Faith and Baptism

CelticRebel said:

AM, to clarify, I'm not saying baptism is not important, or that it should not be or was not done. At issue is the meaning of it and whether it is required for salvation.

Click to expand...

then I would again ask why Christ commanded the Apostles to do it at the end of Matthew's and Mark's Gospels. why a command that is not required for salvation? and where in Scripture does it show baptism is NOT regenerative?

truefiction1 said:

The meaning of baptism is something of a mystery. Jesus wants us to practice it and so we do. He is Lord over His Church. He knows what is best for us, as He is also one of us. So we bring His Gospel and His baptism to as many as we can: our own babies especially, for they are our responsibility. Also see Luke 18:16 or Matthew 19:14.

Click to expand...

I don’t understand why so many Christians don’t think baptism is necessary. I don’t know the history of the reasons behind this doctrine, but look – the entire NT, when it comes to new believers, is ALL ABOUT BAPTISM. Jesus was baptized, his disciples were baptized, Paul was, he and the disciples baptized others, and throughout the NT it says to be baptized. Jesus' ending words were to go out to the world, preach the Gospel to the nations, and to baptize them in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Doesn’t that spell it out clearly enough? When I repented and wanted to follow Jesus, there was no mistaking what the Bible, Jesus, and the disciples taught: be baptized and receive the Holy Spirit. How so many church leaders and lay people got away from that, I’ll never understand. (Post a link if you know of one that explains this – thanks.) The Bible is so clear about this. Why would anyone want to create some other way. It’s not that big a deal. Find enough water to completely cover a person and baptize them.

BTW, baptism is a symbolic gesture in which the person being baptized states publicly that he/she recognizes their sinfulness and wants to follow Jesus, and is ‘cleansed’ of their sin by being ‘buried’ in a watery grave. They come up refreshed, all sins forgiven, and can begin a new life with Jesus and God at their helm with a fresh and new start, with an eternal destiny of joyous never-ending life ahead in the Kingdom of God. This is not a mystery anymore. In fact it is step in clarity toward salvation. Why the heck do people want to argue against baptism when the NT is so crystal clear about doing it, both in the various characters’ deeds and in what they taught?

CelticRebel said:

Yes, I think I understand your perspective. For me, I believe that these verses where seeming believers are turned away at the last mean that there are many "professors" but few "possessors". To believe involves more than intellectual assent. It is a heart and spirit change, an amendment of life, and a following of Jesus. But I still don't see anywhere that water baptism is required for this to take place.

Click to expand...

As I posted that verse, I was thinking - maybe I should take the time to find another one that expresses my point more thoroughly since it can also be interpreted as you said. . I'm too exhausted to find one now, but my point was only that I don't think the purpose of that particular passage supports the assertion of baptism not being required for salvation. I wouldn't use that particular verse as a support for requiring baptism for salvation. However, I wanted to show why I don't think that the verse is incompatible with the belief of baptism being required once you look at the entire passage.

CR - We can agree to disagree on this I'd still enjoy discussing these issues though, and I still encourage you to visit an Orthodox Chirch even if you don't think you could become Orthodox. It is an amazing experience!

I understand how you feel about the regenerative part...it was probably the most difficult thing for me to accept. Ultimately, the biggest thing to remember is that it isn't just baptism that is regenerative. Baptism in and of itself is just (as AM said), a bath in water with some chrism. It does require faith alongside it. Also, it is the a part of the start to salvation, not the solution. It has always been a two step process for new believers in the New Testament (three when you consider the infilling of the Holy Spirit...plus the rest of our lives in faith). That two step process is in my opinion historically and scripturally apparent even if you don't agree with baptismal regeneration. "And they believed and were baptized, along with their household" can be found all over scripture.

Also, form / matter along with faith is found many other places as well. For example, the anointing of the sick with oil. Form / matter = anointing with oil, along with word / action= prayer.

And for the record, no matter whether you become Orthodox, we will still like you and you are welcome here.

ArmyMatt said:

but you are using them to defend your position on on the role of Scripture, and yet are denying how they read Scripture.



where? where in Scripture does it say that Scripture is the primary authority?



indeed I did, that is how you can tell if it is Holy Tradition or a tradition of man.



no, there is Holy Tradition which is everything given to the Apostles, of which the Scripture is the central part. a monk I know says to think of it like a tapestry and the Scripture is the central pattern. rip the pattern out on it's own destroys the rest of the tapestry, but the central pattern makes no sense apart from the rest of the tapestry

Click to expand...

Hey ArmyMatt,

You ask: where? where in Scripture does it say that Scripture is the primary authority?

Although the words "primary authority" are not used, the following should give you a good start about Scripture's authority. Deut. 8:3, Matt. 4:4, Luke 4:4. These make it pretty clear I think. There is also 2 Tim. 3:16-17 and Matt 15:3.

CR...I'm going to posit that perhaps we are getting the cart before the horse here. To us Orthodox, Baptism is a holy mystery and not in any way symbolic. The transformation of the soul is part and parcel of the sacrament. We don't baptize to signify that we have given our self to Christ, but that in being baptized, we are literally and mysteriously participating in Christ's death and resurrection. The humility and obedience that leads us to this sets the stage for the transformation, but may not be enough to effect it. It's not what we do in Baptism that transforms us, it's what God does to us in Baptism. We can only be a willing participant/recipient. So...is it possible for someone to be right with God without Baptism? I think most any Orthodox scholar would say, "Likely, yes in some circumstances". However, we cannot know what those are, but we do know that submitting to Christ's instruction and living according to the Word is a sure path that is likely to lead us ever closer to God.

CelticRebel said:

Water baptism was a sign and symbol of new spiritual life in Christ, a death to the old self, and the rebirth of a new self in Jesus. It was also a witness to the resurrection of the body. It was the gospel in visible form -- thus, a visible witness to the gospel message. It was also the public identification of a person with Jesus -- something that would have been a danger in those days, by the way.

I don't believe that any of the verses normally quoted to supposedly show that water baptism is regenerative actually show that. So, I don't believe any scripture teaches baptismal regeneration. I still maintain that one can only be regenerated after coming to faith in Jesus, that this regeneration is done by God and is a spiritual baptism into the body of Christ, which water baptism is a sign and symbol, a picture of, not a producer of or an agent of.

Click to expand...

I get your point, the question is where in Scripture does it show that baptism is NOT regenerative. it should be clear if we are only looking to the Scriptures, and just because particular verses are vague, that does not mean that baptism is not regenerative. the other issue is that nowhere in Scripture do people divide coming to faith in Christ from baptism, and nowhere does it say that baptism is merely a sign of new life in Christ.

AllIsrael said:

Hey ArmyMatt,

You ask: where? where in Scripture does it say that Scripture is the primary authority?

Although the words "primary authority" are not used, the following should give you a good start about Scripture's authority. Deut. 8:3, Matt. 4:4, Luke 4:4. These make it pretty clear I think. There is also 2 Tim. 3:16-17 and Matt 15:3.

Click to expand...

yeah, we all agree that Scripture is authoritative, and we Orthodox agree with those verses. that is not the issue. and, as you pointed out, none of those verses say primary authority or sole authority.

ArmyMatt said:

yeah, we all agree that Scripture is authoritative, and we Orthodox agree with those verses. that is not the issue. and, as you pointed out, none of those verses say primary authority or sole authority.

Click to expand...

First, I’m grateful to be able to post at this sub-forum. I did not know the ground rules till I read Prodromos’ post. Now that I’ve read the entire thread and better grasp the discussion, know that I’m not Orthodox. My faith has been mainly influenced by the protestant division of Christianity. I say ‘division’ because one of non-believers’ favorite lines seems to be something like “those Christians can never agree on what they believe,” or some such, and such situation hinders "preaching the Gospel to the nations, baptizing them," etc. It is not spiritually healthy for Christians, nor anyone else, that this situation exists. After all, as Amos asks, "Can two walk together except they be agreed?"

Anyway, in defending baptism, as I think I’ve read in all the Orthodox posts here, are you defending the Orthodox tradition, or what Scripture says about baptism? In this thread it seems both. I would defend baptism as what Scripture teaches, and on this topic, tradition wouldn’t matter.

BTW, are there any Christian Forum groups or sub-groups dedicated to exploring and finding solutions to the 'division' issue instead of the representatives of each defending their positions?

AllIsrael said:

First, I’m grateful to be able to post at this sub-forum. I did not know the ground rules till I read Prodromos’ post. Now that I’ve read the entire thread and better grasp the discussion, know that I’m not Orthodox. My faith has been mainly influenced by the protestant division of Christianity. I say ‘division’ because one of non-believers’ favorite lines seems to be something like “those Christians can never agree on what they believe,” or some such, and such situation hinders "preaching the Gospel to the nations, baptizing them," etc. It is not spiritually healthy for Christians, nor anyone else, that this situation exists. After all, as Amos asks, "Can two walk together except they be agreed?"

Anyway, in defending baptism, as I think I’ve read in all the Orthodox posts here, are you defending the Orthodox tradition, or what Scripture says about baptism? In this thread it seems both. I would defend baptism as what Scripture teaches, and on this topic, tradition wouldn’t matter.

BTW, are there any Christian Forum groups or sub-groups dedicated to exploring and finding solutions to the 'division' issue instead of the representatives of each defending their positions?

Click to expand...

Hi AllIsrael! First, I want to welcome you to TAW. We are happy to have you here.

I don't have much time right now to fully respond to your post, but I do want to give some insight for our perspective on Scripture and Holy Tradition. As you mentioned, it is not spiritually healthy that there is division among Christianity. We believe that one reason (albeit not the entirety) for this division is the ability and tendency for Christians to interpret scripture differently than other Christians. By disagreeing on important beliefs (such as the one we are discussing), division occurs among us all.

We believe that there is a solution to this problem of varying interpretations of Scripture. As ArmyMatt said, we do believe that Scripture is authoritative. We believe that our faith and theology never contradicts Scripture. That said, Scripture is a part (and the core) of Holy Tradition. The oral and written beliefs and traditions passed down throughout the generations of the Church help us to interpret the scriptures accurately. In fact, this symbiotic relationship between scripture and oral tradition is described in Scripture itself:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. (2 Thess. 2:15)

Click to expand...

As you browse through TAW, you will find that we depend on Scripture and Holy Tradition to guide us. We hold fast to this direction of holding the traditions we have been taught, in word or in epistle.

I grew up in a very different style of Christianity (Pentecostal), so I understand the reasons why many Christians hold to Sola Scriptura. However, after experiencing Orthodoxy, I now strongly uphold the importance of learning both from Scripture, as well as receiving guidance from Holy Tradition where Scripture is silent or is not clear. Also, you will find that we believe that many verses by themselves do not describe the whole truth, but instead need to look at all the relevant scripture to see the whole picture. Where there is still confusion, history and Holy Tradition help guide us.

I hope this helps you understand where we come from! Once again, welcome to TAW!

AllIsrael said:

First, I’m grateful to be able to post at this sub-forum. I did not know the ground rules till I read Prodromos’ post. Now that I’ve read the entire thread and better grasp the discussion, know that I’m not Orthodox. My faith has been mainly influenced by the protestant division of Christianity. I say ‘division’ because one of non-believers’ favorite lines seems to be something like “those Christians can never agree on what they believe,” or some such, and such situation hinders "preaching the Gospel to the nations, baptizing them," etc. It is not spiritually healthy for Christians, nor anyone else, that this situation exists. After all, as Amos asks, "Can two walk together except they be agreed?"

Anyway, in defending baptism, as I think I’ve read in all the Orthodox posts here, are you defending the Orthodox tradition, or what Scripture says about baptism? In this thread it seems both. I would defend baptism as what Scripture teaches, and on this topic, tradition wouldn’t matter.

BTW, are there any Christian Forum groups or sub-groups dedicated to exploring and finding solutions to the 'division' issue instead of the representatives of each defending their positions?

Click to expand...

well, we are defending why Baptism is for regeneration. Celtic says he does not see it IN Scripture so I am asking for examples from Scripture that clearly refute the idea that Baptism is regenerative. we would say that the Holy Tradition DOES matter since one cannot divide Scripture from the Holy Tradition.

and I am glad you are here, and hope you stick around!

CelticRebel said:

First, thank you for your kind words.

If baptism requires faith to be regenerative, how is an infant regenerated by water baptism? The NT knows nothing of proxy faith. Parents can't have faith for the infant.

Click to expand...

where does it say that infants don't have faith?

For the non-Orthodox here in this discussion, I would beleaguer a bit the distinction between tradition (little "t"), and Holy Tradition (Capital "T"). This distinction is very important to us. There are tons of variations that you would see if you went from one EO church to another, even within a given Patriarchate. These tend to be things like the presence or absence of pews, the types of metanoia practiced. touching a priest's robe during the Great Entrance, and other minor things that have nothing to do with the actual teachings of the Church, as well as Theolougumena (pious opinions such as guardian angels, toll houses, etc.) that are not official dogma but are also not counter to Holy Tradition. Holy Tradition, on the other hand is very universal and changes essentially not at all from one parish to another. The nature and substance of the Holy Mystery of Baptism (and with it the practice of infant baptism) is Holy Tradition, and a bishop or priest who taught other than what is accepted within the EO churches at large would draw great scrutiny and likely be reprimanded/corrected by his brethren. Failure to correct this problem would likely lead to discipline such as censure, excommunication, or even deposition/defrocking, as it would be continued practice of a heresy.