I have learned much...

CelticRebel · Jul 4, 2015

ArmyMatt said:
those conditions were only ever addressed to adults. there is no evidence that infants don't have faith in God. St Paul says that all of creation is groaning for redemption, which would include infants. and it does not matter what any of us sees. if the standard is Scripture, there is nothing that says that infants should not be baptized anywhere in the Bible. infants were united to the Old Covenant, but somehow the God who is love leaves them out of the New?

since memories are a mental construct and we already said that faith is not something of the mind, it does not matter if you have memories of God from that time or not.

Unless one believes that the Old Covenant and the New are exactly the same, it is clear that the requirements for admission are different. The Old contained physical and nationalist elements; the New does not. One becomes a member of the New only by faith and repentance. There is no nationalist or physical element in the New; one is not a Christian because his parents are Christian. As the General Baptists say, infants are in the covenant of God's grace, but that does not mean they are already in the church.

Romans 8:18-23 is one of the most meaningful passages in all of the Bible to me. But that groaning of the creation does not mean that the creation is eligible for baptism.

We will have to disagree about what the Bible says or teaches about infant baptism. I don't see anywhere that infants were baptized or eligible for baptism. I think it is clear that infant baptism developed considerably later, to deal with an erroneous concept of original sin as applied to infants.

ArmyMatt · Jul 4, 2015

CelticRebel said:
Unless one believes that the Old Covenant and the New are exactly the same, it is clear that the requirements for admission are different. The Old contained physical and nationalist elements; the New does not. One becomes a member of the New only by faith and repentance. There is no nationalist or physical element in the New; one is not a Christian because his parents are Christian. As the General Baptists say, infants are in the covenant of God's grace, but that does not mean they are already in the church.

the problem is that your idea of our fallenness is Western. I merely used that to point out that the only evidence from Scripture concerning infants is that they are received as soon as possible.

CelticRebel said:
Romans 8:18-23 is one of the most meaningful passages in all of the Bible to me. But that groaning of the creation does not mean that the creation is eligible for baptism.

but that means that infants are also groaning (since they are a part of creation), therefore why would they be denied the sacrament that puts on Christ because they have not met some age requirement.

CelticRebel said:
I don't see anywhere that infants were baptized or eligible for baptism.

it does not clearly state it, but it also nowhere says that God is Trinity either.

CelticRebel said:
I think it is clear that infant baptism developed considerably later, to deal with an erroneous concept of original sin as applied to infants.

if that were the case, since original sin came out of 4th-5th Century Augustine, then you should only see infant baptisms after that time. this also makes no sense because the East always baptized infants, and rejected the Augustinian concept of original sin. is there any evidence where you can show infant baptism appearing later?

ArmyMatt · Jul 4, 2015

and I just found out that Tertullian wrote on baptism where is critiques the practice of baptizing infants, which shows that infant baptism was around in the 100's. he says it's silly to baptize so young, but never says it is wrong/heretical, and shows that it was a common practice throughout the Church at the time.

so to say that infant baptism is a later innovation is false. food for thought (and this was written before he became a Montanist)

CelticRebel · Jul 5, 2015

ArmyMatt said:
the problem is that your idea of our fallenness is Western. I merely used that to point out that the only evidence from Scripture concerning infants is that they are received as soon as possible.

Actually, my idea of our fallen condition is not Western. This is one of severakl areas where I agree with the East, and with the Anabaptists.

but that means that infants are also groaning (since they are a part of creation), therefore why would they be denied the sacrament that puts on Christ because they have not met some age requirement.

Two points: "Groaning" does not equate to faith, or else it would have to be said that the creation has saving faith in Jesus. I don't believe water baptism is "the sacrament that puts on Christ". I don't see that scripture teaches that.

it does not clearly state it, but it also nowhere says that God is Trinity either.

It does state, however, what is required for baptism -- repentance and faith.

if that were the case, since original sin came out of 4th-5th Century Augustine, then you should only see infant baptisms after that time. this also makes no sense because the East always baptized infants, and rejected the Augustinian concept of original sin. is there any evidence where you can show infant baptism appearing later?

The East believed in original sin but not original guilt. So Augustine's view has no bearing on this part of the issue/discussion.

(I don't know how to quote parts of posts, so I'll answer partly within your post.)

CelticRebel · Jul 5, 2015

ArmyMatt said:
and I just found out that Tertullian wrote on baptism where is critiques the practice of baptizing infants, which shows that infant baptism was around in the 100's. he says it's silly to baptize so young, but never says it is wrong/heretical, and shows that it was a common practice throughout the Church at the time.

so to say that infant baptism is a later innovation is false. food for thought (and this was written before he became a Montanist)

Yes, I knew that about Tertullian. The most that can be said is that infant baptism was in practice by about 200 AD. If any earlier, or how much earlier, we don't know. We can know with much certainty that it was not practiced in NT times. So, I'll have to go by the standard or criterion that I have stated before: If tradition or the Fathers or anyone else is not supported by scripture or contradicts scripture, I'll have to go with scripture.

CelticRebel · Jul 5, 2015

AM, just a pause to say this: I am not meaning to argue. If I am breaking forum rules by this discussion, I will bow out of it.

ArmyMatt · Jul 5, 2015

CelticRebel said:
Yes, I knew that about Tertullian. The most that can be said is that infant baptism was in practice by about 200 AD. If any earlier, or how much earlier, we don't know. We can know with much certainty that it was not practiced in NT times.

which means that it was in practice during the 100's with no commentary to the contrary. and you can only say it was not practiced during the NT times if when it speaks of whole houses being baptized, the whole house was defined as only those of a certain age. since it does not say either way, you cannot just assume that it was not done.

the Tertullian quote proves that infant baptism did not come from a faulty idea of original sin.

CelticRebel said:
So, I'll have to go by the standard or criterion that I have stated before: If tradition or the Fathers or anyone else is not supported by scripture or contradicts scripture, I'll have to go with scripture.

which is the problem. it does not contradict Scripture, merely how you interpret it. if the households that were baptized in Acts included infants, then it is absolutely supported with Scripture.

CelticRebel said:
AM, just a pause to say this: I am not meaning to argue. If I am breaking forum rules by this discussion, I will bow out of it.

I thought nothing of the sort, just a friendly discussion between forum pals

CelticRebel · Jul 6, 2015

ArmyMatt said:
which means that it was in practice during the 100's with no commentary to the contrary. and you can only say it was not practiced during the NT times if when it speaks of whole houses being baptized, the whole house was defined as only those of a certain age. since it does not say either way, you cannot just assume that it was not done.

But when in the 100's is the question. If later in that century, then the apostolic origin of the practice is much in doubt. There is no evidence that it was practiced early in the 100's. The silence of the Didache on the matter is deafening.

the Tertullian quote proves that infant baptism did not come from a faulty idea of original sin.

I wouldn't say that. He was a Latin father.

which is the problem. it does not contradict Scripture, merely how you interpret it. if the households that were baptized in Acts included infants, then it is absolutely supported with Scripture.

There is no reason to believe that the households included infants. Even if they did, there is still no reason to believe that they were baptized. In at least one place, the scripture says that all in the household believed. I see all through the NT that the requirement for baptism was repentance and belief.

I thought nothing of the sort, just a friendly discussion between forum pals

I answered partly within your post again, highlighted in red.

I didn't believe you thought it, but I wondered if others did, particularly those who run the forum. I wouldn't want to jeopardize our friendship or break the forum rules.

I appreciate your willingness to discuss these issues with me, and be friends while doing so.

Ignatius21 · Jul 6, 2015

CelticRebel said:
On the basis that it's teachings, practices, and organization are closest to those of the New Testament and the first century/early second century churches, especially the teachings of Jesus Christ Himself. The early Fathers are a guide, if they don't contradict the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.

Those would be my criteria.

Thank you for an excellent question.

Those were my criteria too. And I ended up Orthodox, by way of 2 versions of Presbyterianism, after a flirtation with the Church of Christ.

Here's what I found...do you know which sect of Protestantism considers itself to be closest to the teachings, practices and organization of the New Testament? Hint: it rhymes with "every one of them" ;-)

What I came to realize was, in applying my "just read the Bible for myself" approach, in actuality I was applying a set of traditions (that came from I know not where) to a canon (another tradition) of Scripture. I came to realize also that, depending on my starting assumptions (how to read it, or which "clear" passage should interpret an "unclear" passage) I could reason my way into Calvinism, or out of it. Into baptismal regeneration like Lutherans, or completely away from it (like Baptists). What distinguishes the thousands of interpretations aren't the Scriptures, but rather the assumptions and starting points that each brings with it. In other words, traditions.

My world cracked when I one day had to confront the question of why I didn't accept the Wisdom of Solomon as Old Testament scripture. I'd just taken it for granted that it wasn't, because it wasn't in any of the Bibles I'd ever owned, and I'd heard tons of arguments for excluding it. But at the end, I rejected it because I was submitting to Protestant tradition. Which I came to reject as NOT being what matched the New Testament.

God bless you in your journey. God rewards those who diligently seek Him. But know that in reading your Bible--canon and all--you are already submitting to someone's traditions. Seek to understand whose traditions they are.

~Anastasia~ · Jul 6, 2015

Ignatius21 said:
Those were my criteria too. And I ended up Orthodox, by way of 2 versions of Presbyterianism, after a flirtation with the Church of Christ.

Here's what I found...do you know which sect of Protestantism considers itself to be closest to the teachings, practices and organization of the New Testament? Hint: it rhymes with "every one of them" ;-)

What I came to realize was, in applying my "just read the Bible for myself" approach, in actuality I was applying a set of traditions (that came from I know not where) to a canon (another tradition) of Scripture. I came to realize also that, depending on my starting assumptions (how to read it, or which "clear" passage should interpret an "unclear" passage) I could reason my way into Calvinism, or out of it. Into baptismal regeneration like Lutherans, or completely away from it (like Baptists). What distinguishes the thousands of interpretations aren't the Scriptures, but rather the assumptions and starting points that each brings with it. In other words, traditions.

My world cracked when I one day had to confront the question of why I didn't accept the Wisdom of Solomon as Old Testament scripture. I'd just taken it for granted that it wasn't, because it wasn't in any of the Bibles I'd ever owned, and I'd heard tons of arguments for excluding it. But at the end, I rejected it because I was submitting to Protestant tradition. Which I came to reject as NOT being what matched the New Testament.

God bless you in your journey. God rewards those who diligently seek Him. But know that in reading your Bible--canon and all--you are already submitting to someone's traditions. Seek to understand whose traditions they are.

Well said. It might have been easier for me since I had belonged to disparate Protestant traditions, and it was already apparent that some of them had to be wrong, since they didn't agree.

And yes, you can "prove" pretty much anything you like, using Scripture, and even argue you are just going by the "plain reading" to do so.

"My world cracked" ... I can relate. And indeed, I think it was the idea of baptismal regeneration that did so for me.

ArmyMatt · Jul 6, 2015

I would just say that if Tertullian wrote (I can't quote you for some reason) On Baptism around 200 AD, that shows that infant baptism is a common practice, which means it was happening before 200 (which means in the 100's). if infant baptism were wrong, there would have been someone to correct the practice. the silence is actually deafening against those who claim that infant baptism is in error. especially since the Church only wrote to confront an error. if infant baptism was considered wrong, the Fathers would have told us when it started to take hold.

just because he is a Latin father does not mean he had a wrong view of infant baptism. plus he wrote 200 years prior to St Augustine who started that error. plus, it is Tertullian who is critiquing infant baptism as something that makes no sense to him. so Tertullian personally is closer to how you view baptism than us.

as for the households, that again is your interpretation. just because you don't include infants when people were baptized.

CelticRebel · Jul 6, 2015

Ignatius21 said:
Those were my criteria too. And I ended up Orthodox, by way of 2 versions of Presbyterianism, after a flirtation with the Church of Christ.

Here's what I found...do you know which sect of Protestantism considers itself to be closest to the teachings, practices and organization of the New Testament? Hint: it rhymes with "every one of them" ;-)

What I came to realize was, in applying my "just read the Bible for myself" approach, in actuality I was applying a set of traditions (that came from I know not where) to a canon (another tradition) of Scripture. I came to realize also that, depending on my starting assumptions (how to read it, or which "clear" passage should interpret an "unclear" passage) I could reason my way into Calvinism, or out of it. Into baptismal regeneration like Lutherans, or completely away from it (like Baptists). What distinguishes the thousands of interpretations aren't the Scriptures, but rather the assumptions and starting points that each brings with it. In other words, traditions.

My world cracked when I one day had to confront the question of why I didn't accept the Wisdom of Solomon as Old Testament scripture. I'd just taken it for granted that it wasn't, because it wasn't in any of the Bibles I'd ever owned, and I'd heard tons of arguments for excluding it. But at the end, I rejected it because I was submitting to Protestant tradition. Which I came to reject as NOT being what matched the New Testament.

God bless you in your journey. God rewards those who diligently seek Him. But know that in reading your Bible--canon and all--you are already submitting to someone's traditions. Seek to understand whose traditions they are.

I know exactly what you are saying. That's why I have diligently studied scripture, tradition, the early church fathers, early church history, ante-Nicene Christianity, and much more. Based on all that, I know I could not be Roman Catholic, and I don't consider myself Protestant.

Thank you very much for your informative and personal post, and for your kind words and encouragement.

CelticRebel · Jul 6, 2015

I think I'm going to start a thread on what the impediments are for me becoming Orthodox. I'm not doing it to argue. I hope all here will contribute. You may yet convince me. Everything all of you have written has helped me, one way or the other.

CelticRebel · Jul 6, 2015

CelticRebel said:
I think I'm going to start a thread on what the impediments are for me becoming Orthodox. I'm not doing it to argue. I hope all here will contribute. You may yet convince me. Everything all of you have written has helped me, one way or the other.

I'm reconsidering doing this. I don't know if I should or not.

ArmyMatt · Jul 6, 2015

CelticRebel said:
I'm reconsidering doing this. I don't know if I should or not.

well, you can all you want (prolly best in St Justin's just in case. you have not been argumentative at all). but if a convincing comes it will be from the Father and not us. at best we are tools that he uses.

CelticRebel · Jul 6, 2015

ArmyMatt said:
well, you can all you want (prolly best in St Justin's just in case. you have not been argumentative at all). but if a convincing comes it will be from the Father and not us. at best we are tools that he uses.

Okay, I believe I'll put it in St. Justin's. But come on over!

All4Christ · Jul 7, 2015

CelticRebel said:
Okay, I believe I'll put it in St. Justin's. But come on over!

I've been cutting back on time on TAW to focus on some personal matters lately, but I will definitely try to keep up to date with this and pop in on a fairly regular basis

The cutting back on forums / Internet time is why I haven't been able to complete a lot of replies lately, but I will eventually, even if it is late!

All4Christ · Jul 8, 2015

CelticRebel said:
Unless one believes that the Old Covenant and the New are exactly the same, it is clear that the requirements for admission are different. The Old contained physical and nationalist elements; the New does not. One becomes a member of the New only by faith and repentance. There is no nationalist or physical element in the New; one is not a Christian because his parents are Christian. As the General Baptists say, infants are in the covenant of God's grace, but that does not mean they are already in the church.

Romans 8:18-23 is one of the most meaningful passages in all of the Bible to me. But that groaning of the creation does not mean that the creation is eligible for baptism.

We will have to disagree about what the Bible says or teaches about infant baptism. I don't see anywhere that infants were baptized or eligible for baptism. I think it is clear that infant baptism developed considerably later, to deal with an erroneous concept of original sin as applied to infants.

Just out of curiosity, what is the scripture used to support the covenant of God's grace with infants?

CelticRebel · Jul 8, 2015

All4Christ said:
Just out of curiosity, what is the scripture used to support the covenant of God's grace with infants?

I think they just mean that infants are not held accountable, that they are innocent, and they are protected by the grace of God. Though not in the church, they are in God's kingdom.

All4Christ · Jul 8, 2015

CelticRebel said:
I think they just mean that infants are not held accountable, that they are innocent, and they are protected by the grace of God. Though not in the church, they are in God's kingdom.

To clarify, where is the scripture saying infants are not held accountable? I'm familiar with the doctrine as it was what I believed for many years, but I don't know where scripture states that they are not held accountable.

I have learned much...

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Can somebody please pass the incense?

† Handmaid of God †

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙

Well-Known Member

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙

Similar threads