Texts of the Eastern Orthodox Church relevant to Baptism

He was talking about tombs in the western church. The Eastern church sometimes doesn't baptize until at the age of two. The general beliefs of the eastern church are quite a bit different than the western church and the eastern church doesn't believe in original sin or salvation in the same way as the western church. In fact, the Catholic Church did declare the entire Eastern Church, heretics. The Protestants did not have much contact with the eastern church being separated by Poland, but I have no doubt that Calvin and other protestants would have gladly burned them at the stake once they understood their soteriology.

You do realize just how different the eastern church is? Personally, I'm closer in soteriology with the Eastern Church than I am with Protestantism.

I wish people would not keep following the example and teachings of not a St. Augustine the liar. Declaring people heretics does not make those people not Christian nor does it prove any points. People who do so under flimsy and stupid reasons don't impress me a bit.

The primary Montanist heresy was that they opposed the hierarchy of the church at the time. Everything else was made up or truly secondary to this primary offense. How much and how Tertullian defended the Montanists is unknown since no one bothered to keep a copy of "De ecstasi" from burning at Bebelplatz. Tertullian actually left the Montanists and there is no evidence that he was personally excommunicated. I bring this about since you seem to believe that approval by others is how one is a Christian. St. Augustine in his standard manner declared him a heretic after he was dead.

Next you're going to declare that the Donatists were not Christian?

But lets look at the eastern church and the eastern tradition. Take St. Basil. When was he baptized? Wasn't this the fourth Century? Are you going to declare his parents heretics in order to protect your claim that the tradition of infant baptism existed since the beginning?

I guess you consider the Didache to be heretical as well?

Allow me to clarify that I am not saying that infant baptism (sure 0-2 if you want) did not occur even as early as the first century. However, the claim that the practice and theology was cemented and used by all Christians prior to the 5th century is simply wrong. Claims about how widespread infant baptism was at various times by Christians prior to the 4th century is dubious at best.

 

I can only imagine what the first century Jew thought.... I could have told you my thoughts, “you mean God is accessible to me without a go between?” That’s liberating! And to them the church of the day was the temple so I can imagine the temple priests response. Here we get an inkling as to why Christ was so watched and eventually killed. It’s also the beginnings of a new found movement.... one where the law isn’t the oppressive thing the ruling group makes it. Water then becomes the symbol of freedom... and cleanliness ( to the common people). Ritual comes later.

 

I have a question:

Acts 20:29-30 KJV
[29] For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. [30] Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

If Paul said in HIS day heretics would
Rise from the Church at Ephesus. How do you know which “Church Fathers” are legimitate and which ones arent?

For example, People mention Polycarp being a disciple of John. Does that somehow excluse him from heresy? Does that somehow make him infallible? How do we know Polycarp wasnt actually a wolf and false teacher? After all was not Judas a disciple of Jesus? The problem here is that the “Early Church Fathers” are blindly accepted by people as being legitimate.

 

Isaiah 8:20 KJV
[20] To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Acts 17:10-11 KJV
[10] And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. [11] These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Mark 7:6-9 KJV
[6] He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. [7] Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. [8] For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. [9] And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Do these verses somehow not apply to the “Patriatic writings”?

 

We are saved the moment we ask God for forgiveness of our sins and repent. Nothing to do with baptism. We get baptised as an outward omission that we truly have repented and come to Christ as our Lord and Savior. When you think about it, Jesus whom was without sin was baptistized. When Jesus was on the cross he told the thief that he would be with him in paradise. He was never baptististized. But he believed in Jesus and who he was. So yes baptismal is just an outward showing of your faith and believe in Jesus Christ. And yes I am a Baptist.

 

Hello alter,
If you are so keen on the church fathers, may I ask if you
Gather your infants, turn them to the West and get them publicly to renounce "Satan, his pomp, his works and his service"?
Strip them stark naked and rub them with oil which has first been exorcised?
After baptizing them, perform 'Chrismation' upon them?
Give your infants lighted tapers, milk and honey, and then immediately give the communion?
Believe that baptism washes away all sins committed before baptism (not much help to a newborn baby)?

These were the practices of Cyril of Jerusalem, the man who wrote more about baptism than any other church father (possibly more than all other church fathers put together). He knows nothing about the 'baptism' of infants. If you say that not all these things he commands are found in the Bible, you are exactly right, but as I have pointed out to you,

There is no command in the Bible for infants to receive water baptism.

There is no instance in the Bible of infants being baptized.

There is no reference in the Bible to infants being baptized.

Water baptism in the Bible is constantly tied in with repentance, faith and discipleship (eg Matthew 3:6, 11; 28:19; Mark 16:16; John 4:1; Acts 2:41; 8:12, 13, 36-37; 16:14-15, 31-34; 1 Corinthians 1:16: compare with 16:15f; Ephesians 4:5).

But if you are going to follow the church fathers in preference to the Bible, the least you can do is to follow them properly.

 

Paul even calls Baptism "the circumcision of Christ". Jesus wasn't circumcised at 30.

There would have been early whining against infant baptism. Infant baptism didn't start at 1500. btw.


And whats it to you guys anyway? You say baptism is FAKE and doesn't even DO anything. So why would the folks who are always on about us not being required to DO ANYTHING RIGHT, whine about how anyone baptizes anyone?

We all might aswell baptize with coke and sprite which would amount as much to what baptism does for anyone anyways.


Oh this gets better, Cause your a Calvinist. It makes no sense to be calvinist and not believe in infant baptism. Even John Calvin believes in infant baptism, because the whole thing centers on GOD doing all the work rather than your choice.

How does baptizing them in some satanic blood ritual jeopardize the soul of anyone? It can't because nothing can frustrate or improve God's choice.

If we were consistent for one minute and work your theology logically we wouldn't even be here wasting time pretending to be GOD we'd be asking GOD to convert others instead.

"Believe that baptism washes away all sins committed before baptism (not much help to a newborn baby)?"

Was Jesus Baptized? (not much help to Jesus)?


The problem is adopting a selfish view of salvation. As a Christian I am called to care more about your relationship with God rather than where I end up after I die and what reward and what is in it for me.

I already got my reward, YOU ARE IT. You are my reward. I would trade all of heaven for YOU any day.


Nothing quite beats the sincere appreciation of a repented mind. Guilt and remorse can't even buy this gratitude. Going from evil to good, selfish to selfless.

Partially Convinced something is wrong is like chump change compared to when the fire really hits. No one sticks their hand in fire and figures wow that was great lets do it again, there is no guilt to it or groveling involved the clearness is obvious. Sometimes finally seeing the wrong is finally seeing the light. I can point to it and say I was clearly saved right here.

If the infant is presumed EVIL then Baptism is perfect washes all sins.
If the infant is presumed GOOD then Baptism is perfect as it was for Christ Good People don't abandon Bad

For folks who swear its GOD's choice alone as to who is saved or not, You would think INFANT BAPTISM where the CHURCH MAKES its choice would fit right in. I can literally say I had no choice in my salvation. GOD CHOSE ME, I didn't choose him.

ACTS 2

37Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” 38Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39“For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

He could have said the promise is for you only. But he clearly states and to your children even for all who are far off.

 

Circular reasoning here.

“The church” decides what is “orthodox” and then whats “orthodox” defines “the church”. You reasoning is completey circular.

What is final authority? The scriptures, or whoever the individual considers to be “the Church”?

You give no way to really validate who is the “church”.

However we can clearly see that both the Roman Catholic and the so called “Orthodox” churches both contradict the teachings of thr Apostle Paul who we know actually did have authority from Christ.

The difference is you look to whatever you call “the Church” to validate doctrine, Baptists look to the writings of the Apostles and New Testament writers.

 

Again? You didn't mention a first time.

Tertullian : The Montanists

"Tertullian fiercely attacks those who condemned the new prophecy, and in attacking the church authorities as more interested in their own political power in the church than in listening to the Spirit, he foreshadows the protestant reaction to papal claims."

The leaders of the Christians at the time had to deal with an increasingly political environment. Origen had to defend himself from an accusation of castration among other things. Anything which directly opposed the leadership of many churches was not treated the same way as David treated Nathan.

You have no understanding of Baptist - especially Southern Baptist. I never ever appealed to his authority. He was a christian in the early 3rd century at the time. I was simply using him as an example that not all Christians supported Baptism. The following was my original quote.

Ok. Generally, what adult baptism means is that the people receiving the baptism should know, be cognizant of, understand, and willingly agree to the baptism. This is why I compare infant baptism with baptism of the dead. The infant, just like the dead person, doesn't know about, understand, or agree to the baptism. (The two year old might know what is going on but likely doesn't understand what is going on.) Baptists regularly Baptise children and baptizing those as young as 6 while uncommon is generally accepted among Baptists.

Now we were talking about whether infant Baptism was an accepted practice among Christians in the first few centuries. Last I saw we agreed that infant Baptism was up to the age of 2. St. Basil was clearly Baptized as an adult who fully understood and agreed to the Baptism. From what can be seen, his parents were devout Christians and one of his grandparents was a martyr. They would likely have performed the common traditions. If one of these traditions was infant baptism, St. Basil would have been Baptized as an infant and not an adult.

It should be clear that at the time and place St Basil was born, infant baptism was likely not the norm.

As for your statement, I'm not going to let you move the goalpost whenever you want. The question was whether infant baptism was a common practice - not whether baptism in general was a common practice. If you want to give up on saying that infant Baptism of those between 0-2 was universal in the first few centuries then I would support this.

Umm, the Donatists whom Augustine was ok with torturing? Umm, Pelagius is also a pretty well known Christian.

No one tortures and murders the village idiot. The village idiot is not banished. Why? Because no one listens the the village idiot and the village idiot is not threatening anyone's power. The Donatists and Pelagius were tortured, murdered, and banished not because they were raving lunatics who no one listened to. What they said did resonate and they had a sizable number of Christians following them.

The news cycle wasn't a 24/7 Bash Trump inquisition until after it looked like he might become President.

Your argument might be wonderful if you are arguing with someone in Orthodoxy but I don't think you understand how silly and stupid it sounds to me. Your continued argument of saying people are not in the "capital C" Church but at the same time not saying they are not Christian doesn't hold water.

You should have paid closer attention to what I said before when I said it seems like you are deciding who is Christian based on what others say. You dismissed without thought but it is an important question.

There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. If you argue that people not part of the Church, you are arguing that they are not Christian.

The Donatists simply did not want the pastor the leaders of the Roman Empire assigned to them. For this they were persecuted, tortured, and killed. So because of this, you declare that they weren't part of the Church?

Sorry, but when you argue that people are not part of the Church as oppose to not a part of your special little club, you are arguing about what constitutes a Christian or not. You, the op, put it in the thread.

Now thinking of it. I could be completely off-base. When you mention the Church, you could just be meaning the Eastern Orthodox Denomination. And the Eastern Orthodox has decided that certain sets of ancient Christians were part of their special club and others didn't have club membership. And you could have made this post simply to explain the beliefs of your denomination and that you are not trying to convince us that your denomination is right (making us wrong) and that you are like a person from England telling us how the English call flashlights, torches. If this is the case, I apologize.

My wording may be misunderstood. I doubt anyone was thrown out of the church or banished for infant baptism. Like baptism of the dead, it was tolerated. Unlike baptism of the dead, it gradually evolved into a tradition.

That's between them and God. I don't believe as the Church of Christ denomination believes and I doubt many Baptists here believe that either. Many times, other denominations misinterprete concern by Baptists as a condemnation by Baptists. Baptists may have concern about Catholics and others when they ask them why they are saved and they get a response of "I was baptized as an infant". Some, unfortunately, go overboard and declare the entire religion a heresy and evil. And I'm not going to say there aren't Baptists who do this. But they are not the majority. They are a very vocal minority.

Now as for the latter part of the question, I believe people need to keep in mind Matthew 7:22 and what Jesus considered to be the most important parts of the law as oppose to what the Pharisees considered to be important.

 

Huh.... oppressed church? What do you mean oppressed church? The church of J C lives on in the hearts and minds of the believers of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit...

And grace is our greatest gift, that which we build on.

 

Here's a page about it Augustine and torture.

e g r e g o r e s: Augustine In Defense of Torturing Heretics (more on the traditional Christian view of "heresy")

Donatists did not oppose Augustine on the tradition of infant Baptism. They did oppose him on other matters.

Yes, I understand - you consider me a raving lunatic.

Well, here's a full book on Donatist Martyrs:

Donatist Martyr Stories

Some of these died under the Pagans.

And then you have the horrid writing of Optatus. His view is clearly one-sided, as we have no surviving writing from the Donatists.

Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists (1917) Book 3. pp. 120-179.

The various taxes and seizure of property can be found in various Roman texts. I would agree that the truly horrendous inquisitions didn't come until much later.

When analyzing history, what Pelagius believed is irrelevant. Pelagius was a Christian and a member of the Church. Sorry, that's what all evidence shows. I know that the brainwashing and indoctrination of many Christians turned Pelagius into the Boogey-Man, but if someone reads any amount of evidence, he or she can clearly see that Pelagius was a Christian.

I'm guessing you're now realizing that your arguments have to be modified for the audience you're speaking to. You can't start discounting people by saying that they aren't part of the "Orthodox Church" and expect that to be a valid argument with someone whom you may not believe is part of the "Orthodox Church" either. It's just silly. Can imagine an opposing view. What if every time you gave an example of someone who had an infant baptism, I responded with "Well, he wasn't part of the 'Real Church!' " ?

Actually, there are a set of Baptists who actually believe this and would actually respond this way to you! Landmark Baptists!

Landmarkism - Wikipedia

I don't believe having the proper religious thoughts in my head is what Jesus thinks is important. And I'm not really concerned with minor theological concerns. Jesus is more concerned with my clearing my head of evil thoughts such as revenge, hate, lust, envy, greed, and the like.

I believe that if someone believes that the Baptism is regenerative, then it is regenerative. If someone believes that the baptism is an obedience to the commandment of God, then it is an obedience to the commandment of God. If someone believes that the Baptism is simply symbolic, then it is simply symbolic. I believe all three are true and that God accepts all three.

When Jesus healed the sick, he did not demand that they do it a particular way. One needed him to lay his hands on him, one just needed to touch him, and one centurion didn't even need Jesus to be in the house. All three held different beliefs in how someone would be saved by Jesus, yet all were saved through faith.

I think that one can discuss baptism as a leisure activity, but I don't think it's something Christians should divide themselves over. Exclusionary beliefs on petty matters of theology are far more detrimental to our experience with God.