)
 

FountainPen

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ortho_cat said:
FountainPen said:
Peter, what's the point!? I mean, my final authority is Holy Scripture, yours is the Church. So when i give you sources and evidence for a thing and you disagree, there isn't anywhere to go other than "...because the Church says so." thus there is nothing more i could ever produce that would effect a change of view because the Church says it's the True Church and has the correct belief and of course that must be true because the Church said it!

I've decided it's pointless.
Why is scripture what we say it is? Because the Church said so... ;)
Orthodoxy in a nutshell.
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Wichita, KS
FountainPen said:
Ortho_cat said:
FountainPen said:
Peter, what's the point!? I mean, my final authority is Holy Scripture, yours is the Church. So when i give you sources and evidence for a thing and you disagree, there isn't anywhere to go other than "...because the Church says so." thus there is nothing more i could ever produce that would effect a change of view because the Church says it's the True Church and has the correct belief and of course that must be true because the Church said it!

I've decided it's pointless.
Why is scripture what we say it is? Because the Church said so... ;)
Orthodoxy in a nutshell.
Ah, my intentions were to point out that to rely on the bible as final authority is to rely on the church, because the church compiled what we know to be the bible.
 

katherineofdixie

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
3,719
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
the South, thanks be to God
FountainPen said:
...my final authority is Holy Scripture, yours is the Church.
Not quite. Your final authority is your personal individual understanding/interpretation of Holy Scripture, which is something entirely different.
Holy Scripture may indeed mean what you say it means - or it may not. How can you be so sure that you are right and everyone else, for centuries, has been wrong?
For the Orthodox, the Apostolic Church, the Body of Christ, guides us in our interpretation/understanding.
 

FountainPen

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ortho_cat said:
FountainPen said:
Ortho_cat said:
FountainPen said:
Peter, what's the point!? I mean, my final authority is Holy Scripture, yours is the Church. So when i give you sources and evidence for a thing and you disagree, there isn't anywhere to go other than "...because the Church says so." thus there is nothing more i could ever produce that would effect a change of view because the Church says it's the True Church and has the correct belief and of course that must be true because the Church said it!

I've decided it's pointless.
Why is scripture what we say it is? Because the Church said so... ;)
Orthodoxy in a nutshell.
Ah, my intentions were to point out that to rely on the bible as final authority is to rely on the church, because the church compiled what we know to be the bible.
Ah,*whoosh*, sorry.

#smiles
 

FountainPen

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Points
0
katherineofdixie said:
FountainPen said:
...my final authority is Holy Scripture, yours is the Church.
Not quite. Your final authority is your personal individual understanding/interpretation of Holy Scripture, which is something entirely different.
Holy Scripture may indeed mean what you say it means - or it may not. How can you be so sure that you are right and everyone else, for centuries, has been wrong?
For the Orthodox, the Apostolic Church, the Body of Christ, guides us in our interpretation/understanding.
Not quite.

That's what annoys me that Orthodox would think non-Orthodox so arrogant. (in general Katherine)

I personally rely on biblical scholars with big letters after their name.
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Wichita, KS
FountainPen said:
Ortho_cat said:
FountainPen said:
Ortho_cat said:
FountainPen said:
Peter, what's the point!? I mean, my final authority is Holy Scripture, yours is the Church. So when i give you sources and evidence for a thing and you disagree, there isn't anywhere to go other than "...because the Church says so." thus there is nothing more i could ever produce that would effect a change of view because the Church says it's the True Church and has the correct belief and of course that must be true because the Church said it!

I've decided it's pointless.
Why is scripture what we say it is? Because the Church said so... ;)
Orthodoxy in a nutshell.
Ah, my intentions were to point out that to rely on the bible as final authority is to rely on the church, because the church compiled what we know to be the bible.
Ah,*whoosh*, sorry.

#smiles
np ;)
 

Second Chance

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
8,017
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
74
Location
South Carolina
FountainPen said:
katherineofdixie said:
FountainPen said:
...my final authority is Holy Scripture, yours is the Church.
Not quite. Your final authority is your personal individual understanding/interpretation of Holy Scripture, which is something entirely different.
Holy Scripture may indeed mean what you say it means - or it may not. How can you be so sure that you are right and everyone else, for centuries, has been wrong?
For the Orthodox, the Apostolic Church, the Body of Christ, guides us in our interpretation/understanding.
Not quite.

That's what annoys me that Orthodox would think non-Orthodox so arrogant. (in general Katherine)

I personally rely on biblical scholars with big letters after their name.
So you rely on biblical scholars who have lived centuries after the events rather than the original disciples and their disciples, etc...?
 

FountainPen

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Second Chance said:
FountainPen said:
katherineofdixie said:
FountainPen said:
...my final authority is Holy Scripture, yours is the Church.
Not quite. Your final authority is your personal individual understanding/interpretation of Holy Scripture, which is something entirely different.
Holy Scripture may indeed mean what you say it means - or it may not. How can you be so sure that you are right and everyone else, for centuries, has been wrong?
For the Orthodox, the Apostolic Church, the Body of Christ, guides us in our interpretation/understanding.
Not quite.

That's what annoys me that Orthodox would think non-Orthodox so arrogant. (in general Katherine)

I personally rely on biblical scholars with big letters after their name.
So you rely on biblical scholars who have lived centuries after the events rather than the original disciples and their disciples, etc...?
Yes, i know of a man who is a great biblical scholar and whose daddy was one too. Maybe his daddy was and his before and so on and so forth right back to Jesus!
 

xariskai

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
1,625
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Forgive me if some of this has been said -long thread!

This topic is, of course, hotly debated within Protestantism as well, with scholars on both sides claiming biblical and historical warrant while sometimes also candidly admitting a lack of absolute slam dunk exegetical "proof." If such absolute exegetical proof were possible one wonders why all the fuss for the last few centuries including our own within Protestantism.

A hidden) premise of the thread title is "infants cannot have faith"; however Luther (and I believe also Calvin) regarded infants as having a kind of "faith." If infants *can* have a sort of faith, believer's "versus" infant baptism would be a false dichotomy, and support for the former would not count as ipso facto evidence contra the latter.

Some passages cited in favor of this thesis include Psalm 8:2 ("Out of the mouths of babes and nursing infants you have perfected praise"; quoted by Jesus in Matt 21:16) and Luke 1:15b, 41: "He [John the Baptist] will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb..."; "...and it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit." It is argued that even before birth in this instance some kind of faith/cognizance would have to be present for the unborn John to have reacted -not just as a biological organism might to a sound, but *joyously* to the presence of Mary, then pregnant with the Maker of the starfields.

I am not sure how one would argue that the unborn John could display a reaction of both recognition and *joy* while at the same time being utterly devoid of faith of any sort. I am also not sure how one would argue that *praise of God* is possible without some sort of faith in God, although I would be interested to hear such a theory if anyone cares to offer one.

That even a babe in the womb can receive grace is also often claimed evident from Lk 1:15. Other commonly cited examples are found here.

Some (not all) Lutherans will object to the baptism of John example as playing a part in *their* defense of infant baptism in that they hold prior faith, even mentioned as an alternative possibility, is not the best way to represent the Lutheran perspective, although it is nevertheless commonly cited by other Lutheran and many Roman Catholic writers.

I think the common hidden assumption which would balk at the above passages is tied to the presumption that faith *must* be correlated with a specific capacity for discursive reasoning in every case (which seems challenged e.g. by suckling infants seeming to *need* "some" sort of faith in God to actually *praise* God), or even to what extent biblical data requires us to posit propositional awareness is a sine qua non of faith, a broad debate in and of itself with examples such as the faith of the OT prostitute Rahab typically being called into court. I will leave the details aside and simply mention it in passing here as it will doubtless come to the reader's mind. But the scripture assigning faith to infants seems to clearly break the self-evidence of the argument for absolute necessity of such a connection between faith and propositional capacity as many see it. Life is larger than logic, and so is faith, and God is able to relate in and through all things to our "hearts "as well as to our heads. This is not to say propositional knowledge is irrelevant to faith (a notion perhaps more akin to Buddhism), for once it begins to factor in we realize it becomes inescapable as it constitutes our being in the world one way or another; ideas do have consequences, and they are at least in scripture dialectically relatable to faith, not strictly prior or consequential. But they are arguably never the primary thing; encountering God in the manner he has laid down for us -not merely as a manner, but as Energy- arguably is, e.g. in the askesis of prayer, in the Eucharist, and so on. This is clearly evident in the biblical doctrine that holiness is transmissible MERELY BY TOUCH, another notion which has been largely lost in the Protestant West.

Of course paedofaith does not necessarily entail paedobaptism, which is another can of worms I will not bother to open in depth at this time. The biblical evidence considered alone (in a sort of artificial vaccuum) has been deemed ambiguous either way by some very good scholars. However if the evidence can be deemed ambiguous and interpreted in different ways, what determines which choice is individually affirmed? Tradition, tacitly or explicitly/perceived or not, plays a role in *every* theological trajectory within Christendom bar none. Scholarship is not hermetically sealed from the sociology of tradition -an almost universally discounted notion in contemporary philosophy (even science cannot be wertfrein or "value free"); in fact traditions grounded in scholarship are among the most conservative of all forms of tradition (liturgical tradition being, I think, the most conservative).

It often goes unrecognized by Protestants on a sort of outmoded hermeneutic characteristic of outmoded Enlightenment foundationalism, and indeed supposing doctrines can be "proved by the scripture" like this one, when even within Protestantism there are strong proponents of every position at the highest level of academic theological and exegetical competence, seems rather dubious IMHO, else why has the debate continued for so many centuries after the Reformation? Neither does sola scriptura avoid extra biblical information in terms of the vast studies about the philological historiography of the biblical languages which look beyond the scriptures themselves to, yes, culture and tradition, the endless attention to backgrounds in ancient Judaism, historical, liturgical, rhetorical, and other sitz im leben, and on and on, and yet a giant wall is put up by some Protestants when it comes to the early fathers (though admittedly all do not do this -I never did before becoming Orthodox and essentially considered myself paleo-orthodox for quite some time before personally making the move to Orthodoxy- but many certainly do) even when certain theological points, like the belief in the possibility of apostasy and so on, were universally held with no exceptions whatsoever in every major geographic region where early Christianity spread from the earliest attested dates, and among those for whom Koine Greek was a mother tongue to boot, and among those who had direct lines of descent among their revered teachers to the apostles themselves.

Another poster provided the following helpful information, which I'll append in closing as my post is already getting too long for most to bother with...

From Vespers for the feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist:
"You were shown to be a prophet and Forerunner from your mother's womb, O John, Baptist of Christ, leaping up and rejoicing within her when you beheld the Queen, bearing the Timeless One who was begotten of the Father without mother, coming to her handmaid and to you, who shone forth from a barren woman and an elderly man according to God's promise. Elizabeth conceived the Forerunner of grace, and the Virgin conceived the Lord of glory. Both mothers kissed each other, and the babe leapt up, for within her womb the servant praised the Master. And the mother of the Forerunner marvelled and cried out: "How is it that the Mother of my Lord should come to me? May He who has great mercy save a despairing people!"

From the Litia:
"Today Elizabeth gives birth to the ultimate prophet, the first of the apostles, the earthly angel and heavenly man, the voice of the Word, the soldier and Forerunner of Christ, who leapt up beforehand in token of the promise, and before his birth proclaimed the Sun of righteousness; and she rejoices. Zechariah is astonished in his old age, putting aside his silence like a bond imposed upon him; and as the father of the voice he prophesies: "For you, O child, shall be called the prophet of the Most High and shall go forth to prepare the way for Him.: Therefore, O angel, prophet, apostle, warrior, Forerunner, baptizer, preacher and instructor of repentance: As the voice of the Light and Word, pray unceasingly for us who keep your memory with faith."
 

Azul

High Elder
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
988
Reaction score
0
Points
0
@xariskai I must confess I never understood the Orthodox position on this.Do we say that infaints have faith?Are infants baptized on account to their faith?All infants have faith?
 

katherineofdixie

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
3,719
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
the South, thanks be to God
FountainPen said:
Second Chance said:
FountainPen said:
katherineofdixie said:
FountainPen said:
...my final authority is Holy Scripture, yours is the Church.
Not quite. Your final authority is your personal individual understanding/interpretation of Holy Scripture, which is something entirely different.
Holy Scripture may indeed mean what you say it means - or it may not. How can you be so sure that you are right and everyone else, for centuries, has been wrong?
For the Orthodox, the Apostolic Church, the Body of Christ, guides us in our interpretation/understanding.
Not quite.

That's what annoys me that Orthodox would think non-Orthodox so arrogant. (in general Katherine)

I personally rely on biblical scholars with big letters after their name.
So you rely on biblical scholars who have lived centuries after the events rather than the original disciples and their disciples, etc...?
Yes, i know of a man who is a great biblical scholar and whose daddy was one too. Maybe his daddy was and his before and so on and so forth right back to Jesus!
Oh, dear, so your authority is not Holy Scripture, but rather unnamed Biblical scholars?  It's still interpretation - you've just made the decision to trust them instead of the Church. Same song, you know, just second verse.
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,641
Reaction score
0
Points
0
katherineofdixie said:
FountainPen said:
Second Chance said:
FountainPen said:
katherineofdixie said:
FountainPen said:
...my final authority is Holy Scripture, yours is the Church.
Not quite. Your final authority is your personal individual understanding/interpretation of Holy Scripture, which is something entirely different.
Holy Scripture may indeed mean what you say it means - or it may not. How can you be so sure that you are right and everyone else, for centuries, has been wrong?
For the Orthodox, the Apostolic Church, the Body of Christ, guides us in our interpretation/understanding.
Not quite.

That's what annoys me that Orthodox would think non-Orthodox so arrogant. (in general Katherine)

I personally rely on biblical scholars with big letters after their name.
So you rely on biblical scholars who have lived centuries after the events rather than the original disciples and their disciples, etc...?
Yes, i know of a man who is a great biblical scholar and whose daddy was one too. Maybe his daddy was and his before and so on and so forth right back to Jesus!
Oh, dear, so your authority is not Holy Scripture, but rather unnamed Biblical scholars?  It's still interpretation - you've just made the decision to trust them instead of the Church. Same song, you know, just second verse.
Bravo, Katherine!
 

genesisone

Archon
Joined
Aug 20, 2005
Messages
2,906
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
68
Location
Niagara Region, Ontario
FountainPen said:
Yes, i know of a man who is a great biblical scholar and whose daddy was one too. Maybe his daddy was and his before and so on and so forth right back to Jesus!
I noticed the "maybe"; our line of historical continuity is not a "maybe". Can you name the man, his daddy, his daddy, his daddy...? If not, why do you trust them? For that matter, even if you can name them, why do you trust them to have interpreted the Scriptures correctly?

There are some very competent scholars out there (both now and in past years) but a lot of biblical scholarship is highly questionable (both now and in past years), e.g. some contemporary studies of the "historical Jesus". You know what I'm talking about.
 
Top