in Texas, nobody ever runs out of fire ant hills.Realitybites said:
Ran out of fire ant hills in the yard to spray gasoline on, eh?
Realitybites said:
Ran out of fire ant hills in the yard to spray gasoline on, eh?
Credobaptism is a rookie from the United States, despite the fact there are numerous recorded instances of it in New Testament scripture? Huh. That's an interesting line of thought. We better let John the Baptizer know he was doing it wrong.Realitybites said:
Ladies and Gentlemen, in this corner we have the grizzled veteran of two millenia of church practice, Paedobaptism. In that corner is Credobaptism, a rookie from the United States, a distant relation of the Anabaptist family. Let's get ready to rumble!
When one has to resort to extra-scriptural sources for his support of infant baptism - as your entire post just did - one is treading on very shaky ground.Realitybites said:
First, from a sola scriptura perspective, it is still possible to draw the conclusion that infants were baptized in at least three instances of household baptisms. Second, merely saying that it isn't explicitly mentioned doesn't mean much because the absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence. Particularly in light of the following.
"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]).
In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248])
"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 [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).
The Didache even allows for sprinkling as a valid means of Baptism.
"Chapter 7 of the Didache addresses the topic of Christian baptism.
In verse 1 of this chapter, we see a connection between baptism and catechesis. Those who were about to receive baptism were first of all instructed in the way of life.
Secondly, we learn that whenever baptism was administered, God was invoked by his triune name: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The recipient of baptism was being baptized into union and fellowship with the Triune God.
Thirdly, baptism ordinarily would have taken place outdoors in living water, meaning running or flowing water. This was the ordinary setting for Christian baptism, but verse 2 tells us that if such water was unavailable, Christians were free to baptize with other water, preferably cold water.
Next, we see that pouring water on the head three times which is known as triune baptism was an acceptable mode of baptism, even though it may not have been the ordinary mode of baptism.
Finally, we see that the rite of baptism was preceded by a short period of fasting. Those who were about to be baptized should fast, and the one who was going to administer baptism should likewise fast, as well as any others in the congregation who were able to do so. This fast ordinarily lasted one to two days.
The Didache does not explain the reason for the pre-baptismal fast, but it was most likely understood as a sign of repentance."
My journey in Christianity has been different from many, I was not raised in a Christian home and had zero exposure to the faith growing up. We didn't even have a Bible in the home. When I (in Baptist parlance) got saved in my teens after reading Romans, I had to first go back and read a gospel to figure out what this Jesus fellow was all about, and then open an encyclopedia to try and figure out what sort of church I should go to. At first I thought I should be methodist, but I quickly realized that the Church of Wesley was DOA in the real world. So I parked myself in the SBC for decades until it too abandoned its roots and began to drift away. Which led me to my deep dive into church history and Orthodoxy. But that is how I went from a belief in restricting baptism to an arbitrary age of accountability to a belief in infant baptism.
Is withholding infant baptism bad? What happens if you don't baptize them?Realitybites said:
The insistence on withholding baptism from infants is essentially a feature of a small subset of the protestant faith in the west. As far as extra-biblical sources, at least the first four centuries of the church were basically "extra-biblical" in the sense you mean it. There wasn't even 100% agreement on exactly what constituted the New Testament at first. Having a bible in your home and carrying it to church for Sunday school is an innovation post Gutenberg press (circa 1455, a full millenium and a half after Christ walked the earth). These are simple historical and chronological facts; surely you don't think that the Holy Spirit left Christians adrift for 3/4ths of church history?
How The New Testament Canon Was Formed
Some pretty good information, for those who have ears to hear. None of this invalidates the Bible or reduces its importance by the way. But it is something to consider for someone who thinks the Bible was handed down in a way akin to the Mosaic tablets. Many people today are practicing DIY Christianity based on a modernist interpretation of what they read in their Bibles, or what they hear from pulpits staffed by people who are doing the same thing.
They don't get wet, possibly.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Is withholding infant baptism bad? What happens if you don't baptize them?Realitybites said:
The insistence on withholding baptism from infants is essentially a feature of a small subset of the protestant faith in the west. As far as extra-biblical sources, at least the first four centuries of the church were basically "extra-biblical" in the sense you mean it. There wasn't even 100% agreement on exactly what constituted the New Testament at first. Having a bible in your home and carrying it to church for Sunday school is an innovation post Gutenberg press (circa 1455, a full millenium and a half after Christ walked the earth). These are simple historical and chronological facts; surely you don't think that the Holy Spirit left Christians adrift for 3/4ths of church history?
How The New Testament Canon Was Formed
Some pretty good information, for those who have ears to hear. None of this invalidates the Bible or reduces its importance by the way. But it is something to consider for someone who thinks the Bible was handed down in a way akin to the Mosaic tablets. Many people today are practicing DIY Christianity based on a modernist interpretation of what they read in their Bibles, or what they hear from pulpits staffed by people who are doing the same thing.
"There is no evidence that everyone in the family did not likewise believe."Mothra said:Credobaptism is a rookie from the United States, despite the fact there are numerous recorded instances of it in New Testament scripture? Huh. That's an interesting line of thought. We better let John the Baptizer know he was doing it wrong.Realitybites said:
Ladies and Gentlemen, in this corner we have the grizzled veteran of two millenia of church practice, Paedobaptism. In that corner is Credobaptism, a rookie from the United States, a distant relation of the Anabaptist family. Let's get ready to rumble!
In reality, there is not a single recorded instance of infant baptism in all of scripture. While there are instances of entire families getting baptized, there seems to be an inference that the infants in the families - if any - were likewise baptized. But that is mere speculation.
Moreover, there likewise seems to be an unwarranted presumption that the children who were baptized did not believe but instead were baptized merely because a parent became a Christian, when all of the recorded instances of baptism in scripture followed belief. There is no evidence that everyone in the family did not likewise believe.
I did not see an answer to the question. What happens when infant baptism is withheld, according to the Orthodox and/or Lutheran view?Realitybites said:
What happens if you don't baptize them?
Now this is where things get really interesting, because doctrine doesn't exist in a vacuum. Discussing infant baptism automatically brings into question the meaning of baptism, and it also brings into question the nature and meaning of original sin and you end up in all sorts of interesting places. A strict application of "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" and the imputation of Adam's guilt means everyone from aborted babies to toddlers end up in the lake of fire (unless you're preparing to pull out the Roman Catholic doctrine of limbo/purgatory to avoid it, or the flip side of that coin, the protestant age of accountability).
David was sure he would see his child again. and Psalm 139:3 states "For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb." (does God create a damned creature in the womb?). So perhaps it is the Augustinian/Cartheginian formulation of original sin that is wrong, and men are born with the effects of the fall but not the guilt of the fall. The idea of the misinterpretation of Romans, Job, Psalm 50 traces back to a 3rd century heretical sect called the Encratites. In a scholarly work titled "The Transmission of Sin", Pier Franco Beatrice examines the historical evidence, and explores how Encratite teachings eventually influenced Christianity in Africa, creating an environment where Augustine was able to popularize his views of infant damnation.
I invite all of you to dig deeply into the history of Christ's church on earth and how the Holy Spirit has led her through the millenia. It's a much more interesting and edifying thing than the "In the beginning there was Zondervan" version. You'll very quickly find yourself in a place where there is little justification for attending anything but Orthodox or Lutheran (not ELCA!) services.
Exactly.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Is withholding infant baptism bad? What happens if you don't baptize them?Realitybites said:
The insistence on withholding baptism from infants is essentially a feature of a small subset of the protestant faith in the west. As far as extra-biblical sources, at least the first four centuries of the church were basically "extra-biblical" in the sense you mean it. There wasn't even 100% agreement on exactly what constituted the New Testament at first. Having a bible in your home and carrying it to church for Sunday school is an innovation post Gutenberg press (circa 1455, a full millenium and a half after Christ walked the earth). These are simple historical and chronological facts; surely you don't think that the Holy Spirit left Christians adrift for 3/4ths of church history?
How The New Testament Canon Was Formed
Some pretty good information, for those who have ears to hear. None of this invalidates the Bible or reduces its importance by the way. But it is something to consider for someone who thinks the Bible was handed down in a way akin to the Mosaic tablets. Many people today are practicing DIY Christianity based on a modernist interpretation of what they read in their Bibles, or what they hear from pulpits staffed by people who are doing the same thing.
In other words, the Lutheran erroneous belief is that an act of man is required for salvation - an idea completely contrary to Christ's message of grace and the Gospels.Realitybites said:
I will let a Lutheran respond to that part of your question; I do not presume to speak for them.
As far as the Orthodox church goes there are different voices on this topic. Some have expressed a pre-Augustinian view consistent with Ambrose "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God [St. John 3:5]. Surely, He exempts none, not even the infant, not one hindred by any necessity: but although they have a hidden immunity to punishments, I know not how they have the honour of the Kingdom.". While others, particularly those after Augustine, adopted the view that unbaptized infants are lost.
Suffice it to say that since Baptism holds the same position with regards to the new covenant that circumcision did to the old (Col. 2) and even Christ, who had no need of baptism of any form received it at the hands of John (Matt 3), and that this has been the practice of the church since the beginning that we baptize infants "Let it be so; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness."
But you will see that in orthodoxy "this has been the practice of the church since the beginning", because of course that church existed from the beginning. It is a very different mindset preserving the faith once delivered to the saints for 20 centuries than it is to pick up a bible and use proof texts to try and reconstruct what that faith was 20 centuries after the fact.
Attacking the authority of scripture is likewise not a good argument in support of infant baptism.Realitybites said:
The insistence on withholding baptism from infants is essentially a feature of a small subset of the protestant faith in the west. As far as extra-biblical sources, at least the first four centuries of the church were basically "extra-biblical" in the sense you mean it. There wasn't even 100% agreement on exactly what constituted the New Testament at first. Having a bible in your home and carrying it to church for Sunday school is an innovation post Gutenberg press (circa 1455, a full millenium and a half after Christ walked the earth). These are simple historical and chronological facts; surely you don't think that the Holy Spirit left Christians adrift for 3/4ths of church history?
How The New Testament Canon Was Formed
Some pretty good information, for those who have ears to hear. None of this invalidates the Bible or reduces its importance by the way. But it is something to consider for someone who thinks the Bible was handed down in a way akin to the Mosaic tablets. Many people today are practicing DIY Christianity based on a modernist interpretation of what they read in their Bibles, or what they hear from pulpits staffed by people who are doing the same thing.
Realitybites said:
What happens if you don't baptize them?
Now this is where things get really interesting, because doctrine doesn't exist in a vacuum. Discussing infant baptism automatically brings into question the meaning of baptism, and it also brings into question the nature and meaning of original sin and you end up in all sorts of interesting places. A strict application of "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" and the imputation of Adam's guilt means everyone from aborted babies to toddlers end up in the lake of fire (unless you're preparing to pull out the Roman Catholic doctrine of limbo/purgatory to avoid it, or the flip side of that coin, the protestant age of accountability).
David was sure he would see his child again. and Psalm 139:3 states "For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb." (does God create a damned creature in the womb?). So perhaps it is the Augustinian/Cartheginian formulation of original sin that is wrong, and men are born with the effects of the fall but not the guilt of the fall. The idea of the misinterpretation of Romans, Job, Psalm 50 traces back to a 3rd century heretical sect called the Encratites. In a scholarly work titled "The Transmission of Sin", Pier Franco Beatrice examines the historical evidence, and explores how Encratite teachings eventually influenced Christianity in Africa, creating an environment where Augustine was able to popularize his views of infant damnation.
I invite all of you to dig deeply into the history of Christ's church on earth and how the Holy Spirit has led her through the millenia. It's a much more interesting and edifying thing than the "In the beginning there was Zondervan" version. You'll very quickly find yourself in a place where there is little justification for attending anything but Orthodox or Lutheran (not ELCA!) services.
Except some scriptures speak " a whole household " being baptizedDaveisabovereproach said:
RC Sproul is my favorite theologian of all time along with Charles Spurgeon and John Calvin, and he was able to provide a great explanation/defense of infant baptism. I understand the premise of that argument, but I disagree with the conclusion. Every example of baptism we have in the Bible is Believer's baptism. The act of believers baptism was fairly common in the first century A.D. among Jews -It wasn't something that John the Baptist invented.
No one has attacked the authority of scripture; that having been said there are many things on which the Bible is silent. Take fasting, for example...clearly the Bible indicates that Christians should fast, but the scriptures are completely silent on the issue of when, how, and how often. The scriptures neither directly state that infants should or should not be baptized, it is a circumstantial case if trying to use proof texts. Personally, I prefer a Christianity backed up by 2,000 years of history to Opinionanity that tries to DIY it using a modern lens to reinterpret Christ's teachings. Go down that road and you're eventually going to end up with purple haired Karens in the pulpit and rainbow flags with signs "EVERYONE welcome". Even the 1 millenium old Roman Catholic church just excommunicated Archbishop Vigano for his attempts at faithfulness to patristic teachings while Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi haven't been.Quote:
Attacking the authority of scripture is likewise not a good argument in support of infant baptism.
Please show me how the Catholic Church is different that what was in acts.Mothra said:
The idea that todays version of Lutheranism or Orthodoxy has been around since the beginning is an interesting one. Todays Lutheran and Orthodox churches have very little resemblance to the early church as described in Acts. And yet the Lutherans and Orthodox - just like the Catholics - like to perpetuate the misguided idea that their version has been around since the beginning.
It's an interesting perspective to say the least.
The first part of your answer isn't clear, given that the belief that unbaptized babies are excluded from the kingdom and the belief that they are "lost" are essentially the same view. Those don't appear to be "different voices" on the topic.Realitybites said:
I will let a Lutheran respond to that part of your question; I do not presume to speak for them.
As far as the Orthodox church goes there are different voices on this topic. Some have expressed a pre-Augustinian view consistent with Ambrose "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God [St. John 3:5]. Surely, He exempts none, not even the infant, not one hindred by any necessity: but although they have a hidden immunity to punishments, I know not how they have the honour of the Kingdom.". While others, particularly those after Augustine, adopted the view that unbaptized infants are lost.
Suffice it to say that since Baptism holds the same position with regards to the new covenant that circumcision did to the old (Col. 2) and even Christ, who had no need of baptism of any form received it at the hands of John (Matt 3), and that this has been the practice of the church since the beginning that we baptize infants "Let it be so; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness."
But you will see that in orthodoxy "this has been the practice of the church since the beginning", because of course that church existed from the beginning. It is a very different mindset preserving the faith once delivered to the saints for 20 centuries than it is to pick up a bible and use proof texts to try and reconstruct what that faith was 20 centuries after the fact.
...fight song like after a TD on a Saturday afternoon? Or Jesusified Swifty tunes like on a Saturday night at the club?Harrison Bergeron said:
WARNING: Related Rant
At church this morning, it was baptism Sunday. During the baptism, the candidate did not speak or share - band blasted over the entire ordinance service.
This is silly reasoning. Saying it's ok to do it because there is no example of it in scripture is a little bit different than saying we shouldn't do it because there is no example of it. Every example in scripture is believers' baptism. Every one.LIB,MR BEARS said:"There is no evidence that everyone in the family did not likewise believe."Mothra said:Credobaptism is a rookie from the United States, despite the fact there are numerous recorded instances of it in New Testament scripture? Huh. That's an interesting line of thought. We better let John the Baptizer know he was doing it wrong.Realitybites said:
Ladies and Gentlemen, in this corner we have the grizzled veteran of two millenia of church practice, Paedobaptism. In that corner is Credobaptism, a rookie from the United States, a distant relation of the Anabaptist family. Let's get ready to rumble!
In reality, there is not a single recorded instance of infant baptism in all of scripture. While there are instances of entire families getting baptized, there seems to be an inference that the infants in the families - if any - were likewise baptized. But that is mere speculation.
Moreover, there likewise seems to be an unwarranted presumption that the children who were baptized did not believe but instead were baptized merely because a parent became a Christian, when all of the recorded instances of baptism in scripture followed belief. There is no evidence that everyone in the family did not likewise believe.
There is also no evidence that everyone in the family did likewise believe.
"Fathers will be divided from sons and sons from fathers; mothers will be divided from daughters and daughters from mothers; mothers-in-law will be against brides and brides against mothers-in-lawall because of me"
It seems infant baptism can be argued either way
Sorry, not following the stream of conscious rant.Realitybites said:No one has attacked the authority of scripture; that having been said there are many things on which the Bible is silent. Take fasting, for example...clearly the Bible indicates that Christians should fast, but the scriptures are completely silent on the issue of when, how, and how often. The scriptures neither directly state that infants should or should not be baptized, it is a circumstantial case if trying to use proof texts. Personally, I prefer a Christianity backed up by 2,000 years of history to Opinionanity rather than trying to DIY it using a modern lens to reinterpret Christ's teachings. Go down that road and you're eventually going to end up with purple haired Karens in the pulpit and rainbow flags with signs "EVERYONE welcome". Even the 1 millenium old Roman Catholic church just excommunicated Archbishop Vigano for his attempts at faithfulness to patristic teachings while Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi haven't been.Quote:
Attacking the authority of scripture is likewise not a good argument in support of infant baptism.
