Infant baptism and baptismal regeneration

[All4Christ]

Spiritual rebirth is a lifelong process, its called theosis or the aquisition of the Holy Spirit. Has nothing to do with once saved always saved.

In all my reading, classes, etc. about Orthodoxy, water baptism is considered to be a spiritual rebirth. Even the text of the baptism service refers to it as a spiritual rebirth. I agree with the concept that we are continually in a process of theosis - as well as the rejection of OSAS, but Orthodoxy does teach that spiritual rebirth occurs through baptism. Do you find that Orthodoxy teaches that baptism is not spiritual rebirth? Or are you referring to spiritual rebirth as the same concept of theosis, in addition to the spiritual rebirth of baptism?

 

[CelticRebel]

Spiritual rebirth is a lifelong process, its called theosis or the aquisition of the Holy Spirit. Has nothing to do with once saved always saved. And the only way to aquire the Holy Spirit is within the church through baptism and chrismation, after that its up to you to rekindle and stir up the gift within you. The parable of the 10 virgins had nothing to do with age restrictions, all 10 began the race full of faith and grace but only five finished in that state. St Gregory Nazianzen who himself was baptised as an adult gave this magnificent homily on baptism with the following excerpts:

But are you afraid lest you should destroy the Gift, and do you therefore put off your cleansing, because you cannot have it a second time? What? Are you afraid of the danger in time of persecution, and of losing the most precious Thing you have— Christ? Would you then on this account avoid becoming a Christian? Perish the thought. Such a fear is not for a sane man; such an argument argues insanity. O incautious caution, if I may so! O trick of the Evil One! Truly he is darkness and pretends to be light; and when he can no longer prevail in open war, he lays snares in secret,...O man of God, do thou recognize the plots of your adversary; for the battle is against him that has, and it is concerned with the most important interests. Take not your enemy to be your counsellor; despise not to be and to be called Faithful. As long as you are a Catechumen you are but in the porch of Religion; you must come inside, and cross the court, and observe the Holy Things, and look into the Holy of Holies, and be in company with the Trinity.....Have you an infant child? Do not let sin get any opportunity, but let him be sanctified from his childhood; from his very tenderest age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Fearest thou the Seal on account of the weakness of nature? O what a small-souled mother, and of how little faith! Why, Anna even before Samuel was born promised him to God(1Sam 1.10), and after his birth consecrated him at once, and brought him up in the priestly habit, not fearing anything in human nature, but trusting in God. You have no need of amulets or incantations, with which the Devil also comes in, stealing worship from God for himself in the minds of vainer men. Give your child the Trinity, that great and noble Guard.(Oration 40 ch16&17)

See bolded part: I don't see that taught in scripture.

I don't believe in OSAS.

 

[CelticRebel]

If a ritual can produce spiritual rebirth without the personal faith of the recipient, then we need to go out and hose down the neighborhood and bring people into the kingdom en masse.

Where in the NT is anyone spiritually reborn without exercising personal faith? If a ritual by itself has the power to regenerate, then it logically follows that faith is not required.

 

[All4Christ]

If a ritual can produce spiritual rebirth without the personal faith of the recipient, then we need to go out and hose down the neighborhood and bring people into the kingdom en masse. Where in the NT is anyone spiritually reborn without exercising personal faith? If a ritual by itself has the power to regenerate, then it logically follows that faith is not required.

The sacrament is not the sole key to salvation...personal faith is still required in a person's process of working out their salvation. It's a process. That is one of the key elements here. When an infant is baptized, they do not have the mental faculties at the time to make that choice. That is where the faith of the parents comes into play. At the point that they are able to make that choice, they need to choose to follow God. If someone is not baptized prior to them having the ability to choose for themselves, they must have the faith in order for them to be baptized. That is the key to remember...baptism clears the slate, but you still need to choose to follow God every day.

Some others might be able to explain better.

 

[ArmyMatt]

What I see in scripture is that personal faith is required for spiritual rebirth, for water baptism, and for entering the church.

well, Acts records whole households being converted, which would include children of an age before they could mentally profess belief in Christ.

this line of thinking also reduces faith to merely a mental acknowledgment of Christ, and not a life lived in Him. this is not consistent with how Christians act though. I cannot imagine a church who would turn someone away who is handicapped and cannot reason beyond an infant. so why would that person be accepted and not someone who is a baby?

 

[buzuxi02]

See bolded part: I don't see that taught in scripture.

I don't believe in OSAS.

Your kidding me right? We must really be reading different scriptures , I must have read it in 15 different places in scripture. You dont think you can baptise yourself or get a pagan or muslim to do it, do you?

 

[buzuxi02]

In all my reading, classes, etc.imabout Orthodoxy, water baptism is considered to be a spiritual rebirth. Even the text of the baptism service refers to it as a spiritual rebirth. I agree with the concept that we are continually in a process of theosis - as well as the rejection of OSAS, but Orthodoxy does teach that spiritual rebirth occurs through baptism. Do you find that Orthodoxy teaches that baptism is not spiritual rebirth? Or are you referring to spiritual rebirth as the same concept of theosis, in addition to the spiritual rebirth of baptism?

Yes baptism is the rebirth, born again of water and Spirit. I meant we fall in the course of our lives and then get back up dust ourselves off and continue the spiritual journey. Baptism is the starting point.

 

[All4Christ]

Yes baptism is the rebirth, born again of water and Spirit. I meant we fall in the course of our lives and then get back up dust ourselves off and continue the spiritual journey. Baptism is the starting point.

Ah ok - then we are on the same page. Thanks for the clarification!

 

[All4Christ]

CR - just so you know - I understand the concern you have about the Holy Spirit coming upon us via water baptism and chrismation. Coming from a Pentecostal background, this likely seemed even more foreign to me than it does to you

One thing that helped clarify this for me was the baptism of Jesus Christ. Pretty much everything done by Jesus was an example for us - and a source of teaching. He didn't need baptism, as he already is God...but he did that to show God's power and to instruct us as to what we need to do. What happened when Jesus was baptized? The Holy Spirit came upon him. There are many other areas talking about the same thing (Holy Spirit upon baptism), but this was a key scripture for me. I'll pull out some others later, to help round out the reasonings for my conclusion with this.

 

[CelticRebel]

CR - just so you know - I understand the concern you have about the Holy Spirit coming upon us via water baptism and chrismation. Coming from a Pentecostal background, this likely seemed even more foreign to me than it does to you

One thing that helped clarify this for me was the baptism of Jesus Christ. Pretty much everything done by Jesus was an example for us - and a source of teaching. He didn't need baptism, as he already is God...but he did that to show God's power and to instruct us as to what we need to do. What happened when Jesus was baptized? The Holy Spirit came upon him. There are many other areas talking about the same thing (Holy Spirit upon baptism), but this was a key scripture for me. I'll pull out some others later, to help round out the reasonings for my conclusion with this.

Thank you; that was very helpful.

However, when the Holy Spirit came upon Jesus, it was not to regenerate Him.

I will be interested to see the other scriptures you mention and your thoughts on same.

 

[CelticRebel]

Your kidding me right? We must really be reading different scriptures , I must have read it in 15 different places in scripture. You dont think you can baptise yourself or get a pagan or muslim to do it, do you?

I don't know what you mean by that.

 

[CelticRebel]

well, Acts records whole households being converted, which would include children of an age before they could mentally profess belief in Christ.

this line of thinking also reduces faith to merely a mental acknowledgment of Christ, and not a life lived in Him. this is not consistent with how Christians act though. I cannot imagine a church who would turn someone away who is handicapped and cannot reason beyond an infant. so why would that person be accepted and not someone who is a baby?

Actually, it doesn't. Personal faith involves all of the person, not just the mind. The Churches of Christ, who also teach a form of baptismal regeneration, could be accused of seeing faith as mere intellectual assent.

You make a good point about the handicapped. But is that handicapped person of sufficient capacity to receive Christ by faith and ask for baptism? If not, there would be no need for baptism, just like there is no need for an infant to be baptized. I believe, with the General Baptists, that such are already in the covenant of God's grace, apart from any outward ritual.

 

[CelticRebel]

The sacrament is not the sole key to salvation...personal faith is still required in a person's process of working out their salvation. It's a process. That is one of the key elements here. When an infant is baptized, they do not have the mental faculties at the time to make that choice. That is where the faith of the parents comes into play. At the point that they are able to make that choice, they need to choose to follow God. If someone is not baptized prior to them having the ability to choose for themselves, they must have the faith in order for them to be baptized. That is the key to remember...baptism clears the slate, but you still need to choose to follow God every day.

Some others might be able to explain better.

If an infant is spiritually reborn simply by the act of water baptism, then faith is not needed to place one in Christ. Bu that is illogical and unscriptural.

Further, parents cannot have faith or exercise it for the infant. They can raise the child in a Christian home and teach the child, but they cannot have faith for the child. They cannot make the child a Christian, the church cannot make the child a Christian, a ritual cannot make the child or anyone else a Christian. Personal faith of the individual involved is required for that, just like the thief on the cross.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Actually, it doesn't. Personal faith involves all of the person, not just the mind. The Churches of Christ, who also teach a form of baptismal regeneration, could be accused of seeing faith as mere intellectual assent.

You make a good point about the handicapped. But is that handicapped person of sufficient capacity to receive Christ by faith and ask for baptism? If not, there would be no need for baptism, just like there is no need for an infant to be baptized. I believe, with the General Baptists, that such are already in the covenant of God's grace, apart from any outward ritual.

well, we are not talking about needs. we are talking about what was commanded for us to do, and what does history support. Christians have always baptized people as soon as they could. so if a baby, then a baby. baby's were circumcised and united to the Covenant before they could make any profession of faith in God.

 

[Antony in Tx]

I think I would liken infant baptism and spiritual regeneration as not unlike physical birth and going from being a helpless baby to a self sufficient adult. The birth from the womb is merely the starting point. In order to grow and mature, one must be fed and nurtured until they become proficient in self care, and even then they will need love and interaction (save but a few noteworthy exceptional people). This growth in worldly life is not unlike the spiritual growth of theosis once baptism and chrismation have brought forth the beginning of the process. Thus, even a helpless infant can start on the path of theosis,and indeed if you meet Orthodox youth who havebeen raised diligently in the faith, they often are among the most competent, calm, and mature kids you will ever meet. If you think that you get baptized, you profess faith and bingo, your done with the journey and now a "member of the club"...then you're very wrong. Orthodoxy has a way of humbling us over and over as we find out how short we fall of the mark. Only those few whom we count among the saints, known and unknown, are "in". The rest of us are merely pledges trying hard to learn the Truth and become closer to God, hoping that somehow we will be worthy when we have the chance to be in the presence of His Uncreated Light.

 

[buzuxi02]

If an infant is spiritually reborn simply by the act of water baptism, then faith is not needed to place one in Christ. Bu that is illogical and unscriptural.
Further, parents cannot have faith or exercise it for the infant. They can raise the child in a Christian home and teach the child, but they cannot have faith for the child. They cannot make the child a Christian, the church cannot make the child a Christian, a ritual cannot make the child or anyone else a Christian. Personal faith of the individual involved is required for that, just like the thief on the cross.

I have shown you that this is indeed what Jesus Christ and the apostles taught. Not only is it scriptural- its plastered all over scripture multiple times! Let me repeat some of these verses again:

Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. 5 But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness. (1 Cor10.1-5)

Now unless they left behind their babies, all were baptised, all drank that spiritual drink which was Christ yet God was not pleased with all of them.
Paul makes clear that it is the entire household that can be saved and baptised. The Apostles never said, 'you and your household..UNLESS you have kids under the age of seven or if any of them are incapacitated they are excluded. Paul said you and your household, before he ever qualified whether babies or small children were part of that household. The following verse makes that clear:

And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
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 (Acts 16.33-35)

Here is another. I have also included the original koine greek for Gal 4.1, as proof that protestants have intentionally tampered with scripture suppressing the word infant for child (among other words contained in verse 2 but thats for another time) :

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a infant, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, 2 but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. (Gal 3.27-4.2)
λεγω δε εφ οσον χρονον ο κληρονομος νηπιος εστιν ουδεν διαφερει δουλου κυριος παντων ων(Gal 4.1)

Furthermore St Gregory Nazianzen compares baptism to how the hebrews anointed their homes with the blood so God's angel will bypass their household and spare killing their firstborn. Marking the door with blood is akin to being sealed with the water of baptism and sealed with the Holy Spirit. This is an allegory to how entire households were saved in the book of Acts. Who was smitten? Every household that had a firstborn (including hebrew infants) the only way to be spared was blood anointing at the doorway in which case the firstborn infants of the household were saved :

Take bunches of hyssop, too, and dip them in the blood which stands at your doors, and sprinkle it over the doorway, lintel and jambs alike. None of you must cross the threshold of his house till morning comes. 23 The Lord will pass on his way smiting down the Egyptians, and when he sees the blood on the lintel and the jambs of a doorway he will pass by that house, and will not let the destroying angel enter your homes to do them injury. 24 And this command is to be kept as an observance by you and your sons for ever. 25 When you reach the land which the Lord will give you in accordance with his promise, you are to keep these ceremonies alive; 26 and if your children ask, What is the meaning of this rite? 27 then you shall tell them, This is the victim that marked the Lord’s passing-by, when he passed by the houses of the Israelites in Egypt, smiting only the Egyptians, and leaving our homes exempt (Ex12.22-27)

 

[prodromos]

You make a good point about the handicapped. But is that handicapped person of sufficient capacity to receive Christ by faith and ask for baptism? If not, there would be no need for baptism, just like there is no need for an infant to be baptized.

Who gets to make that judgement call?

 

[~Anastasia~]

I will say this. The idea of baptismal regeneration was probably the biggest stumbling block for me in accepting Orthodoxy. It simply did NOT FIT what I had been taught and believed, and for many reasons I was just sure that it could not be so. It bothered me each time someone asked about salvation and the Orthodox brought up baptism.

But I decided to do the same thing I did when I had other doctrinal difficulties over the years. I did my absolute best to suspend the ideas I'd been taught, and approach the Scriptures with NO preconceived ideas of what they would say. And I started looking for what they said about salvation.

I was shocked. I will say that once I did this, in all sincerity, I had to admit that the idea of baptismal regeneration was easily there. And further, the evidence that baptism is a necessary part of salvation is just as strongly supported as the idea that faith saves, and more often mentioned than such factors as repentance.

"Faith alone" is not what the Apostles wrote about salvation. They actually mentioned several things, and baptism was almost always mentioned.

Within the structure of interpreting Scripture for oneself (or I'm going to be honest, letting what one has been taught interpret it) ... it is still possible to dismiss baptism. But one has to pick and choose, dismissing some passages, in order to do so, just as I found some other doctrines necessary to do this (such as OSAS).

I understand the difficulty in accepting that baptism saves a person. But it really is there, in the Scriptures. Even directly in some cases.

1 Peter 3

21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

 

[Mary of Bethany]

I just want to reiterate that baptism is not "being saved" as understood by many protestants - including myself when I was Baptist. For Orthodox, baptism is the beginning of salvation. And it's something God does for us, not something we do to show our faith.

Mary

 

[~Anastasia~]

I just want to reiterate that baptism is not "being saved" as understood by many protestants - including myself when I was Baptist. For Orthodox, baptism is the beginning of salvation. And it's something God does for us, not something we do to show our faith.

Mary

That's a good point, and I hope my post didn't open confusion there. It's not so long since I was evangelical/Protestant, yet sometimes it's still easy to forget that the words we use in common can cause confusion if we fail to realize that we don't use them in the same way.

I think that was my biggest reason for initially rejecting baptismal regeneration - I thought it was the equivalent of "being saved" and so I was rightly rejecting it.