Traditions???

Christian ethics and theology with an Anabaptist perspective
Soloist
Posts: 5480
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 4:49 pm
Affiliation: CM Seeker

Re: Traditions???

Post by Soloist »

There are some great written statements in the Hutterian Chronicles on this subject... let me just post a few parts...
and some key verses to consider
(Acts 2:37-41 [KJV])
Now when they heard [this], they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men [and] brethren, what shall we do?
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call.
And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added [unto them] about three thousand souls.
Can babies repent? and can babies gladly receive teaching?
(Acts 10:44-47 [KJV])
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Did any babies receive the Spirit at this time?

Now for the Hutterites...
Reference Acts 16: 29-34 "The Jailer threw himself down before paul and Silas and said, 'Masters, what must I do to be saved?' They said, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household. Then they spoke the Word of the Lord to him and to everyone in his house, and straightaway he and all his family were baptized. He rejoiced with his whole household in his new-found faith in God."
Infants cry. They cannot rejoice that they have found faith in God, as this jailer and his household did. If they ever do,
baptize them!
reference Acts 19:2-7 About twelve of John's disciples at Ephesus had received only the baptism of John. They had not received the Holy Spirit or even heard that there was a Holy Spirit. So they were then baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. If baptism by John was not sufficient, the baptism of infants counts still less. Infants have never heard of the Holy Spirit and therefore know even less about Him.
Reference Rom 6:3-4 Paul said, "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? We were buried with him by baptism into death, so that, as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we, too, may have new life." If little children understand that this is what baptism means, then let them be baptized; if not, it is nothing but a sham and an insult to true baptism.
Reference 1 Cor 1:16 Among those baptized in Stephanas's household, infants are not mentioned. Paul said the household of Stephanas devoted themselves to the service of the saints. If babies in the cradle do this, then by all means baptize them.
Reference Gal 3:27 "As many of you as were baptized have put on Christ." Infants cannot put on Christ. They do not know who Christ is. Therefore only rational, believing adults are meant here.
Reference 1 Pet. 3:21 "Baptism is not the washing away of the filth of the flesh but the sign of a good conscience before God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Infants know nothing about a good conscience before God, so baptism is not required of them until they have gained understanding and faith.
There are many other things they mentioned as well, but these are the ones that seemed interesting enough to post. I can post others if anyone is interested.
0 x
Soloist, but I hate singing alone
Soloist, but my wife posts with me
Soloist, but I believe in community
Soloist, but I want God in the pilot seat
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14438
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Traditions???

Post by Bootstrap »

Soloist wrote:There are some great written statements in the Hutterian Chronicles on this subject... let me just post a few parts...
Those are great Scriptures on baptism - what did they say about tradition?
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Traditions???

Post by Valerie »

MaxPC wrote:
Valerie wrote:
RZehr wrote:Maybe Paul verbally told the Thessalonians not to baptize infants. 8-)
No, I believe (now) the Apostles took Jesus words about little ones, and their belief and faith very seriously- and included them- He wouldn't have wanted to consider them outside the Church, and outside of faith until they were 18, or so- Jesus never said that, but said to receive them in His name.
In Catholic World, Mark 10:14, Luke 18:16, and Matthew 19:14 in which Jesus said, "suffer the little children and forbid them not" are the Scripture readings for our water baptism. It doesn't end there though: what we call the "rite of baptism" is really a tripartite (3 parter) that is concluded when the older teen is confirmed in the faith and recites his profession of faith as a free will choice to continue in the faith. That said, I can see how other Christians would choose to interpret this important rite and I respect their interpretation.
Agreed, and I have had Orthodox priests & people, teach me the numerous Scriptures they use to support it, but then they also say they know this was done from the beginning, so they didn't need to use the New Testament written later, to try to proof text by it-

I respect others who have come to other conclusions based on Sola Scriptura- until they claim to 'know' what was done from the beginning of the Church, when I have to compare that to early Church writers who claimed the Apostles taught it. It would be to me, as I said before- that those who insist that they know better, coming out of the reformation era- are claiming those who were early Church writers, to be stating lies when they said "the Apostles taught it"- it leaves me feeling that some know, and some think they know.

As far as why Jesus wasn't baptized as a child, when He was born as a Jew (at least the flesh part) they were practicing circumcision on infants- that was their beginnings in becoming the elect- with babies & children of Christian converts, they no longer circumcised, they baptized, and were raised in the fear and nurture of the Lord, as believing children- Christ recognized the faith of little ones, and said 'they believe in Me'. As far back as I can remember, I had faith in Christ- I didn't always obey Him, but somehow that faith was there- I know that God put the Holy Spirit in some, in the 'womb'. I don't box God into rational explanations-
0 x
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23806
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Traditions???

Post by Josh »

The fact remains that baptising infants means you really think there is some problem if they aren't baptised. And scripture doesn't support that idea at all.

I think "repent and be baptised" is a command. If you were infant baptised, you still need to repent once you're an adult... and still need to be baptised.
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14438
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Traditions???

Post by Bootstrap »

Hmmmmmm

It's really easy to keep jumping to the answer, but to understand the differences among denominations, I think it's important to see that we aren't using the same kind of math.

When I talk to Catholic or Orthodox theologians, almost nobody claims that Scripture proves infant baptism, they usually claim that it does not speak clearly either way and we have to look to tradition - by which they usually mean things found in the writings of the early church. They also say that the church speaks authoritatively on these matters, but also that the church can never contradict Scripture. The Orthodox say that the authority of Scripture comes from the authority of the church, and not the other way around.

So I think this really does boil down to the role of tradition and the authority of specific denominations. And let's face it, Mennonites do not see tradition or the Catholic or Orthodox church as authoritative. It's probably best to accept that as a given, otherwise we wind up debating what we see as ways we believe those churches have strayed from Scripture and checkered histories, and that's really not something we need to spend our time and energy on. It's more useful to focus on where we are one in Christ and in Scripture, and finding ways to work together to serve others and be a light. So please don't push us in that direction - if you keep asking us why we do not accept their authority, we have to answer.

Incidentally, I really think that both sides on the infant baptism issue oversimplify the writings of the church fathers, focusing on the parts that they agree on. And it's not just infant baptism. You almost get the impression that the church fathers give a clear and simple answer to each question we have about Scripture or Christian practice, an impression you would never get if you went and carefully read the texts instead of quotes taken out of context. I definitely think these writings shed light on Christian practice, but they also clearly show that practices differed from place to place, and changed over time. I tend to agree with Schaff, who says that infant baptism probably started quite early, in some regions, but adult baptism was the rule and infant baptism was the exception until much later:
In reviewing the patristic doctrine of baptism which was sanctioned by the Greek and Roman, and, with some important modifications, also by the Lutheran and Anglican churches, we should remember that during the first three centuries, and even in the age of Constantine, adult baptism was the rule, and that the actual conversion of the candidate was required as a condition before administering the sacrament (as is still the case on missionary ground). Hence in preceding catechetical instruction, the renunciation of the devil, and the profession of faith. But when the same high view is applied without qualification to infant baptism, we are confronted at once with the difficulty that infants cannot comply with this condition. They may be regenerated (this being an act of God), but they cannot be converted, i.e., they cannot repent and believe, nor do they need repentance, having not yet committed any actual transgression. Infant baptism is an act of consecration, and looks to subsequent instruction and personal conversion, as a condition to full membership of the church. Hence confirmation came in as a supplement to infant baptism.
Constantine sat among the fathers at the great Council of Nicaea, and gave legal effect to its decrees, and yet put off his baptism to his deathbed. The cases of Gregory of Nazianzum, St. Chrysostom, and St. Augustine, who had mothers of exemplary piety, and yet were not baptized before early manhood, show sufficiently that considerable freedom prevailed in this respect even in the Nicene and post-Nicene ages.
You also see the tension between some who thought infants should be baptized as early as possible to remove their "original sin" and save them (e.g. Cyprian) and those who thought that once baptized, you could no longer be forgiven for serious sins, so you should put off baptism until you are no longer in danger of this (e.g. Tertullian, this was also the reason Constantine put off baptism until he was on his deathbed).

So the problem is not just that we don't see tradition as authoritative. People who take the writings of the early church seriously disagree vehemently about what they say, which parts we should pay the most attention to, and we should learn from them. And not just today, you can see these disagreements going back well before Nicea. If you accept the authority of a church like the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church, they have systematized these teachings. Many Protestant churches and some Mennonite churches have done the same (e.g. with the Confessions of Faith), but we do not give them the same level of authority.

Early Christians managed to be one despite very significant disagreements. I think we should learn to do that today. I don't think the writings of the early church settle these disagreements, but they do tell us that we don't have to settle them all to be one in Christ.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Post Reply