A thought or two about Infant Baptism

[Xeno.of.athens]

Unfortunately, for the Ethiopian eunuch there was no Christian community into which he was baptized, unless you ascribe to the concept of the "invisible" church. Following his baptism he had no access to any of the various sacraments recognized by your denomination.

I suppose the question now is whether or not you believe in the "invisible" church. Many Catholic posters here at CF have objected quite strenuously to the concept. What is your view?

Philip was a member of the Christian community. The Eunuch was "immersed" in the Christian community.

Was this community visible or invisible as far as the eunuch was concerned? Was he enabled to receive any sacraments from this community following his baptism?

Philip was fully visible.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Philip was a member of the Christian community. The Eunuch was "immersed" in the Christian community.

Philip was fully visible.

Uh huh. One person does not a community make.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Uh huh. One person does not a community make.

There were two. Philip and the Eunuch. And Philip was from the Jerusalem church which had many members.

 

[bbbbbbb]

There were two. Philip and the Eunuch. And Philip was from the Jerusalem church which had many members.

Now we are talking the "invisible" church. The eunuch was surrounded by a cloud of witnesses in the heavens. Unfortunately, none of them were there for him to receive the necessary sacraments after he returned to Ethiopia.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Now we are talking the "invisible" church. The eunuch was surrounded by a cloud of witnesses in the heavens. Unfortunately, none of them were there for him to receive the necessary sacraments after he returned to Ethiopia.

Philip, the Eunuch, and the church in Jerusalem are all visible.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Philip, the Eunuch, and the church in Jerusalem are all visible.

And how did the eunuch receive the necessary sacraments after he returned to Ethiopia to found the Ethiopian Orthodox Church?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

And how did the eunuch receive the necessary sacraments after he returned to Ethiopia to found the Ethiopian Orthodox Church?

Saint Matthew, as missionary, is founder of the Ethiopian church according to tradition. Historians place its founding in the 4th century. The church there is visible.

According to tradition, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church was founded by the Apostle St. Matthew in the 1st century AD. St. Matthew, one of the twelve apostles of Jesus, is said to have preached the gospel in Ethiopia and converted the royal family, including the Queen, who became one of the first Ethiopian Christians. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church also traces its roots to the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch, as recounted in the book of Acts (8:26-40) in the New Testament. This tradition holds that the eunuch, a high official of the Queen of Ethiopia, was converted to Christianity by the Apostle Philip, and upon his return to Ethiopia, he helped to establish the Church there. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church maintains that it has an unbroken chain of apostolic succession from the time of St. Matthew to the present day, and is one of the oldest Christian communities in the world.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Saint Matthew, as missionary, is founder of the Ethiopian church according to tradition. Historians place its founding in the 4th century. The church there is visible.

According to tradition, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church was founded by the Apostle St. Matthew in the 1st century AD. St. Matthew, one of the twelve apostles of Jesus, is said to have preached the gospel in Ethiopia and converted the royal family, including the Queen, who became one of the first Ethiopian Christians. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church also traces its roots to the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch, as recounted in the book of Acts (8:26-40) in the New Testament. This tradition holds that the eunuch, a high official of the Queen of Ethiopia, was converted to Christianity by the Apostle Philip, and upon his return to Ethiopia, he helped to establish the Church there. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church maintains that it has an unbroken chain of apostolic succession from the time of St. Matthew to the present day, and is one of the oldest Christian communities in the world.

What a pity! The Ethiopian Eunuch returned home and then had to wait for four centuries before a church would be started. Even then, it never did administer the sacraments properly nor does to this day.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

What a pity! The Ethiopian Eunuch returned home and then had to wait for four centuries before a church would be started. Even then, it never did administer the sacraments properly nor does to this day.

The tradition is that he assisted Saint Matthew in the evangelisation of Ethiopia.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The tradition is that he assisted Saint Matthew in the evangelisation of Ethiopia.

The tradition is that he assisted Saint Matthew in the evangelisation of Ethiopia.

He must have had an extraordinarily long life if, as you previously stated, "Saint Matthew, as missionary, is founder of the Ethiopian church according to tradition. Historians place its founding in the 4th century."

 

[RileyG]

In the Acts of Apostles, they baptized ALL households, which most certainty included babies. Period.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

He must have had an extraordinarily long life if, as you previously stated, "Saint Matthew, as missionary, is founder of the Ethiopian church according to tradition. Historians place its founding in the 4th century."

Why? The tradition says it was saint Matthew, the historians say otherwise, you can accept whichever story you prefer. The historians rely on evidence that they have in hand from stone inscriptions and other sources. The tradition relies on word of mouth transmission over the centuries until the time when it was finally written down.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Why? The tradition says it was saint Matthew, the historians say otherwise, you can accept whichever story you prefer. The historians rely on evidence that they have in hand from stone inscriptions and other sources. The tradition relies on word of mouth transmission over the centuries until the time when it was finally written down.

So, the bottom line is that we actually don't know anything about the Ethiopian eunuch after he went back to Ethiopia following his baptism by Philip. We also know that there was no visible church in Ethiopia nor was there anyone there properly ordained to administer sacraments.

 

[bbbbbbb]

In the Acts of Apostles, they baptized ALL households, which most certainty included babies. Period.

Don't leave out the slaves and servants who were required to obey their owner/master regardless of personal faith.

 

[All Becomes New]

First, the Bible teaches that baptism is a sacrament that washes away sin and grants the gift of the Holy Spirit. In the New Testament, it is clear that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4, Acts 2:38) and grants the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38, John 3:5). Since infants are born with original sin, they are in need of forgiveness and the gift of the Holy Spirit, just as adults are.

From that, you have to say people can lose their salvation, which is fine, but Hebrews 6:4-6 makes it clear once you lose your salvation, it's gone for good as you are unable to repent. This is one of the big issues I have with Catholicism - that they essentially make salvation into a yo-yo experience. Sin too bad and you lose your salvation. Repent and you are back in salvation. That's not in the Bible anywhere. Also, what are we to make of Christ's words where He talks about writing our names in the Lambs Book of Life? Does He write our name in harder when we do good deeds and when we do something bad He erases it only to write it in again? Seems the simplicity of the Gospel is lost on the Catholic church.

Second, the Bible teaches that baptism is the means by which one enters the covenant community of believers. In the Old Testament, infants were included in the covenant community through circumcision, which was the sign of the covenant (Genesis 17:9-14). In the New Testament, baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of the covenant (Colossians 2:11-12). Therefore, it makes sense that infants would be included in the covenant community through baptism.

You've essentially made the Old Covenant on par with the New Covenant. The New Covenant is no "better" than the old if it is just replacing one sign with another. The covenant changes, sure, but it didn't change for the better, which is what Hebrews is all about.

This implies that the infants in the household were included in the baptism.

There's zero evidence the jailer even had infants. For all we know, he only had consenting aged children (or none and all he did was baptize his wife).

Tertullian,

Come again? I am pretty sure this is straight-up false.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

So, the bottom line is that we actually don't know anything about the Ethiopian eunuch after he went back to Ethiopia following his baptism by Philip. We also know that there was no visible church in Ethiopia nor was there anyone there properly ordained to administer sacraments.

That is what some believe, the Ethiopian Orthodox Christians believe that the eunuch and Saint Matthew founded their church.

 

[Markie Boy]

I belong to a large Southern denomination which practices believer's baptism. I once heard a pastor say, "If you do not have faith in Jesus Christ, all baptism does is get you wet."
A pastor I knew often went to visit a bed ridden husband of a church member. On one occasion the man made a profession of faith and asked to be baptized. The pastor said he couldn't because the man was connected to machines and tubes. The man said, "Here is a glass of water baptize we with that." The pastor objected strenuously saying, "That is not scriptural baptism." While I believe that complete immersion is scriptural baptism, I'm flexible enough that if I can give a sick person comfort with a glass of water I will do it.

I know a pastor that probably would take the same position - it's not immersion, so it can't be done. This same pastor though having read the whole bible and teaching it, and been thru seminary - had never heard of the Didache when I mentioned it, which covers such cases and is probably the most important Christian writing outside the Bible. Pouring would be just fine in the case you mentioned.

Are there some errors in Catholicism I think so. I used to be in the Catholic Church. But I must say evangelicalism has it's own set of errors - with the Once Saved Always Saved position I think being the biggest one.

I simply don't do the arguments and debates any longer. I think it hardens a person and makes it more difficult to see one's own blind spots.

After getting into modern Evangelicalism - it seems most embrace Dispensationalism, which was basically invented in 1830, and the Once Saved Always Saved position that was only taught by the Gnostics in the early church.

Point being is we all need to be more patient with each other, and trying to see our blind spots better.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I know a pastor that probably would take the same position - it's not immersion, so it can't be done. This same pastor though having read the whole bible and teaching it, and been thru seminary - had never heard of the Didache when I mentioned it, which covers such cases and is probably the most important Christian writing outside the Bible. Pouring would be just fine in the case you mentioned.

Are there some errors in Catholicism I think so. I used to be in the Catholic Church. But I must say evangelicalism has it's own set of errors - with the Once Saved Always Saved position I think being the biggest one.

I simply don't do the arguments and debates any longer. I think it hardens a person and makes it more difficult to see one's own blind spots.

After getting into modern Evangelicalism - it seems most embrace Dispensationalism, which was basically invented in 1830, and the Once Saved Always Saved position that was only taught by the Gnostics in the early church.

Point being is we all need to be more patient with each other, and trying to see our blind spots better.

Nicely said. Thank you.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I belong to a large Southern denomination which practices believer's baptism. I once heard a pastor say, "If you do not have faith in Jesus Christ, all baptism does is get you wet."
A pastor I knew often went to visit a bed ridden husband of a church member. On one occasion the man made a profession of faith and asked to be baptized. The pastor said he couldn't because the man was connected to machines and tubes. The man said, "Here is a glass of water baptize we with that." The pastor objected strenuously saying, "That is not scriptural baptism." While I believe that complete immersion is scriptural baptism, I'm flexible enough that if I can give a sick person comfort with a glass of water I will do it.

In the Catholic Church, baptism is typically administered through the use of water, which is poured over the head of the person being baptized, while the words "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" are said. This is known as "affusion" or "pouring." This mode of baptism is based on the account of Jesus' baptism in the Gospels, where it is described that John the Baptist "baptized Jesus in the Jordan River" (Matthew 3:13-17, Mark 1:9-11, Luke 3:21-22, John 1:29-34).

The Catholic Church also recognizes baptism by immersion, where the person being baptized is fully submerged in water.

It's important to note that the Catholic Church teaches that the validity of baptism does not depend on the mode of administration, but rather on the use of the proper matter (water) and the proper form (the words "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit").

 

[bbbbbbb]

In the Catholic Church, baptism is typically administered through the use of water, which is poured over the head of the person being baptized, while the words "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" are said. This is known as "affusion" or "pouring." This mode of baptism is based on the account of Jesus' baptism in the Gospels, where it is described that John the Baptist "baptized Jesus in the Jordan River" (Matthew 3:13-17, Mark 1:9-11, Luke 3:21-22, John 1:29-34).

The Catholic Church also recognizes baptism by immersion, where the person being baptized is fully submerged in water.

It's important to note that the Catholic Church teaches that the validity of baptism does not depend on the mode of administration, but rather on the use of the proper matter (water) and the proper form (the words "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit").

The Catholic Church goes even further with its doctrine of "baptism by desire" where no priest or water are necessary.