Baptism and the Age of Accountability

Christian ethics and theology with an Anabaptist perspective
silentreader
Posts: 2511
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship

Re: Baptism and the Age of Accountability

Post by silentreader »

Valerie wrote:
silentreader wrote:
Valerie wrote:
Compared to the entire world, Christianity is a few yes- but the 7 churches Jesus addressed were a handful compared to myriads of other churches by this time- those were a handful, and they were the ones Apostle John was Bishop over in that part of Asia- but the Apostles started churches in many countries. But none of those things Jesus addressed to the 7 churches had anything to do with baptism at all- I do appreciate what Jesus was addressing to the 5 churches that needed repentance, of what He was pointing out and we need to always be mindful of those things- He also pointed out the things they were doing right- I am not sure how He would address the Church at large today because now it is not by 'location' only but myriads of different interpretations/denominations- doctrine is one of the issues He addressed to them. I just think it is not a correct assumption that 'infant baptism' was considered falling away because it was said that the Apostles taught it.
It is quite possible that the letters to the 7 churches are recorded because their differences and similarities were a representative sample of the churches of that time, certainly there are similarities to churches of today. And it was not the 7 churches that were the "few", but rather the "few" were those within the 7 churches who had remained faithful.
And I am not saying there are no oral traditions, but when they contradict Scripture, they become suspect.
And that is why when "it is said that the Apostles taught it" comes up it raises warnings in my mind. Because I do not believe that it is possible to honestly reconcile "infant baptism" with the NT model of "believers baptism".
I can understand where you are coming from- yet I can assure you, that just as you can't see it from Scripture, those who practiced it from the beginning, wouldn't see how you 'couldn't' see it from Scripture, they use many passages to confirm their belief in it- but indeed they have oral traditions handed down as well. And it seems you are speculating- do you trust the Church that canonized the very Scriptures you believe?

In the year 180, Irenaeus had this to say:

"The Church having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it....For the churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egpt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But just as the sun, the creation of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men who are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. "

He also says in 180 A.D. :

"To which course, many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit. Without paper or ink, they carefully preserve the ancient tradition.....Those who have believed this faith without any written documents are barbarians as to language. But as to doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed."

It verifies the unity of the faith & traditions and the work of the Spirit.
Before, I couldn't really have seen it by Scripture but I do see the implication of Scriptures, and considering the Jews that started the faith, wouldn't leave their children as 'outside' the faith or church and the only way, as Apostle Paul said of the Believing parent "Now your children are clean and holy" that would imply to be that way, clean and holy, they were baptized along with the rest of the household- and so we see by tradition throughout the world with the exception of some, it was common. We do not see anything in the New Testament about delaying a child's baptism, or any teaching from Jesus or the APostles about some age of accountability- that was a man made teaching from what I understand
Valerie, have you ever considered that the reason children aren't mentioned specifically in the baptismal accounts in Acts is because the original readers were well aware that they would not have been included in the "believers baptism" of the households. Impossible to prove a negative, but consistent with the NT's references to the purpose of baptism. And again you give credence to someone's statement who is 100 years removed from NT times, above the teaching of the NT.

Valerie, I'm always reluctant to attempt to engage you in dialog simply because we evidently have differing perceptions of the sources of truth, and any discussion with you seems to quickly deteriorate into going around in circles. I believe you have received valuable input in this thread from others, whether you choose to accept any of it or not is up to you.
I believe I have made my position sufficiently clear, and rather than 'saying' something I might regret, I am going to terminate my part in this discussion.

May the Lord guide you and richly bless you as you seek His will in your life, Valerie.
0 x
Noah was a conspiracy theorist...and then it began to rain.~Unknown
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 »

silentreader wrote:
Valerie wrote:
silentreader wrote:
It is quite possible that the letters to the 7 churches are recorded because their differences and similarities were a representative sample of the churches of that time, certainly there are similarities to churches of today. And it was not the 7 churches that were the "few", but rather the "few" were those within the 7 churches who had remained faithful.
And I am not saying there are no oral traditions, but when they contradict Scripture, they become suspect.
And that is why when "it is said that the Apostles taught it" comes up it raises warnings in my mind. Because I do not believe that it is possible to honestly reconcile "infant baptism" with the NT model of "believers baptism".
I can understand where you are coming from- yet I can assure you, that just as you can't see it from Scripture, those who practiced it from the beginning, wouldn't see how you 'couldn't' see it from Scripture, they use many passages to confirm their belief in it- but indeed they have oral traditions handed down as well. And it seems you are speculating- do you trust the Church that canonized the very Scriptures you believe?

In the year 180, Irenaeus had this to say:

"The Church having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it....For the churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egpt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But just as the sun, the creation of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men who are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. "

He also says in 180 A.D. :

"To which course, many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit. Without paper or ink, they carefully preserve the ancient tradition.....Those who have believed this faith without any written documents are barbarians as to language. But as to doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed."

It verifies the unity of the faith & traditions and the work of the Spirit.
Before, I couldn't really have seen it by Scripture but I do see the implication of Scriptures, and considering the Jews that started the faith, wouldn't leave their children as 'outside' the faith or church and the only way, as Apostle Paul said of the Believing parent "Now your children are clean and holy" that would imply to be that way, clean and holy, they were baptized along with the rest of the household- and so we see by tradition throughout the world with the exception of some, it was common. We do not see anything in the New Testament about delaying a child's baptism, or any teaching from Jesus or the APostles about some age of accountability- that was a man made teaching from what I understand
Valerie, have you ever considered that the reason children aren't mentioned specifically in the baptismal accounts in Acts is because the original readers were well aware that they would not have been included in the "believers baptism" of the households. Impossible to prove a negative, but consistent with the NT's references to the purpose of baptism. And again you give credence to someone's statement who is 100 years removed from NT times, above the teaching of the NT.

Valerie, I'm always reluctant to attempt to engage you in dialog simply because we evidently have differing perceptions of the sources of truth, and any discussion with you seems to quickly deteriorate into going around in circles. I believe you have received valuable input in this thread from others, whether you choose to accept any of it or not is up to you.
I believe I have made my position sufficiently clear, and rather than 'saying' something I might regret, I am going to terminate my part in this discussion.

May the Lord guide you and richly bless you as you seek His will in your life, Valerie.
Thank you for grace, I think you must have missed my post that stated I used to believe exactly like you all, in this area so yes I had considered that Sola Scriptura didn't make it clear about infants & children, except that if they were that of a Believer, then these would be 'clean & holy' which had always perplexed me, until I found out why.
I am sorry you feel like we go in circles- I have been a Christian under teaching since 1973 and always thought the same as you believe, however, I try not to be so sure in areas where the ancient Church seems to be able to teach me things I didn't know before, I try to maintain a teachable spirit as I did when learning about the headcovering- so through the last several years, the Lord has helped me through many people who expounded on areas that I assumed to know before, but considered that others may be correct, especially those who had the faith handed down-
May the Lord continue to rule & reign in your life, and thank you for your patience- the Anabaptists have helped me learn things I didn't know before as well as their interpretations were different than where I had come from in some areas.
Last edited by Valerie on Thu May 25, 2017 6:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
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, what does EOCC tradition teach about the fate of a 15 year old person who has not been baptized and who has rejected the gospel? Will they go to paradise?
I don't mean to keep you waiting, I have submitted this as I am unsure of the answer (I think I know because it would not be opposed to Scripture, of anyone who 'rejects' the Gospel, Scripture is clear- I don't hear Orthodox waivering on this, but I will get back to you when I hear back from the priest who is pretty good at answering questions-
regarding infants he shared this with me:

As to your question about what happens to infants who die before being baptized. No official declared church dogma but generally Orthodox believe they are saved. But we far prefer to do all we can to see they get baptized! Although we do believe baptism is forgiveness of sins, our view of “original sin” ( we don’t believe in it in the same way Catholics and Protestants do) leads us emphasize more than the west that an infant is innocent of any actual sin, even if needing to be baptized-=----we see baptismal forgivness applying to future as well as present----and for infants primariliy for future. When after our baptisms we repent, we are “reclaiming” our baptismal forgiveness. We don’t need to get baptized again every time we sin. We repent and our baptismal forgiveness “goes into effect”
So we believe unborn children that die (or are killed!) in the womb, and unbaptized infants and little children go to heaven. And that they “grow up” in their life above and do not go through eternity as fetuses or little babies----they will be in the prime of life.
We don’t have any specific age of accountability as we shy away from coming up with such specifics. Children usually start going to confession around age 6 or 7 but no specific age of accountability.
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:Within a century there wasn't unity between the Nestorians / Oriental Orthodox, Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic (Orthodox), and the Catholic Orthodox. That's a solid 4 divisions within one man's lifetime.
Of course- heresy is a work of the flesh and would cause any followers of heretical teachings, to schism out of the Church and this was to protect Apostolic doctrine- they go as far back as the earliest days of the Church-

Think about Anabaptists- which ones would be considred having the 'correct' doctrine, and others schismatics? I don't know because from the very beginning of Anabaptism, there wasn't 'one' group that believed exactly the same (at least not according to the book I read) so right from the beginning, you have Mennonites, Hutterites, shortly after Amish- but surely there needs to be one correct interpretation-I believe your own Church since it claims to be the one true church would hope that others would eventually see the light? So then you can understand- if there was the Church- and others started teaching contrary things, this is how those schismatics had to then be considered outside of the original Apostolic Church unless they repent of their doctrines.
0 x
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23823
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 »

What made the Catholics more right than Armenians or Ethiopians?

Here's what I really don't understand Valerie. You're always talking about how the EO is perfect and everyone else has it wrong... so why don't you just become fully EO, and find fellowship there?

Preaching to the converted here is about as appropriate as me finding Orthodox or Catholic forums and loudly calling everyone to come to the glory of the church of God in Christ (Mennonite).
0 x
temporal1
Posts: 16277
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:09 pm
Location: U.S. midwest and PNW
Affiliation: Christian other

Re: Baptism and the Age of Accountability

Post by temporal1 »

From Page 5:
Wayne in Maine wrote:
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.
hoping this discussion will come along.
0 x
Most or all of this drama, humiliation, wasted taxpayer money could be spared -
with even modest attempt at presenting balanced facts from the start.


”We’re all just walking each other home.”
UNKNOWN
Sudsy
Posts: 5856
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Baptism and the Age of Accountability

Post by Sudsy »

Valerie, does the EO have something similar to the Catholic confirmation where, if I understand it correctly, a babies baptism is confirmed at an older age by their confession of faith ? Again, if I understand this correctly, a babies baptism is a state of regeneration that once understood when a child can grasp what Christ has done, confirms their regenerated state to walk in this newness of life. I may not have this correct and welcome yours and/or others help as I am too lazy at the moment to look this up. :oops:
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
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 »

Sudsy wrote:Valerie, does the EO have something similar to the Catholic confirmation where, if I understand it correctly, a babies baptism is confirmed at an older age by their confession of faith ? Again, if I understand this correctly, a babies baptism is a state of regeneration that once understood when a child can grasp what Christ has done, confirms their regenerated state to walk in this newness of life. I may not have this correct and welcome yours and/or others help as I am too lazy at the moment to look this up. :oops:
I don't think the Orthodox have "Confirmation" nor "First Communion" with their baptized children. When a child is baptized, like the adult, they are prayed to receive the Holy Spirit- and I don't fully understand regeneration, but I do know that it is more than symbolic- There is actually something about the prayers, the water, the anointing, etc- where grace is imparted (there are examples of 'water' healings in the Old Testament and New. So somehow it seems all this works together. But the child is raised as a Christian, from that that point on, not as an unbeliever, and they are raised as a child of God from what I understand- Jesus did remark about the faith of a child, and to such is the kingdom of Heaven- so to think that they cannot have faith really ignores Jesus words about it, don't you think?
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, what does EOCC tradition teach about the fate of a 15 year old person who has not been baptized and who has rejected the gospel? Will they go to paradise?
I put your questions to the Priest of the Orthodox Church we attended for a year, he is gracious to spend time answeringmy questions-he replied:

As to the question about the 15 year old, we don’t have a teaching! God is the judge and we leave such decisions up to him. Of course, in a general way we say there has to be belief and baptism, but we can never know all the circumstances in a person’s life, so we are content to leave people to God’s justice and mercy. Actual rejection of the gospel and of Christ, of course, makes it harder to be hopeful…..but…….what if a person does hear about Christ, is even taught about Christ….but is taught with a lot of false teaching mixed in, is taught things that just aren’t true? For example, what if a person is taught a very strict Calvinist view of God (that view, to Orthodox, sounds almost most more like the devil than like God) and senses the falsity of much of it, and so, not knowing enough about Christianity, rejects Christianity as a whole. So the person in one sense rejected the gospel but there was so much wrong teaching mixed in with it, that it was a very “mixed” gospel message that was heard….. Is that really rejection in the true sense? Such questions make me think it’s best to not make firm judgements on an individual’s salvation. We do believe in hell! We just don’t like to try too much to figure out who goes there.

Actually I have heard Orthodox seem pretty dogmatic about some passages of Scriptures like John 3:5: Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
I think what the Priest was saying is ultimately God is Judge (though Jesus) so they leave that in His hands-as he stated, not to make 'firm judgements' on individual's salvation.
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 »

Thanks for the response Valerie.

I think what I'm picking up is that the OE in a sense do accept the general idea behind this "Age of Accountability" thing. I believe we all are agreed that if a two week old baby dies, it will not face eternal condemnation, regardless of whether its parents are believers and have faith. I think we also agree that according to the Bible, a person who has heard the full gospel truth and has rejected it will be barred from Heaven/Paradise. At some point in between, a person actually becomes accountable for their own choices. I do not believe that it is possible for a one month old child to rebel against God. They don't have the capacity to do so. But as that child matures, there will come a time when he/she has matured enough and received enough teaching that the child (or adult) will be able to understand the eternal consequences of choosing right or wrong. That time is not the same for every person. It will vary based on how quickly a person matures and how much teaching he/she receives. In calling this the "age of accountability" we're not saying a certain number of years, but rather a certain level of understanding/maturity.
0 x
Post Reply