Baptism and the Age of Accountability

Christian ethics and theology with an Anabaptist perspective
User avatar
Wayne in Maine
Posts: 1195
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:52 am
Location: Slightly above sea level, in the dear old State of Maine
Affiliation: Yielded

Re: Baptism and the Age of Accountability

Post by Wayne in Maine »

buckeyematt2 wrote: ... The transition to infant baptism appears to have happened shockingly early (Origen, born to Christian parents around 185 and taught by them, was probably baptized as an infant and said that it was an apostolic teaching; taking him to be an honest man, the shift must have happened earlier and been mostly complete by then) and with little opposition that we have record of - certainly no vehement opposition on the level of the Anabaptists. It was probably brought on by an even earlier shift to baptismal regeneration, which can be seen in mid-second century writings like Justin Martyr (and there were hints of it earlier in the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas, but not clearly). People who thought of baptism that way probably didn't see a big problem with baptizing little children, so that could explain the lack of resistance.

But I disagree with infant baptism because of biblical teaching about baptism.
I appreciate this perspective. I believe Tertullian commented on this matter, showing that there was some early controversy about age of Baptism. And of course, writings that the Roman religious leaders thought contradicted their perspective have likely been purged from history, as they have attempted to do throughout history (The Vatican apparently still has a lot of original Anabaptist writings stolen from the Hutterites).

It would be an interesting topic to discuss. There is too much emphasis among modern Anabaptists and Kingdom Christians on a "Constantinian Shift", as if the church became pagan at the flip of a switch, rather than gathering the accretions of paganism over 4 centuries until Christianity was palatable and respectable to Rome.
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Baptism and the Age of Accountability

Post by Valerie »

Josh wrote:What are the consequences of not baptising infants?
I found this discussion interesting about the differences between Eastern & Western Christianity-

http://westernorthodox.blogspot.com/200 ... limbo.html
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Baptism and the Age of Accountability

Post by Valerie »

Wayne in Maine wrote:
Josh wrote:What are the consequences of not baptising infants?
They end up in Limbo if they die:

"Limbo is the temporary place or state of the souls of the just who, although purified from sin, were excluded from the beatific vision until Christ's triumphant ascension into Heaven (the 'limbus patrum'); or (b) to the permanent place or state of those unbaptized children and others who, dying without grievous personal sin, are excluded from the beatific vision on account of original sin alone (the 'limbus infantium' or 'puerorum')."

This is also a tradition of the Western Roman religion (I suspect the Easter Romans believe something similar), which is another "tradition" supposedly passed on orally and secretly from the Apostles, not documented in any writings the early church considered authoritative.
Interesting- It seems they have dropped the Limbo teaching after 800 years:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... years.html
0 x
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23826
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Baptism and the Age of Accountability

Post by Josh »

Valerie wrote:
Josh wrote:What are the consequences of not baptising infants?
I found this discussion interesting about the differences between Eastern & Western Christianity-

http://westernorthodox.blogspot.com/200 ... limbo.html
That doesn't answer the question.

One of my foster babies was in foster care because her parents murdered her older, infant sister. I do not think her parents were believers in the sense they were not Anabaptist kingdom Christians, but they were certainly good Catholics. They had planned to baptise the older sister but didn't get around to it before they murdered her at the age of 2 months.

So:

1. What were the consequences for this dear child's soul?

2. What differences would it have made if she had been duly baptised?

If we must baptise infants then there are consequences if we do not. I think believers are commanded to themselves be baptised - I don't see where scripture says consequences or benefits for infants tho.
0 x
ken_sylvania
Posts: 3971
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:46 pm
Affiliation: CM

Re: Baptism and the Age of Accountability

Post by ken_sylvania »

Valerie wrote: I believe the Apostles baptized infants- I don't think that Christians who said the Apostles taught it,, made that up. For one thing, every single country where the Apostles took the faith, the Church in all of these countries- baptize infants, and they become a part of the Church.

We have 5 accounts of whole households being baptized (and apparently those are the only ones recorded, we can assume this was common practice) and it's strange to think that none of these households had infants or children in them- that they were a household of 'grown ups' only. What, if Mary left home at 15 being the Mother of our Lord, we have all these other households with just grown ups living in them? Highly unlikely. I think it's just as the early writers/fathers said- the Apostles taught them to. We have no record of this practice all of a sudden starting and there was no one 'pope' or council meeting, as everything in the Church where there was any controversy, was settled by councils. Yet none seems to exist about it and everywhere throughout the world the Gospel was taken, baptized infants of Christian families.

You left out the account of Lydia in Acts 16, I understand why:

14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.

15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

So apparently all these grown ups lived together, no children, no infants- all these households that were baptized at once? This is why it is difficult to answer the question of this topic- there is no scripture guiding people outside the original church at some age of accountability- there's nothing in the new testament about that.
There is nothing at all difficult to understand about these accounts of households being baptized (btw, in case you wondered, I just used the first household example that came to my mind; the account of Lydia makes no trouble whatsoever for my position). The ease with which the authors talk about the entire household believing, and the entire household praising God, makes it quite clear that they are discussing the adult members of the household.
Valerie wrote: Jesus made it clear:
Matthew 19:14King James Version (KJV)
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Sure enough. In the context, you will notice that the people were bringing the children to Him for Him to bless them, not for him to baptize them.
Valerie wrote: Acts 2:38 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.
39 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.
Peter's words here prove exactly my point. He said to repent and be baptized. He didn't tell them to baptize their children. The same command and promise is also to their children and everyone else. There is no mention of infants in what Peter said.
Valerie wrote: I don't think you have to torture the Scriptures to see it, you merely have to believe the passages that support it and believe those who claimed the Apostles taught it, and also know it's been the tradition of the Church wherever the Gospel was taken for 2000 years with some exceptions of denominations after the Reformation- while some kept it- I don't think it's difficult to understand this.
You left out the part about having to ignore all the Scriptures that teach repentance as a prerequisite for baptism. You have to do that too.
0 x
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23826
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Baptism and the Age of Accountability

Post by Josh »

At church we recently had the joy of an "entire household" being baptised. A couple applied to join our church and be baptised, and their two boys were just old enough. They attended the youth instruction class with the rest of the youth.
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Baptism and the Age of Accountability

Post by Valerie »

Josh wrote:At church we recently had the joy of an "entire household" being baptised. A couple applied to join our church and be baptised, and their two boys were just old enough. They attended the youth instruction class with the rest of the youth.
So what age is 'just old enough?'

Most households in the time of the Jews, would not have been adults only- true?

Where did the doctrine of 'age of accountability' come from?
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Baptism and the Age of Accountability

Post by Valerie »

ken_sylvania wrote:
Valerie wrote: I believe the Apostles baptized infants- I don't think that Christians who said the Apostles taught it,, made that up. For one thing, every single country where the Apostles took the faith, the Church in all of these countries- baptize infants, and they become a part of the Church.

We have 5 accounts of whole households being baptized (and apparently those are the only ones recorded, we can assume this was common practice) and it's strange to think that none of these households had infants or children in them- that they were a household of 'grown ups' only. What, if Mary left home at 15 being the Mother of our Lord, we have all these other households with just grown ups living in them? Highly unlikely. I think it's just as the early writers/fathers said- the Apostles taught them to. We have no record of this practice all of a sudden starting and there was no one 'pope' or council meeting, as everything in the Church where there was any controversy, was settled by councils. Yet none seems to exist about it and everywhere throughout the world the Gospel was taken, baptized infants of Christian families.

You left out the account of Lydia in Acts 16, I understand why:

14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.

15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

So apparently all these grown ups lived together, no children, no infants- all these households that were baptized at once? This is why it is difficult to answer the question of this topic- there is no scripture guiding people outside the original church at some age of accountability- there's nothing in the new testament about that.
There is nothing at all difficult to understand about these accounts of households being baptized (btw, in case you wondered, I just used the first household example that came to my mind; the account of Lydia makes no trouble whatsoever for my position). The ease with which the authors talk about the entire household believing, and the entire household praising God, makes it quite clear that they are discussing the adult members of the household.
Valerie wrote: Jesus made it clear:
Matthew 19:14King James Version (KJV)
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Sure enough. In the context, you will notice that the people were bringing the children to Him for Him to bless them, not for him to baptize them.
Valerie wrote: Acts 2:38 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.
39 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.
Peter's words here prove exactly my point. He said to repent and be baptized. He didn't tell them to baptize their children. The same command and promise is also to their children and everyone else. There is no mention of infants in what Peter said.
Valerie wrote: I don't think you have to torture the Scriptures to see it, you merely have to believe the passages that support it and believe those who claimed the Apostles taught it, and also know it's been the tradition of the Church wherever the Gospel was taken for 2000 years with some exceptions of denominations after the Reformation- while some kept it- I don't think it's difficult to understand this.
You left out the part about having to ignore all the Scriptures that teach repentance as a prerequisite for baptism. You have to do that too.
I really did used to believe exactly like you Ken- honestly, for over 40 years and it was difficult to even consider otherwise- but I have come to the conclusion that these assumptions are really the result of trying to understand this by Scripture alone, and the Church was never "Scripture Alone"- which is why in every single country where the Gospel was taken, infants & children were baptized, those born of Christian parents. The ancient faith has a much broader and deeper understanding of baptism and communion (Eucharist) and it seems obvious to me that all the other denominations are really guessing their way through this as best they can, and I can admit this- but if the Holy Spirit was guiding all these denominations they would surely be closer to practicing the same thing- it is more indicative of human reason, trying to understand it without the Holy Tradition of the Church- the pillar and ground of the Truth-
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Baptism and the Age of Accountability

Post by Valerie »

Josh wrote:
Valerie wrote:
Josh wrote:What are the consequences of not baptising infants?
I found this discussion interesting about the differences between Eastern & Western Christianity-

http://westernorthodox.blogspot.com/200 ... limbo.html
That doesn't answer the question.

One of my foster babies was in foster care because her parents murdered her older, infant sister. I do not think her parents were believers in the sense they were not Anabaptist kingdom Christians, but they were certainly good Catholics. They had planned to baptise the older sister but didn't get around to it before they murdered her at the age of 2 months.

So:

1. What were the consequences for this dear child's soul?

2. What differences would it have made if she had been duly baptised?

If we must baptise infants then there are consequences if we do not. I think believers are commanded to themselves be baptised - I don't see where scripture says consequences or benefits for infants tho.
That is a horrible story. How can you even say they were 'good Catholics' if they murdered their child? Catholics, in America, have done more than ANY denomination that I am aware of in the right to life and speaking up for the unborn and you will see them everywhere around this country- our own Cleveland Right for Life organization was started by the Catholics.

Orthodox teach the unborn go to Paradise, as well as infants that were not baptized, to answer your question. There is no 'doctrine' on the age of accountability in the New Testament.
0 x
User avatar
Wayne in Maine
Posts: 1195
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:52 am
Location: Slightly above sea level, in the dear old State of Maine
Affiliation: Yielded

Re: Baptism and the Age of Accountability

Post by Wayne in Maine »

Valerie wrote: There is no 'doctrine' on the age of accountability in the New Testament.
There is a plain and undeniable teaching in the New Testament that one must believe, then be baptized. Part of that belief involves repentance and counting the costs. Infants cannot believe.

The only reason to baptize an infant is if there is some magic brought about by the process which in some way transforms the person into a different spiritual state. That the Western and Easter Roman religions perform a wetting ceremony on infants just reinforces my suspicions that they do not derive their religious practices from the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, but rather that they adapted New Testament practices to ancient pagan rituals.
0 x
Post Reply