is my infant baptism enough?

[~Anastasia~]

You want more than Wiki. It helps if you know the canon number.

I found canon VII of the second ecumenical council to address reception of converts/heretics/etc in detail, depending on what kind of baptism they would have previously received. But I didn't mention it here because that's not the one I was looking for.

canons of the second ecumenical council

But if you do a specific search for the document, you can usually turn up a number of sources that provide the text from the canons. I would rely on one of those (and if in doubt, compare from more than one source).

They are often provided on Orthodox and Catholic sites, and also listed on ccel - so that's three different kinds of traditions for those who want to compare.

NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

 

[RDKirk]

In this example, the right baptism was prescribed.

Question
How did we know if the first baptism was wrong?

Question
How do we know if the next baptism will be right?

Well, John baptized hundreds--including Jesus Himself. So to say it was "wrong" would be...wrong.

However, John's baptism was under the Mosaic Law and a baptism back into the righteousness availed by the Mosaic Law.

It's not a good point of argument to say "Jesus was baptized only once," for that was John's baptism, and if John's baptism was sufficient, Paul would not have baptized again those who had been baptized into John's baptism.

Yet, Paul himself gave rather short shrift of "baptism" in itself. He did it, but didn't emphasize it.

Rather, he was much more concerned with what baptism meant, and that those who had been baptized into John's baptism did not yet know about salvation in Jesus.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Indeed. Those disciples of John's who had received his baptism unto repentance, but never a Christian baptism (and so had not received the Holy Spirit) ... were then given a Christian baptism and they received the Holy Spirit.

Once again ... does baptism actually "do" anything? Apparently for John's disciples, with the full expectation of Paul, it did.

But this was not a rebaptism. They received their first (only) Christian baptism.

 

[Phil 1:21]

You want more than Wiki. It helps if you know the canon number.

I found canon VII of the second ecumenical council to address reception of converts/heretics/etc in detail, depending on what kind of baptism they would have previously received. But I didn't mention it here because that's not the one I was looking for.

canons of the second ecumenical council

But if you do a specific search for the document, you can usually turn up a number of sources that provide the text from the canons. I would rely on one of those (and if in doubt, compare from more than one source).

They are often provided on Orthodox and Catholic sites, and also listed on ccel - so that's three different kinds of traditions for those who want to compare.

NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Thanks. On your first source the word "baptism" only appears twice. Neither time does it address this issue. Your second source is a page containing 759 different links. Perhaps you could guide us to the relevant link? I'm sure you can appreciate none of us have the time to search 759 of them. Thanks again.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Acts 2.41-42 shows the order: receiving the word gladly, baptism.

 

[Wordkeeper]

Well, John baptized hundreds--including Jesus Himself. So to say it was "wrong" would be...wrong.

However, John's baptism was under the Mosaic Law and a baptism back into the righteousness availed by the Mosaic Law.

It's not a good point of argument to say "Jesus was baptized only once," for that was John's baptism, and if John's baptism was sufficient, Paul would not have baptized again those who had been baptized into John's baptism.

Yet, Paul himself gave rather short shrift of "baptism" in itself. He did it, but didn't emphasize it.

Rather, he was much more concerned with what baptism meant, and that those who had been baptized into John's baptism did not yet know about salvation in Jesus.

The word 'wrong' used in this particular instance is not to imply ineffective.

If I used a non TSA lock ten years ago to secure my checked in suitcase, it wouldn't be the wrong lock, in the sense of not effectively protecting my belongings.

However, if I used the same non TSA lock today, it woould indeed be wrong, in the sense of not effectively meeting the requirements of air travel security regulations, which require a lock that can be opened by TSA officials in the event that a check of the contents of the luggage is required.

The understanding is that the relevant baptism for the relevant covenant is what makes the baptism right.

In the case of children baptised into the Mosaic covenant, was it a relevant baptism? Did the children need a second baptism when they could understand what God required of them?

What were the indicators of a relevant baptism?

 

[iwbswiaihl2]

What makes someone believe that John's baptism was under the Mosaic covenant? He was the forerunner to Jesus Christ, I baptize with water but He will baptize with the Holy Spirit. Show forth works meet for repentance. Repentance would be turning to the one to come for forgiveness of sin. Just like the thief on the cross, he believed on Jesus Christ and Jesus told him this day you will be in the kingdom of God. Each gospel that mentions John's baptism I believe quoted Isa 40:3-5 The voice of one crying in the wilderness: “Prepare the way of the Lord; Make straight in the desert A highway for our God. 4 Every valley shall be exalted And every mountain and hill brought low; The crooked places shall be made straight
And the rough places smooth;5 The glory of the Lord shall be revealed, And all flesh shall see it together;
For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.” As I mentioned above on John's baptism, Paul also spoke to those at Ephesus in Acts 19:3-7 And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?” So they said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. 7 Now the men were about twelve in all.
It was mentioned about children being baptized under the Mosaic Covenant, I don't recall ever seeing that in scripture, where would that be found? Is that a baby? Just curious. Thanks

 

[Wordkeeper]

What makes someone believe that John's baptism was under the Mosaic covenant? He was the forerunner to Jesus Christ, I baptize with water but He will baptize with the Holy Spirit. Show forth works meet for repentance. Repentance would be turning to the one to come for forgiveness of sin. Just like the thief on the cross, he believed on Jesus Christ and Jesus told him this day you will be in the kingdom of God. Each gospel that mentions John's baptism I believe quoted Isa 40:3-5 The voice of one crying in the wilderness: “Prepare the way of the Lord; Make straight in the desert A highway for our God. 4 Every valley shall be exalted And every mountain and hill brought low; The crooked places shall be made straight
And the rough places smooth;5 The glory of the Lord shall be revealed, And all flesh shall see it together;
For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.” As I mentioned above on John's baptism, Paul also spoke to those at Ephesus in Acts 19:3-7 And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?” So they said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. 7 Now the men were about twelve in all.
It was mentioned about children being baptized under the Mosaic Covenant, I don't recall ever seeing that in scripture, where would that be found? Is that a baby? Just curious. Thanks

The point is that the children drank from the Rock just like the adults. Baptism gives believers access to God's word. Of course the feeding received through John's baptism is different from the feeding received through baptism in Jesus's name. But then, you already knew that, right?

 

[RDKirk]

What makes someone believe that John's baptism was under the Mosaic covenant?

There was not yet any other covenant.

 

[iwbswiaihl2]

Indeed. Those disciples of John's who had received his baptism unto repentance, but never a Christian baptism (and so had not received the Holy Spirit) ... were then given a Christian baptism and they received the Holy Spirit.

Once again ... does baptism actually "do" anything? Apparently for John's disciples, with the full expectation of Paul, it did.

But this was not a rebaptism. They received their first (only) Christian baptism.

Indeed. Those disciples of John's who had received his baptism unto repentance, but never a Christian baptism (and so had not received the Holy Spirit) ... were then given a Christian baptism and they received the Holy Spirit.

Once again ... does baptism actually "do" anything? Apparently for John's disciples, with the full expectation of Paul, it did.

But this was not a rebaptism. They received their first (only) Christian baptism.

While that is true about these examples, they do not support proof of infant baptism being anything other than the baby being sprinkled. It is not a Christian baptism, like the one you speak about of John's baptism which was because of repentance and he also told them that Jesus would baptize them with the Holy Spirit. A baby could not possibly repent nor believe on Him who would come or has come. That would be the proof that would be a game changer to prove value to a baby being baptized.

 

[iwbswiaihl2]

The point is that the children drank from the Rock just like the adults. Baptism gives believers access to God's word. Of course the feeding received through John's baptism is different from the feeding received through baptism in Jesus's name. But then, you already knew that, right?

That's right, I was asking those that say babies that are baptized are receiving a Christian baptism. I simply ask them to show one verse as proof that a baby should be baptized and that would be called believer's baptism, fact is, the first step is just to show one verse to support it.

 

[~Anastasia~]

While that is true about these examples, they do not support proof of infant baptism being anything other than the baby being sprinkled. It is not a Christian baptism, like the one you speak about of John's baptism which was because of repentance and he also told them that Jesus would baptize them with the Holy Spirit. A baby could not possibly repent nor believe on Him who would come or has come. That would be the proof that would be a game changer to prove value to a baby being baptized.

I was replying on a different topic ... you are right that had nothing to do with infant baptism. Except in a roundabout way, showing that baptism is efficacious .... a matter of GOD pouring out grace, which He is able to do upon infants. But I realize your main point regards prior belief, and no, it wasn't meant to address that.

 

[iwbswiaihl2]

There was not yet any other covenant.

Again, I was quoting someone that had said John's baptism

I was replying on a different topic ... you are right that had nothing to do with infant baptism. Except in a roundabout way, showing that baptism is efficacious .... a matter of GOD pouring out grace, which He is able to do upon infants. But I realize your main point regards prior belief, and no, it wasn't meant to address that.

thanks

 

[Wordkeeper]

That's right, I was asking those that say babies that are baptized are receiving a Christian baptism. I simply ask them to show one verse as proof that a baby should be baptized and that would be called believer's baptism, fact is, the first step is just to show one verse to support it.

Acts 16:15
And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, "If you consider me a believer in the Lord, come and stay at my house." And she persuaded us.

Acts 16:31
They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household."

Also Acts 2:39.

 

[iwbswiaihl2]

Acts 16:15
And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, "If you consider me a believer in the Lord, come and stay at my house." And she persuaded us.

Acts 16:31
They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household."

Also Acts 2:39.

I was going to ask, what is your point? You are not saying "you and your household" is your point?
That would simply mean that if they too, believed in the Lord Jesus then they too would be saved, don't you think? That was the requirement, to believe on the Lord Jesus to be saved. If that is not your point though, please let me know. Thanks

 

[bekkilyn]

I was going to ask, what is your point? You are not saying "you and your household" is your point?
That would simply mean that if they too, believed in the Lord Jesus then they too would be saved, don't you think? That was the requirement, to believe on the Lord Jesus to be saved. If that is not your point though, please let me know. Thanks

Considering the way Greco-Roman households were constructed, once the "master" of the household decides something, the entire household is generally included in the decision. It's not like today where everything is individualized.

Under the Mosaic Covenant, babies were circumcised (the seal of the old covenant) when they were 8 days old, and that included slaves and resident aliens living among them, not just Israelites. They didn't get a choice of whether they wanted to be included in the covenant if they wanted to live with the Israelites in their society.

They weren't so much "have it your way" back in biblical times. That's a modern contrivance.

So yes, the "master" decides the household will become Christian and be baptized, then that's what they do.

 

[Strong in Him]

There was not yet any other covenant.

There is nothing in the Mosaic law/covenant about baptizing for the forgiveness of sins - they were commanded to offer animal sacrifices.
Baptism for the forgiveness of sins was completely new.

 

[Wordkeeper]

It's also interesting to see how Israel drank from the Rock.

Those baptised into Moses.
God deprived them of water>Israel complained>God saved them>He showed them He was able and willing to deliver them into the Promised Land>the seed only fell in good soil in the case of Joshua and Caleb. The babies were not punished. Their feeding and sparing helped get them into the Promised Land.

The New Covenant Parallel
God explained His Scripture through the Holy Spirit which led them into all truth>He showed believers He was able and willing to make them blessings to the world through being washed by the word>the seed only fell on good soil in a few, for many are called but only a few are chosen. Many were punished, Ananias, Sapphira, Simon Magus, Judas. Babies were not punished. Their feeding and sparing helped them become blessings to the world.

I have Arsenios to thank for his teaching that babies are special when they are baptised in the EOC.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thanks. On your first source the word "baptism" only appears twice. Neither time does it address this issue. Your second source is a page containing 759 different links. Perhaps you could guide us to the relevant link? I'm sure you can appreciate none of us have the time to search 759 of them. Thanks again.

Yes, I gave the first link of an example of canons concerning baptism, since that document's Canon VII was all I had found so far. But as I mentioned in that post, it wasn't the one I was looking for.

The second was a link to the Councils including Canons since you mentioned wanting a more detailed source, because you had only found a short wiki article about the first council and had asked someone else for more detail. Sorry I did not make that plain. But if you ever want to know what official Church documents said, such a source will help. But as I said, you would need to know the council and canon to find it.

A bishop friend of mine has told me that the canons don't include the exact words I am looking for, since what I read before was an application of them. I don't know if you'd be interested in those. If you are, I will look for them. Both he and an abbot confirmed it would be considered a very serious sin. The best official source I can easily point you to is the Nicene Creed (which is the "definition" of Christianity for this site, and served as such for the early Church after it was codified) ... which includes the phrase, "I/we believe ... in one baptism for the remission of sins." I know it is ignored by many denominations today, but it was intended that every word meant what it said when it was codified as the essence of Christian belief contra to heresies that had sprung up.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Yes, I gave the first link of an example of canons concerning baptism, since that document's Canon VII was all I had found so far. But as I mentioned in that post, it wasn't the one I was looking for.

The second was a link to the Councils including Canons since you mentioned wanting a more detailed source, because you had only found a short wiki article about the first council and had asked someone else for more detail. Sorry I did not make that plain. But if you ever want to know what official Church documents said, such a source will help. But as I said, you would need to know the council and canon to find it.

A bishop friend of mine has told me that the canons don't include the exact words I am looking for, since what I read before was an application of them. I don't know if you'd be interested in those. If you are, I will look for them. Both he and an abbot confirmed it would be considered a very serious sin. The best official source I can easily point you to is the Nicene Creed (which is the "definition" of Christianity for this site, and served as such for the early Church after it was codified) ... which includes the phrase, "I/we believe ... in one baptism for the remission of sins." I know it is ignored by many denominations today, but it was intended that every word meant what it said when it was codified as the essence of Christian belief contra to heresies that had sprung up.

Again, thanks for your time. Hopefully you can appreciate me not sorting through 759 links hoping to find something relevant. Truly, I'm not trying to be difficult. But I grew up in a church where things were seemingly declared sins at random with no explanations beyond "Because we said so." So my inclination when something is stated to be sinful is to inquire as to why. I consider it an educational opportunity for me to at least learn about someone else's faith.

Thanks again.