Historic Difficulties Administering Immersion-Only Baptism

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,191
5,710
49
The Wild West
✟476,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
The Didache, an early Christian writing, explains how baptism was given to converts to Christianity.

7:1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize.
7:2 Having first recited all these things, baptize {in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit} in living (running) water.
7:3 But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water;
7:4 and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.
7:5 But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
7:6 But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able;
7:7 and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.


Whole households were baptized. This would mean children and infants also.

Acts 16:31-34 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.

Indeed, and our friend @Ain't Zwinglian , who is a defender of the orthodox view of Baptism, has frequently tried to show to various credobaptists and Adventists the obvious, that based on Acts 16, and indeed Matthew 28:19, it is impossible for infants not to have been baptized.

The only way I can make any sense of the objections to our collective position is if one adopted a theology that regarded infants as sub-persons, owing to their lack of a developed intellect, and that is something I find very dark and inimical to our religion.
 
Upvote 0

Jan001

Striving to win the prize...
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2013
2,201
334
Midwest
✟110,777.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Indeed, and our friend @Ain't Zwinglian , who is a defender of the orthodox view of Baptism, has frequently tried to show to various credobaptists and Adventists the obvious, that based on Acts 16, and indeed Matthew 28:19, it is impossible for infants not to have been baptized.

The only way I can make any sense of the objections to our collective position is if one adopted a theology that regarded infants as sub-persons, owing to their lack of a developed intellect, and that is something I find very dark and inimical to our religion.
The Jews circumcised their male infants on the eighth day after their birth to make them subject to, and in accord with, the commands of the first or old covenant.

Christians likewise baptized their infants into the Christian faith shortly after their birth to make them subject to, and in accord with, the commands of the new or second covenant.

In both covenants, the parents must make the decision for their children because they are responsible for their children's obedience to God until the children become adults.

Genesis 18:19 For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice, that the Lord may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him.”

Proverbs 22:6 Train children in the right way, and when old, they will not stray.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,191
5,710
49
The Wild West
✟476,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
The Jews circumcised their male infants on the eighth day after their birth to make them subject to, and in accord with, the commands of the first or old covenant.

Christians likewise baptized their infants into the Christian faith shortly after their birth to make them subject to, and in accord with, the commands of the new or second covenant.

In both covenants, the parents must make the decision for their children because they are responsible for their children's obedience to God until the children become adults.

Genesis 18:19 For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice, that the Lord may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him.”

Proverbs 22:6 Train children in the right way, and when old, they will not stray.

Indeed, and in Orthodoxy and also the Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholic churches in communion with Rome, baptism is normally done on the eighth day as it is obviously a replacement for circumcision.

Actually I am extremely opposed to Christian children being circumcised; I regard this as an extreme error that contradicts the epistles of St. Paul. The scripture and tradition of the Church is clear, and that is that infants and children are to be baptized and not circumcised, since the Law was fulfilled, and salvation is through Christ.
 
Upvote 0

Jan001

Striving to win the prize...
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2013
2,201
334
Midwest
✟110,777.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Indeed, and in Orthodoxy and also the Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholic churches in communion with Rome, baptism is normally done on the eighth day as it is obviously a replacement for circumcision.

Actually I am extremely opposed to Christian children being circumcised; I regard this as an extreme error that contradicts the epistles of St. Paul. The scripture and tradition of the Church is clear, and that is that infants and children are to be baptized and not circumcised, since the Law was fulfilled, and salvation is through Christ.
I agree that male infants should not be circumcised, and for the reasons you stated. God made males a particular way and He called it very good.

Genesis 1:
Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.’

27 So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.’ 29 God said, ‘See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.’ And it was so. 31 God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.


God commanded that all Israelite males be circumcised in order to set them apart from other nations in that time period. Circumcision was a requirement for membership in the first or old covenant.

Genesis 17:14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.’

Exodus 12:48 If an alien who resides with you wants to celebrate the passover to the Lord, all his males shall be circumcised; then he may draw near to celebrate it; he shall be regarded as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it;


In the new or second covenant, baptism is what sets us apart from other people.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Ain't Zwinglian

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2020
776
426
Oregon
✟107,312.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Actually I am extremely opposed to Christian children being circumcised; I regard this as an extreme error that contradicts the epistles of St. Paul. The scripture and tradition of the Church is clear, and that is that infants and children are to be baptized and not circumcised, since the Law was fulfilled, and salvation is through Christ.
I am indifferent on post NT era circumcision....it is more of a cultural/social with OT covenant relationship permenantlly severed.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,191
5,710
49
The Wild West
✟476,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
I am indifferent on post NT era circumcision....it is more of a cultural/social with OT covenant relationship permenantlly severed.

My objection is mainly over the pain and distress it can cause, especially when applied to older children as a result of marriage.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,191
5,710
49
The Wild West
✟476,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
I hear you clearly on this one.

I suspect that on most issues, our theological views are in alignment. Hence I seek to form a strong friendship with you as I have with other Lutheran members, especially my beloved friend @MarkRohfrietsch
 
Upvote 0

MarkRohfrietsch

Unapologetic Apologist
Site Supporter
Dec 8, 2007
30,458
5,309
✟829,080.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
I suspect that on most issues, our theological views are in alignment. Hence I seek to form a strong friendship with you as I have with other Lutheran members, especially my beloved friend @MarkRohfrietsch
As always, you are most kind. I am indifferent on this matter (for infants); while Scripture is clear that the old covenant is fulfilled, no where does the NT prohibit it.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Ain't Zwinglian

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2020
776
426
Oregon
✟107,312.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
As always, you are most kind. I am indifferent on this matter (for infants); while Scripture is clear that the old covenant is fulfilled, no where does the NT prohibit it.
This is the correct hermeneutic. The Scriptures do not prohibit infant baptism....."that which is not prohibited, is permitted." This hermeneutic is built into all Law, both civil & criminal and also Scriptural. All this flows from the Christian law of Liberty...‘I Cor. 6:12 All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.

To go in the other direction...."that which is not permitted is prohibited"...leads to legalism for no one can know the standard, except those with arbitrary authorianian rule.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,191
5,710
49
The Wild West
✟476,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
This is the correct hermeneutic. The Scriptures do not prohibit infant baptism....."that which is not prohibited, is permitted." This hermeneutic is built into all Law, both civil & criminal and also Scriptural. All this flows from the Christian law of Liberty...‘I Cor. 6:12 All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.

To go in the other direction...."that which is not permitted is prohibited"...leads to legalism for no one can know the standard, except those with arbitrary authorianian rule.

Indeed so. My objection to the circumcision of infants and especially male children who are not infants but are rather at an age where they will experience and remember the pain is not based on any explicit scriptural instruction but rather, since it is permitted for children not to be circumcised in the church, I believe the circumcision of them subjects them to unecessary pain and suffering and is therefore objectionable along the lines of a broader concept of Christian morality.

I am very grateful this was not done to me in my childhood, and I would have resented it greatly had someone presumed to do this to me, especially without my consent, especially outside of my infancy, if I were, say, 7 or 8 years old or thereabouts, at an age when the ability to feel exrcuciating pain exists but the ability to tune it out which most of us are blessed with at some point in later childhood has not yet developed.

This is simply based on the Golden Rule.

And you are correct: the Regulative Principle of Calvinism, the idea that that which is not expressly permitted is prohibited, is a grave error which has led to, on the basis of misinterpretations, grave Iconoclasm and other errors that pertain in particular to the liturgy and the divine services.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,191
5,710
49
The Wild West
✟476,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
leads to legalism for no one can know the standard, except those with arbitrary authorianian rule.

This is also true. I can’t think of anyone who applies the regulative principle whose interpretation of what Scripture actually requires seems consistent with reason.
 
Upvote 0

Ain't Zwinglian

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2020
776
426
Oregon
✟107,312.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Regulative Principle of Calvinism
I never heard of the RPW until about eight or nine years ago....when I was reading something about not celebrating the Christmas on 12/25 although they could preach on the birth of Jesus any other Sunday. The RPW is influenced much more from Puritanism than Calvin himself. Those that write on Puritan Board are heavy into RPW.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Jan001

Striving to win the prize...
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2013
2,201
334
Midwest
✟110,777.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I think parents baptize their infants so that the Holy Spirit will be given to them, and then live within them as the Spirit of Grace, to help guide them to eternal life. Baptism forgives Adam's sin and makes a person righteous. It is actually the Holy Spirit's presence within a person which makes him righteous and it is His presence within this person at the time of his death which guarantees that he will inherit eternal life. Romans 5:16, 2 Corinthians 5:4-5, Hebrews 10:29

If Jesus does not see His Holy Spirit living within a person at the time of his death, Jesus will claim that He does not know him. Jesus will claim that He never knew him. Matthew 7:22, Luke 13:24-27, Ezekiel 33:11-17

Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Mark 16:16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.


The parents believe for the infant and their faith or belief in Jesus Christ saves their infant when he is baptized.

Acts 16:31 They answered, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.’
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,191
5,710
49
The Wild West
✟476,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
I never heard of the RPW until about eight or nine years ago....when I was reading something about not celebrating the Christmas on 12/25 although they could preach on the birth of Jesus any other Sunday. The RPW is influenced much more from Puritanism than Calvin himself. Those that write on Puritan Board are heavy into RPW.

Didn’t Calvin suppress the celebration of Christmas and other specific Christian holidays in Geneva? I recall that being a complaint aired against him.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,191
5,710
49
The Wild West
✟476,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
I think parents baptize their infants so that the Holy Spirit will be given to them, and then live within them as the Spirit of Grace, to help guide them to eternal life. Baptism forgives Adam's sin and makes a person righteous. It is actually the Holy Spirit's presence within a person which makes him righteous and it is His presence within this person at the time of his death which guarantees that he will inherit eternal life. Romans 5:16, 2 Corinthians 5:4-5, Hebrews 10:29

If Jesus does not see His Holy Spirit living within a person at the time of his death, Jesus will claim that He does not know him. Jesus will claim that He never knew him. Matthew 7:22, Luke 13:24-27, Ezekiel 33:11-17

Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Mark 16:16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.


The parents believe for the infant and their faith or belief in Jesus Christ saves their infant when he is baptized.

Acts 16:31 They answered, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.’

That is correct.
 
Upvote 0

Ain't Zwinglian

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2020
776
426
Oregon
✟107,312.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Didn’t Calvin suppress the celebration of Christmas and other specific Christian holidays in Geneva? I recall that being a complaint aired against him.
I don't know. I don't know about much about Calvin's life in Geneva....although have more of a through understanding of the five points. I do know when the Westminster Confession of Faith was written (1647), Puritanism was in full swing in England and America. RPW is founded @ 25; 1 under any visible representation or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.

"Not Prescribed" ..... is where the problem would lie for those outside those who hold to the WCF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Ain't Zwinglian

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2020
776
426
Oregon
✟107,312.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Didn’t Calvin suppress the celebration of Christmas and other specific Christian holidays in Geneva? I recall that being a complaint aired against him.
I did some research. You are quite correct. I quote an entry on Calvinism from the Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World......

"Another distinctive feature of Reformed Protestantism was its remarkably small number of official holidays. Calvin himself saw no need and no scriptural basis for any holiday other than Sunday, and Reformed Protestants usually celebrated extremely few of them.

Their most austere churches, Geneva and Scotland (or seventeenth-century New England), observed none at all—not until Geneva’s magistrates overruled their pastors and finally declared Christmas an official holiday in 1694. Such situations were, however, exceptional. The mainstream of established Calvinism, the Reformed churches of Zurich, Bern, France, the Netherlands, and the Palatinate, celebrated four holidays besides Sundays: Christmas, Easter, Ascension Day, and Pentecost; the Dutch and the Palatinate also added New Year’s Day. Keeping only a handful of holy days marked an enormous departure from Catholic practices, which in most places celebrated anywhere from forty to sixty holidays each year. Other mainstream Protestants were far less radical than Calvinists: Lutherans kept a large number of holy days, while the Church of England became a target for Puritan scorn by observing a total of twenty-seven holidays. Early Massachusetts went further and took the most extreme Calvinist position about the Christian calendar: not only did the colony ban all holidays, but its General Court briefly reformed the “pagan” names of the months as well, dating by “first month,” “second month,” and so forth.


Many Calvinists compensated for this paucity or absence of other holidays with a strict observance of Sunday, almost in an exact correlation. Scotland became Europe’s most notorious example in 1579, when serious punishments were first threatened for Sabbath-breakers; by 1649, they had forbidden such practices as fishing on Sunday.

Scotland’s extremely rigid taboos about Sabbath observance lasted far into modern times; it has been suggested that “Thou Shalt Not” made the best title for a history of Scotland, with its longest chapter called “Never on Sunday.”

Another specifically Calvinist ritual was the special day of community fasting, proposed by pastors and decreed by secular authorities, usually intended to divert God’s wrath at times of extraordinary danger. We find fast days observed as early as the 1560s by the beleaguered churches of the Low Countries or France, and later in seventeenth-century New England; they remained a feature of Genevan life until the nineteenth century."

********

Dec. 25 became a federal holiday in 1870 in the Americas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

MarkRohfrietsch

Unapologetic Apologist
Site Supporter
Dec 8, 2007
30,458
5,309
✟829,080.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
I did some research. You are quite correct. I quote an entry on Calvinism from the Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World......

"Another distinctive feature of Reformed Protestantism was its remarkably small number of official holidays. Calvin himself saw no need and no scriptural basis for any holiday other than Sunday, and Reformed Protestants usually celebrated extremely few of them.

Their most austere churches, Geneva and Scotland (or seventeenth-century New England), observed none at all—not until Geneva’s magistrates overruled their pastors and finally declared Christmas an official holiday in 1694. Such situations were, however, exceptional. The mainstream of established Calvinism, the Reformed churches of Zurich, Bern, France, the Netherlands, and the Palatinate, celebrated four holidays besides Sundays: Christmas, Easter, Ascension Day, and Pentecost; the Dutch and the Palatinate also added New Year’s Day. Keeping only a handful of holy days marked an enormous departure from Catholic practices, which in most places celebrated anywhere from forty to sixty holidays each year. Other mainstream Protestants were far less radical than Calvinists: Lutherans kept a large number of holy days, while the Church of England became a target for Puritan scorn by observing a total of twenty-seven holidays. Early Massachusetts went further and took the most extreme Calvinist position about the Christian calendar: not only did the colony ban all holidays, but its General Court briefly reformed the “pagan” names of the months as well, dating by “first month,” “second month,” and so forth.


Many Calvinists compensated for this paucity or absence of other holidays with a strict observance of Sunday, almost in an exact correlation. Scotland became Europe’s most notorious example in 1579, when serious punishments were first threatened for Sabbath-breakers; by 1649, they had forbidden such practices as fishing on Sunday.

Scotland’s extremely rigid taboos about Sabbath observance lasted far into modern times; it has been suggested that “Thou Shalt Not” made the best title for a history of Scotland, with its longest chapter called “Never on Sunday.”

Another specifically Calvinist ritual was the special day of community fasting, proposed by pastors and decreed by secular authorities, usually intended to divert God’s wrath at times of extraordinary danger. We find fast days observed as early as the 1560s by the beleaguered churches of the Low Countries or France, and later in seventeenth-century New England; they remained a feature of Genevan life until the nineteenth century."

********

Dec. 25 became a federal holiday in 1870 in the Americas.
... "sigh'...Legalism. A Heresy in and of itself.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,191
5,710
49
The Wild West
✟476,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
I did some research. You are quite correct. I quote an entry on Calvinism from the Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World......

"Another distinctive feature of Reformed Protestantism was its remarkably small number of official holidays. Calvin himself saw no need and no scriptural basis for any holiday other than Sunday, and Reformed Protestants usually celebrated extremely few of them.

Their most austere churches, Geneva and Scotland (or seventeenth-century New England), observed none at all—not until Geneva’s magistrates overruled their pastors and finally declared Christmas an official holiday in 1694. Such situations were, however, exceptional. The mainstream of established Calvinism, the Reformed churches of Zurich, Bern, France, the Netherlands, and the Palatinate, celebrated four holidays besides Sundays: Christmas, Easter, Ascension Day, and Pentecost; the Dutch and the Palatinate also added New Year’s Day. Keeping only a handful of holy days marked an enormous departure from Catholic practices, which in most places celebrated anywhere from forty to sixty holidays each year. Other mainstream Protestants were far less radical than Calvinists: Lutherans kept a large number of holy days, while the Church of England became a target for Puritan scorn by observing a total of twenty-seven holidays. Early Massachusetts went further and took the most extreme Calvinist position about the Christian calendar: not only did the colony ban all holidays, but its General Court briefly reformed the “pagan” names of the months as well, dating by “first month,” “second month,” and so forth.


Many Calvinists compensated for this paucity or absence of other holidays with a strict observance of Sunday, almost in an exact correlation. Scotland became Europe’s most notorious example in 1579, when serious punishments were first threatened for Sabbath-breakers; by 1649, they had forbidden such practices as fishing on Sunday.

Scotland’s extremely rigid taboos about Sabbath observance lasted far into modern times; it has been suggested that “Thou Shalt Not” made the best title for a history of Scotland, with its longest chapter called “Never on Sunday.”

Another specifically Calvinist ritual was the special day of community fasting, proposed by pastors and decreed by secular authorities, usually intended to divert God’s wrath at times of extraordinary danger. We find fast days observed as early as the 1560s by the beleaguered churches of the Low Countries or France, and later in seventeenth-century New England; they remained a feature of Genevan life until the nineteenth century."

********

Dec. 25 became a federal holiday in 1870 in the Americas.

It is amusing, I think, to consider the extent to which Adventists rally against Catholicism when their real logical enemies both in terms of Sunday worship and infant baptism have always been the Presbyterians.
 
Upvote 0