Infant vs. Believer Baptism

katherineofdixie

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
3,719
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
the South, thanks be to God
FountainPen said:
Marc1152 said:
FountainPen said:
He probably realises they'd be dismissed rather than answered that might be why.
Hardly.. it would be monumentally important if he can provide some documentation. More likely he cant but let's wait and see.

Here is the question. If the Apostles performed "Believers Baptism" in the manner of today's Protestants then they refused to Baptize infants and children. But early on we know that the Church did in fact Baptize infants and children. The question is then how did this change occur without discussion? To alter a fundamental sacrament without anyone noticing, discussing it pro or con much less have a council decide to approve the change, seems to us to be an impossibility.  
Here's the thing: what if they should never have started to baptise children in the first place?

If children (example baby John) have some kind of communion with God, maybe they don't need it, maybe they never did. The scriptures clearly teach a baptism of repentance and babies so obviously cannot and need not, repent.

Do Scriptures record that whole households repented and were baptized?


And if they never should have started in the first place, that means that Christians for 1500 or so years were getting a foundational belief and paractice wrong, with no records and no controversy, until the Anabaptists discovered the truth.
How likely is that?
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Wichita, KS
I have a strong feeling that the verses that refer to househoulds being baptized were done so after the conversion of the man of the house. That is, it was his responsibility to lead his family in faith, and after he converted, the rest of his family was baptized based on his faith. Perhaps it isn't PC today, but I think this is how the culture functioned back then.
 

katherineofdixie

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
3,719
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
the South, thanks be to God
Ortho_cat said:
I have a strong feeling that the verses that refer to househoulds being baptized were done so after the conversion of the man of the house. That is, it was his responsibility to lead his family in faith, and after he converted, the rest of his family was baptized based on his faith. Perhaps it isn't PC today, but I think this is how the culture functioned back then.
Yes, a household in the Roman Empire could, and mostly did, include not only the nuclear family, but extended family, uncles, aunts, cousins, slaves, and even business partners and proteges. The pater familias had pretty much total control over everyone, and made the decisions for the entire household.
 

Marc1152

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
14,838
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
67
Location
Maryland
Second Chance said:
FountainPen said:
Marc1152 said:
FountainPen said:
He probably realises they'd be dismissed rather than answered that might be why.
Hardly.. it would be monumentally important if he can provide some documentation. More likely he cant but let's wait and see.

Here is the question. If the Apostles performed "Believers Baptism" in the manner of today's Protestants then they refused to Baptize infants and children. But early on we know that the Church did in fact Baptize infants and children. The question is then how did this change occur without discussion? To alter a fundamental sacrament without anyone noticing, discussing it pro or con much less have a council decide to approve the change, seems to us to be an impossibility.  
Here's the thing: what if they should never have started to baptise children in the first place?

If children (example baby John) have some kind of communion with God, maybe they don't need it, maybe they never did. The scriptures clearly teach a baptism of repentance and babies so obviously cannot and need not, repent.
That may indeed be what Pastor Young thinks as well. But, as we discussed above, it is hard to get around he fact that babies were baptized from the earliest of times. If the latter is ignored, then one is put in a position of picking and choosing; the Holy Scriptures lose their preeminent position and, one's predilections reign much more so than even for a person who operates under sola scriptura.
Something else occurred to me today. Christian's continued to circumcise their infant boys during the Apostolic era. That's indisputable. At the council of Jerusalem they debated the need for Gentiles to be circumcised in order to convert as we all know. But the bulk of "Christians"
( followers of Jesus, the term "Christian" had not been coined yet) were Jews.

So you would have to argue that Christians circumcised their newborn males but didn't Baptize them. Very very hard to beleive. Plus the mind set is the same. The infant could enter the eternal covenant with God via circumcision without attaining the age of reason, with no consent on his part but with the consent and spiritual guidance of his parents and relatives who stood up for him.  
 

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:
He probably realises they'd be dismissed rather than answered that might be why.
Hardly.. it would be monumentally important if he can provide some documentation. More likely he cant but let's wait and see.

Here is the question. If the Apostles performed "Believers Baptism" in the manner of today's Protestants then they refused to Baptize infants and children. But early on we know that the Church did in fact Baptize infants and children. The question is then how did this change occur without discussion? To alter a fundamental sacrament without anyone noticing, discussing it pro or con much less have a council decide to approve the change, seems to us to be an impossibility.  
Here's the thing: what if they should never have started to baptise children in the first place?

If children (example baby John) have some kind of communion with God, maybe they don't need it, maybe they never did. The scriptures clearly teach a baptism of repentance and babies so obviously cannot and need not, repent.
If that were the case, though, then Jewish boys wouldn't have needed to be circumcised on the eighth day after birth. Communion with God has never been a strictly individual thing.
 

FountainPen

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Points
0
katherineofdixie said:
FountainPen said:
Marc1152 said:
FountainPen said:
He probably realises they'd be dismissed rather than answered that might be why.
Hardly.. it would be monumentally important if he can provide some documentation. More likely he cant but let's wait and see.

Here is the question. If the Apostles performed "Believers Baptism" in the manner of today's Protestants then they refused to Baptize infants and children. But early on we know that the Church did in fact Baptize infants and children. The question is then how did this change occur without discussion? To alter a fundamental sacrament without anyone noticing, discussing it pro or con much less have a council decide to approve the change, seems to us to be an impossibility.  
Here's the thing: what if they should never have started to baptise children in the first place?

If children (example baby John) have some kind of communion with God, maybe they don't need it, maybe they never did. The scriptures clearly teach a baptism of repentance and babies so obviously cannot and need not, repent.

Do Scriptures record that whole households repented and were baptized?
It says they were saved, nothiing more than that.
 

Azurestone

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Website
deum-quaerens.blogspot.com
FountainPen said:
katherineofdixie said:
FountainPen said:
Marc1152 said:
FountainPen said:
He probably realises they'd be dismissed rather than answered that might be why.
Hardly.. it would be monumentally important if he can provide some documentation. More likely he cant but let's wait and see.

Here is the question. If the Apostles performed "Believers Baptism" in the manner of today's Protestants then they refused to Baptize infants and children. But early on we know that the Church did in fact Baptize infants and children. The question is then how did this change occur without discussion? To alter a fundamental sacrament without anyone noticing, discussing it pro or con much less have a council decide to approve the change, seems to us to be an impossibility. 
Here's the thing: what if they should never have started to baptise children in the first place?

If children (example baby John) have some kind of communion with God, maybe they don't need it, maybe they never did. The scriptures clearly teach a baptism of repentance and babies so obviously cannot and need not, repent.

Do Scriptures record that whole households repented and were baptized?
It says they were saved, nothiing more than that.
John 3:
3 Jesus answered and said to him: Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus said to him: How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born again? 5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh: and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Wonder not that I said to you: You must be born again. 8 The Spirit breathes where he will and you hear his voice: but you know not whence he comes and whither he goes. So is every one that is born of the Spirit.
 

FountainPen

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Do you all hold the view of infant baptism because of the covenant of grace?
 

FountainPen

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Aindriú said:
FountainPen said:
katherineofdixie said:
FountainPen said:
Marc1152 said:
FountainPen said:
He probably realises they'd be dismissed rather than answered that might be why.
Hardly.. it would be monumentally important if he can provide some documentation. More likely he cant but let's wait and see.

Here is the question. If the Apostles performed "Believers Baptism" in the manner of today's Protestants then they refused to Baptize infants and children. But early on we know that the Church did in fact Baptize infants and children. The question is then how did this change occur without discussion? To alter a fundamental sacrament without anyone noticing, discussing it pro or con much less have a council decide to approve the change, seems to us to be an impossibility. 
Here's the thing: what if they should never have started to baptise children in the first place?

If children (example baby John) have some kind of communion with God, maybe they don't need it, maybe they never did. The scriptures clearly teach a baptism of repentance and babies so obviously cannot and need not, repent.

Do Scriptures record that whole households repented and were baptized?
It says they were saved, nothiing more than that.
John 3:
3 Jesus answered and said to him: Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus said to him: How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born again? 5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh: and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Wonder not that I said to you: You must be born again. 8 The Spirit breathes where he will and you hear his voice: but you know not whence he comes and whither he goes. So is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Yes and it is clearly a baptism of repentance.

 

Azurestone

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Website
deum-quaerens.blogspot.com
FountainPen said:
Aindriú said:
FountainPen said:
katherineofdixie said:
FountainPen said:
Marc1152 said:
FountainPen said:
He probably realises they'd be dismissed rather than answered that might be why.
Hardly.. it would be monumentally important if he can provide some documentation. More likely he cant but let's wait and see.

Here is the question. If the Apostles performed "Believers Baptism" in the manner of today's Protestants then they refused to Baptize infants and children. But early on we know that the Church did in fact Baptize infants and children. The question is then how did this change occur without discussion? To alter a fundamental sacrament without anyone noticing, discussing it pro or con much less have a council decide to approve the change, seems to us to be an impossibility. 
Here's the thing: what if they should never have started to baptise children in the first place?

If children (example baby John) have some kind of communion with God, maybe they don't need it, maybe they never did. The scriptures clearly teach a baptism of repentance and babies so obviously cannot and need not, repent.

Do Scriptures record that whole households repented and were baptized?
It says they were saved, nothiing more than that.
John 3:
3 Jesus answered and said to him: Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus said to him: How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born again? 5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh: and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Wonder not that I said to you: You must be born again. 8 The Spirit breathes where he will and you hear his voice: but you know not whence he comes and whither he goes. So is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Yes and it is clearly a baptism of repentance.
If it is only repentance then water would not be necessary, and a mere confession of faith appropriate.
 

genesisone

Archon
Joined
Aug 20, 2005
Messages
2,906
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
68
Location
Niagara Region, Ontario
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.
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Wichita, KS
FountainPen said:
Do you all hold the view of infant baptism because of the covenant of grace?
"The covenant of grace promises eternal life for all people who receive forgiveness of sin through Christ. He is the substitutionary covenantal representative fulfilling the covenant of works on their behalf, in both the positive requirements of righteousness and its negative penal consequences (commonly described as his active and passive obedience). It is the historical expression of the eternal covenant of redemption. Genesis 3:15, with the promise of a "seed" of the woman who would crush the serpent's head, is usually identified as the historical inauguration for the covenant of grace."

We don't really hold to the covent of grace model, that's more reformed theology than anything.
 

FountainPen

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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.
 

FountainPen

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ortho_cat said:
FountainPen said:
Do you all hold the view of infant baptism because of the covenant of grace?
"The covenant of grace promises eternal life for all people who receive forgiveness of sin through Christ. He is the substitutionary covenantal representative fulfilling the covenant of works on their behalf, in both the positive requirements of righteousness and its negative penal consequences (commonly described as his active and passive obedience). It is the historical expression of the eternal covenant of redemption. Genesis 3:15, with the promise of a "seed" of the woman who would crush the serpent's head, is usually identified as the historical inauguration for the covenant of grace."

We don't really hold to the covent of grace model, that's more reformed theology than anything.
Where is this quote from?
 

Azurestone

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Website
deum-quaerens.blogspot.com
St. Hippolytus, who died at around 236 AD, was a presbyter in the church of Rome. In one of his writings, Traditio Apostolica, he mentioned baptism of children.
And at the hour when the cock crows they shall first pray over the water.
When they come to the water, let the water be pure and flowing.
And they shall put off their clothes.
And they shall baptize the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family.
And next they shall baptize the grown men; and last the women, who shall [all] have loosed their hair and laid aside the gold ornaments [which they were wearing]. Let no one go down to the water having any alien object with them.
And at the time determined for baptizing the bishop shall give thanks over the oil and put it into a vessel and it is called the Oil of Thanksgiving.
source


St. Cyprian, who took the Episcopate of Carthage somewhere between 218-249 AD, also mentioned infant Baptism in a dispute over when(if delayed like carnal circumcision) it should be administered to an infant.
2. But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that 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. For as the Lord says in His Gospel, The Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them, Luke 4:56 as far as we Can, We must strive that, if possible, no soul be lost. For what is wanting to him who has once been formed in the womb by the hand of God? To us, indeed, and to our eyes, according to the worldly course of days, they who are born appear to receive an increase. But whatever things are made by God, are completed by the majesty and work of God their Maker.

...

5. 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 has said to me that I should call no man common or unclean. Acts 10:28 But if anything could hinder men from obtaining grace, their more heinous sins might rather hinder those who are mature and grown up and older. But again, if even to the greatest sinners, and to those who had sinned much against God, when they subsequently believed, remission of sins is granted— and nobody is hindered from baptism and from grace— how much rather ought we to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins— that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another.
Letter 58
 

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:
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 what's wrong with that?
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Ortho_cat said:
FountainPen said:
Do you all hold the view of infant baptism because of the covenant of grace?
"The covenant of grace promises eternal life for all people who receive forgiveness of sin through Christ. He is the substitutionary covenantal representative fulfilling the covenant of works on their behalf, in both the positive requirements of righteousness and its negative penal consequences (commonly described as his active and passive obedience). It is the historical expression of the eternal covenant of redemption. Genesis 3:15, with the promise of a "seed" of the woman who would crush the serpent's head, is usually identified as the historical inauguration for the covenant of grace."

We don't really hold to the covent of grace model, that's more reformed theology than anything.
You admit after this post that you copied this from the Internet. I need you, therefore, to post a link to the source where you copied this or pm me the link so I can append it to your post. 72 hours should be enough time for you to do this.

Thanks.

-PtA
 

FountainPen

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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.
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Wichita, KS
PeterTheAleut said:
Ortho_cat said:
FountainPen said:
Do you all hold the view of infant baptism because of the covenant of grace?
"The covenant of grace promises eternal life for all people who receive forgiveness of sin through Christ. He is the substitutionary covenantal representative fulfilling the covenant of works on their behalf, in both the positive requirements of righteousness and its negative penal consequences (commonly described as his active and passive obedience). It is the historical expression of the eternal covenant of redemption. Genesis 3:15, with the promise of a "seed" of the woman who would crush the serpent's head, is usually identified as the historical inauguration for the covenant of grace."

We don't really hold to the covent of grace model, that's more reformed theology than anything.
You admit after this post that you copied this from the Internet. I need you, therefore, to post a link to the source where you copied this or pm me the link so I can append it to your post. 72 hours should be enough time for you to do this.

Thanks.

-PtA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_theology#Covenant_of_grace
 
Top