Infant baptism and baptismal regeneration

[CelticRebel]

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.

The terms of membership in the two covenants were different. The Old Covenant had nationalist elements in it; the New did/does not.

 

[CelticRebel]

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.

In my part of the country, baptist children who are raised in the faith but not baptized as infants are much more likely to stay in the faith than Presbyterian, Methodist, and Episcopal children who were baptized as infants. That's been my experience, anyway.

 

[CelticRebel]

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.

When I was briefly an agnostic, in my search for truth, I started looking at everything, every doctrine, every religion, with no preconceived notions. And when I began studying the Bible again, I approached it this way -- and I came to a completely different conclusion than you. And I came to a different conclusion than you also regarding the scripture you quoted.

 

[CelticRebel]

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

The baptism God does for us is spiritual baptism, the circumcision "done without hands", not water baptism which must be done by the hands of men.

 

[prodromos]

The baptism God does for us is spiritual baptism, the circumcision "done without hands", not water baptism which must be done by the hands of men.

The one occurs with the other.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The terms of membership in the two covenants were different. The Old Covenant had nationalist elements in it; the New did/does not.

I know, but since Christianity is fulfilled Judaism, the Christians used a lot of theology and practice from Judaism, now illumined in the light of Christ. and Christians have always baptized ASAP, which included children.

 

[CelticRebel]

I know, but since Christianity is fulfilled Judaism, the Christians used a lot of theology and practice from Judaism, now illumined in the light of Christ. and Christians have always baptized ASAP, which included children.

I would have to say that that is just an assumption because there is no scriptural evidence for it. Or I would qualify that by saying infants because I believe if young children profess faith in Jesus, they can be baptized.

 

[CelticRebel]

The one occurs with the other.

And that is the point at which the disagreement occurs between us, isn't it?

 

[ArmyMatt]

I would have to say that that is just an assumption because there is no scriptural evidence for it. Or I would qualify that by saying infants because I believe if young children profess faith in Jesus, they can be baptized.

well, it says whole households, which would include children. plus, the Church that put the Bible together in the late 4th century (as we know the canon today) baptized children.

plus, to say they must profess faith in Jesus means that the guy who was born mentally handicapped and cannot communicate anything cannot be baptized.

 

[~Anastasia~]

When I was briefly an agnostic, in my search for truth, I started looking at everything, every doctrine, every religion, with no preconceived notions. And when I began studying the Bible again, I approached it this way

That's good.

-- and I came to a completely different conclusion than you. And I came to a different conclusion than you also regarding the scripture you quoted.

Many of the "conclusions" I reached were more along the lines of understanding that trying to draw a perfect conclusion using only Scripture was a doorway to the kinds of confusion we see in the widespread disagreements among denominations.

But if we allow it, that can be a humbling thought. Following humility, there is reason in realizing that the disciples of the Apostles themselves, the early Church Fathers, the Desert Fathers, and others who were much closer in time and culture, who dedicated their lives (often to the death), and who lived out their faith in radical ways just might know more about Truth than I am able to reason my way to, leaning on my own understanding.

Don't get me wrong. I still didn't simply accept what I was told. This is too important, and I believe we have a responsibility before God to seek truth diligently. But Church history, and other factors demanded that I not overrule everything based on my prejudices.

With MUCH prayer, study, and a rather organic way of fitting things together, with God's help, things began to make a lot more sense. But I needed that framework and some major pieces to fit before I could really begin to fit in doctrines. That's just me though. I suspect others may be different.

Btw ...

The one occurs with the other.

^THIS. It's not a work of man, and never could be. Only God can accomplish what He does in the sacraments. It's simply that I believe He established that He wants them done. Who are we to trivialize that? (I'm not saying that's what you're doing, btw.)

 

[CelticRebel]

well, it says whole households, which would include children. plus, the Church that put the Bible together in the late 4th century (as we know the canon today) baptized children.

plus, to say they must profess faith in Jesus means that the guy who was born mentally handicapped and cannot communicate anything cannot be baptized.

Well, let me address three things, and not meaning to be confrontational when doing so.

1. It can only be assumed that there were infants in the household. If there were, though, the condition for baptism in the NT remains the same -- faith in Christ, which infants cannot profess and do not need to profess (as infants).

2. Why would a person born mentally handicapped -- severely, that is -- need to be baptized?

3. I've already spoken on "the Church" and the canon.

AM, I'm not saying you don't have good and legitimate points; I just don't reach the same conclusion as you. But I do understand why you hold them.

 

[ArmyMatt]

1. It can only be assumed that there were infants in the household. If there were, though, the condition for baptism in the NT remains the same -- faith in Christ, which infants cannot profess and do not need to profess (as infants).

the condition would only be as you say it if infants were not baptized.

2. Why would a person born mentally handicapped -- severely, that is -- need to be baptized?

everyone does. nowhere does God exempt anyone from baptism or say that a certain group does not need baptism.

3. I've already spoken on "the Church" and the canon.

but is there any evidence that would contradict and show people insisting on an external profession of faith prior to baptism, and this excluding infants?

 

[buzuxi02]

Why is this conversation still going on. We know that it happened. The Baptists know that it happened! Its just that, at the time the anabaptists were devising their heresies they didnt realize there existed in the catacombs of tombs of small children inscribing their baptismal date. At that time certain fragments of the writings of Irenaeous were not yet translated nor widely available, one papyrus fragment exclusively mentions infant baptism.

I have even proven that the reformers tampered with scriptures substituting the greek word nepios (infant) for teknon(child) and then cutting off Galatians 3.29 from the rest of the passages by starting a new chapter, in order to suppress the smoking gun verse of infant baptism. (a common manipulative practise of western bibles unfortunately) And guess what? There are more fragments and writings attesting to it which has not been translated outside of greek, syriac and latin.

Remember that former baptist minister turned Orthodox priest? He wanted to disprove infant baptism so he went to his baptist theological seminary library to do research on it. He was shocked at how prevalent infant baptism was and converted, this is from the baptist library! Most baptist ministers who actually have some intellect have a major crisis of faith over this. They know full well they are promoting a soul condemning heresy, they know it and they know it well!

 

[prodromos]

Why is this conversation still going on. We know that it happened. The Baptists know that it happened! Its just that, at the time the anabaptists were devising their heresies they didnt realize there existed in the catacombs of tombs of small children inscribing their baptismal date. At that time certain fragments of the writings of Irenaeous were not yet translated nor widely available, one papyrus fragment exclusively mentions infant baptism.

I have even proven that the reformers tampered with scriptures substituting the greek word nepios (infant) for teknon(child) and then cutting off Galatians 3.29 from the rest of the passages by starting a new chapter, in order to suppress the smoking gun verse of infant baptism. (a common manipulative practise of western bibles unfortunately) And guess what? There are more fragments and writings attesting to it which has not been translated outside of greek, syriac and latin.

Remember that former baptist minister turned Orthodox priest? He wanted to disprove infant baptism so he went to his baptist theological seminary library to do research on it. He was shocked at how prevalent infant baptism was and converted, this is from the baptist library! Most baptist ministers who actually have some intellect have a major crisis of faith over this. They know full well they are promoting a soul condemning heresy, they know it and they know it well!

Wasn't Oral Roberts University being referred to as the St Vladimir's of the South, due to the large numbers of students converting to Orthodoxy after spending time in the Universities' Patristics library?

 

[buzuxi02]

Yes I believe so. In fact let me prove to what extremes the Baptists at attempts to not be exposed. How desperate they are to coverup their known heresy. Here is a link to a baptist website claiming St John of Damascus rejected infant baptism and only believed in credobaptism. I could you not! This is their level of desperation:

John of Damascus, a Credobaptist? | Centre Street Baptist Church


They are either demonic or really brain dead. St John of Damascus makes a statement on the Orthodox practise of delaying baptism even unto ones deathbed if the bishop believes the candidate is coming forward with ulterior decietful motives! This concept is even found in the earliest canons! Somehow these people devoid of history and culture and terminology and the canons and practises of the Church believe St John of damscus was promoting a 'credobaptist' agenda (never mind that scripture explicitly says babies are natural believers of christ but baptists arent known for understanding scripture).

Now can you imagine if they cross out St John Chrysostom's third sermon on his homiles on Baptismal instruction which talks about infant baptism??? Only if it wasnt that darn chapter, these baptists could claim John Chrysostom as well!

 

[ArmyMatt]

Wasn't Oral Roberts University being referred to as the St Vladimir's of the South, due to the large numbers of students converting to Orthodoxy after spending time in the Universities' Patristics library?

yes, Fr Antony Hughes, Abp Mark of Philadelphia, and Dr David Ford are three prominent Orthodox folks who were baptist until they went to ORU (and I know there are more). their history teacher was an Orthodox priest I think as well.

 

[CelticRebel]

the condition would only be as you say it if infants were not baptized.



everyone does. nowhere does God exempt anyone from baptism or say that a certain group does not need baptism.



but is there any evidence that would contradict and show people insisting on an external profession of faith prior to baptism, and this excluding infants?

Jesus said let the little children come to Him, but He didn't say baptize them, and He didn't baptize them. He blessed them instead. And He said of such is the kingdom of God. He clearly included them in His kingdom without baptism.

About your last statement: This is the stated requirement all through the NT.

 

[CelticRebel]

Why is this conversation still going on. We know that it happened. The Baptists know that it happened! Its just that, at the time the anabaptists were devising their heresies they didnt realize there existed in the catacombs of tombs of small children inscribing their baptismal date. At that time certain fragments of the writings of Irenaeous were not yet translated nor widely available, one papyrus fragment exclusively mentions infant baptism.

I have even proven that the reformers tampered with scriptures substituting the greek word nepios (infant) for teknon(child) and then cutting off Galatians 3.29 from the rest of the passages by starting a new chapter, in order to suppress the smoking gun verse of infant baptism. (a common manipulative practise of western bibles unfortunately) And guess what? There are more fragments and writings attesting to it which has not been translated outside of greek, syriac and latin.

Remember that former baptist minister turned Orthodox priest? He wanted to disprove infant baptism so he went to his baptist theological seminary library to do research on it. He was shocked at how prevalent infant baptism was and converted, this is from the baptist library! Most baptist ministers who actually have some intellect have a major crisis of faith over this. They know full well they are promoting a soul condemning heresy, they know it and they know it well!

You have proven absolutely nothing. You can rail against scripture with your tradition of men all you want, but scripture disproves you and it. And your continued slander and contempt of Baptists and Anabaptists shows more about you than them. You need to climb down off your religious high horse. I've encountered people like you on many forums, of many different persuasions, but you all share the same character traits. And you think you're intellectually superior to Baptists just because they are Baptists? What a joke!

A soul condemning heresy? No, a soul-rescuing Biblical truth.

 

[CelticRebel]

Yes I believe so. In fact let me prove to what extremes the Baptists at attempts to not be exposed. How desperate they are to coverup their known heresy. Here is a link to a baptist website claiming St John of Damascus rejected infant baptism and only believed in credobaptism. I could you not! This is their level of desperation:

John of Damascus, a Credobaptist? | Centre Street Baptist Church


They are either demonic or really brain dead. St John of Damascus makes a statement on the Orthodox practise of delaying baptism even unto ones deathbed if the bishop believes the candidate is coming forward with ulterior decietful motives! This concept is even found in the earliest canons! Somehow these people devoid of history and culture and terminology and the canons and practises of the Church believe St John of damscus was promoting a 'credobaptist' agenda (never mind that scripture explicitly says babies are natural believers of christ but baptists arent known for understanding scripture).

Now can you imagine if they cross out St John Chrysostom's third sermon on his homiles on Baptismal instruction which talks about infant baptism??? Only if it wasnt that darn chapter, these baptists could claim John Chrysostom as well!

Your statement that I bolded is one unworthy of being made by a so-called Christian. Baptists understand scripture and try to pattern their churches after it. I am beginning to doubt that you're even a Christian. How can you claim the name of Christ and slander those who are supposed to be your brothers? Calling peole demonic is akin to the tactics used by state churches all down through the ages to persecute, torture, and murder other Christians in the name of Christ. Calling other Christians demonic is treading on dangerous ground. Maybe you'd better examine yourself to see where your hostility and contempt come from. You certainly don't get it from the One you claim to serve.

 

[buzuxi02]

If you think a well read modern day anabaptist or baptist minister truly believes that infant baptism did not take place in the earliest times of the church, then why do older baptist sources claim Constantine's church of 320 AD started the practise but the newer sources revise their calculations claiming it wasnt practised prior to 200 AD?

But if you think todays educated baptist seminary proffessor truly believe it was a 3rd century origin, I will pay to have him take a polygraph test.