Baptism and babies

Not David said:

Sorry, I'm confused.

How can you have all of those effects and not be enslaved by them?

Click to expand...

because of my the last line. death isn't the end anymore, but leads to life. being enslaved to sin only leads to death and that's where it ends.

Not David said:

That makes sense, we are united to Christ through baptism so that the end goal is not death but life.

Click to expand...

yep, that's why you want to do it ASAP.

Not David said:

What about me? I was baptized in an Evangelical Church.

Click to expand...

ask your priest.

Not David said:

What about me? I was baptized in an Evangelical Church.

Click to expand...

As was I. As per the instructions of the Bishop where I was received into the Orthodox Church, I was Chrismated, which filled and animated what was lacking in my baptism.

prodromos said:

As was I. As per the instructions of the Bishop where I was received into the Orthodox Church, I was Chrismated, which filled and animated what was lacking in my baptism.

Click to expand...

Same here (though i was the Pentecostal variety of Evangelical)

Not David said:

Yes, that's on the Bible

Click to expand...

In the Bible, baptism follows conversion.

GodsGrace101 said:

The early church did not believe in Original Sin the way that Augustine did

Click to expand...

The Bible speaks of original sin as far back as the Old Testament, several times in the New Testament is says by one man entered man, just as by one Man we are saved.

What Is the Biblical Evidence for Original Sin?

What, I believe, our problem with “original” sin as we hear it is that it fails to distinguish moral (depravity) & mortal (death) sin ( Romans 5:12-14).The link demonstrates a weakness in it by quoting from one of Job’s accusers ( Eliphaz, per Job 15:14 from the overall context of Job 15 & then to Job’s refutation in Job 16). We understand that we are all sinners ( 1 Kings 8:46 etc.) & dying in our sins puts us at risk. Those who are in Christ ( not assuming myself or excluding another) have an assurance of salvation that must be committed to ( Hebrews 10:19-27) ( “assurance” is found in the KJV of Hebrews 10:22, it makes the point clearer, I think. Bible Gateway passage: Hebrews 10:22 - King James Version

A person not in Christ only has a judgment of works awaiting them but they are not necessarily doomed. How they lived ( Ezekiel 18, Psalms 15 etc.) and to fail to consider this diminishes the Lord’s cross. The Lord says ultimately those who have done good or those who have done bad are how they are judged ( John 5:22-30).

I believe we are entering somewhat of a debate phase here ( which is ok). However, if you choose to pursue this further, you may open a thread in our St, Justin’s sub forum.

East of Eden said:

The Bible speaks of original sin as far back as the Old Testament, several times in the New Testament is says by one man entered man, just as by one Man we are saved.

What Is the Biblical Evidence for Original Sin?

Click to expand...

that's not the issue with original sin

In post #32, I said maybe we should go to St. Justin’s forum & we are in it. Sorry for any misunderstanding. I am bouncing around the building at my less structured, part time job & a little disorganized.

Lukaris said:

What, I believe, our problem with “original” sin as we hear it is that it fails to distinguish moral (depravity) & mortal (death) sin ( Romans 5:12-14).The link demonstrates a weakness in it by quoting from one of Job’s accusers ( Eliphaz, per Job 15:14 from the overall context of Job 15 & then to Job’s refutation in Job 16). We understand that we are all sinners ( 1 Kings 8:46 etc.) & dying in our sins puts us at risk. Those who are in Christ ( not assuming myself or excluding another) have an assurance of salvation that must be committed to ( Hebrews 10:19-27) ( “assurance” is found in the KJV of Hebrews 10:22, it makes the point clearer, I think. Bible Gateway passage: Hebrews 10:22 - King James Version

A person not in Christ only has a judgment of works awaiting them but they are not necessarily doomed. How they lived ( Ezekiel 18, Psalms 15 etc.) and to fail to consider this diminishes the Lord’s cross. The Lord says ultimately those who have done good or those who have done bad are how they are judged ( John 5:22-30).

I believe we are entering somewhat of a debate phase here ( which is ok). However, if you choose to pursue this further, you may open a thread in our St, Justin’s sub forum.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Not David said:

So I will be hanging out with a friend (who used to be my Bible School Teacher) and I remember the last time he asked me about how baptism makes sense with infants if they do not have Original Sin in the Catholic sense.

What should I respond next time I see him?

Click to expand...

First and foremost baptism is the initiation rite into the Church which is the body of Christ ( see 1 Corinthians 12:12-15). The Church is not only adults.

St. Cyprian teaches:
....how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another...(epistle 58)

St. John Chrysostom:
“You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members” (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]

All that the Orthodox posters here have said.....but.....

no one has mentioned the Covenant of God. The word "covenant" appears over 300 times in the Bible. We are the people of the New Covenant and our relationship to God through Christ is a covenant relationship. It is therefore governed by covenant rules.

Salvation is not a legal decree of forgiveness given to an individual. Salvation is being made part of the covenant community (qu'hal or eclessia) which is the Church. We are saved into a community of believers. In the New Covenant, this community is the Body of Christ. Baptism is the entrance ritual into the covenant relationship.

Just as children were circumcized into the Old Covenant, babies are baptized into the New Covenant (there is a specific reason that circumcision was the method and only male babies therefore entered). Those who forbid children to be baptized have no understanding that they are a covenant people or of how a covenant works.

Light of the East said:

All that the Orthodox posters here have said.....but.....

no one has mentioned the Covenant of God. The word "covenant" appears over 300 times in the Bible. We are the people of the New Covenant and our relationship to God through Christ is a covenant relationship. It is therefore governed by covenant rules.

Salvation is not a legal decree of forgiveness given to an individual. Salvation is being made part of the covenant community (qu'hal or eclessia) which is the Church. We are saved into a community of believers. In the New Covenant, this community is the Body of Christ. Baptism is the entrance ritual into the covenant relationship.

Just as children were circumcized into the Old Covenant, babies are baptized into the New Covenant (there is a specific reason that circumcision was the method and only male babies therefore entered). Those who forbid children to be baptized have no understanding that they are a covenant people or of how a covenant works.

Click to expand...

The OT covenant was based on birth to Jewish parents, the NT covenant is based on faith in Christ. Infants can't do that.

East of Eden said:

The OT covenant was based on birth to Jewish parents, the NT covenant is based on faith in Christ. Infants can't do that.

Click to expand...

Acts 16:29-34

East of Eden said:

The OT covenant was based on birth to Jewish parents, the NT covenant is based on faith in Christ. Infants can't do that.

Click to expand...

Nope. Kindly said, you are dead wrong. You don't know covenant and you have no idea how a covenant works. The principles of a covenant are the same, whether for the Old Covenant, the New Covenant, or even marriage. There are five basic principles of covenant upon which the covenant works. You can remember them by this acronymn:

T -- Transcendence (Who's in charge here?)
H -- Hierarchy (Rulership or authority)
E -- Ethics (What are the rules of the covenant?)
O -- Oaths and Sanctions (Vows taken upon making covenant/consequences of breaking covenant)
S -- Succession (The covenant continues from generation to generation)

You will find this in the Suzerainty kingship covenants of the Middle East, the Covenant of God, and even the Covenant of Marriage. If any one of these five principles is missing, it ain't a covenant.

Under Hierarchy, it is the father who is the "Covenant Head" over the family. Therefore, when a child is brought into the covenant, the faith of the faither as ruler, authority, and head over the household, is counted as the faith of the child. This is why a male baby could be circumcized at the age of 8 days old and was made fully member of the covenant community (aka "the Church") with all due priviledges and responsibilities under that relationship. It was the duty of the father to catechize his sons and daughters into the ethics of the covenant relationship with God and warn them of the dangers of breaking the covenant. You can see an example of covenant oaths/sanctions in Deuteronomy 28: 15-68. In like manner, it is the responsibility of fathers (and mothers) to catechize their children regarding the oaths/sanctions which were taken for that child as an infant, for like it or not, that child is a child of the covenant and is bound under those rules.

Hierarchy is the same principle of representation by which the high priest made Yom Kippur for the nation of Israel once a year. And it is the same principle by which the high priest condemned national Israel to death because he, in condemning Christ to death, acted for the entire nation of Israel. It is also the same principle by which Christ, acting as the eternal Great High Priest, represents the people of God in performing an eternal Yom Kippur in the "tabernacle not made with hands" in the heavenlies. (Hebrews 9:11). Under the principle of hiearchy, He is the Covenant Head of the New Covenant and represents the people of God.

This is really not your fault. Baptists are dispensationalists and are clueless regarding the covenant. I once hear my Anabaptist pastor tell a fellow parishioner "Covenant theology? Stay away from that. That's dangerous stuff."

Yeah, I guess it was. My friend went on to leave Emmanuel Baptist Church and become a Calvinist (they are deeply covenantal in their theology - at least, the conservative ones like Gary Sutton, etc.). The same understanding led me out of Protestantism and into the apostolic faith because when I really got into studying the principles of covenant, I couldn't find them anywhere in Protestantism of any flavor.

Every doctrine believed by Orthodoxy and shared by Roman Catholics can be defended from a covenantal viewpoint, especially that one that drives Protestants wild - the Queenship of the Theotokos and the honor we give her. If you want to understand it thoroughly, you can (shameless plug here) buy my book on the Covenant of God:

https://www.amazon.com/Dance-Isaiah...ds=patrick+seamus+ohara&qid=1624397447&sr=8-1

Not expensive at all, but it will show you what I found when I really dug into covenant and began to understand it.