Why Some Churches Practice Infant Baptism and others do not.

[mike]

We have the writings of the apostles, the New Testament. In none of them do we have an example of them baptizing infants. You have to read that back into the text in the instances of a household being baptized. And in none of their writings do they indicate that infants should be baptized. Jesus says of children that of such are the kingdom of heaven, and that we must become like little children to enter the kingdom of God. Children have no need of baptism; it adds nothing to their status with God. The calls for baptism in the scriptures are accompanied with calls to believe and repent, something we all know infants can't do, and don't need to do.

[Valerie]

Ancient does not equate to what Jesus and the apostles taught in the scriptures. Christianity is about following Jesus.

Jesus started the Church with His Apostles. The Holy Spirit then was poured out on them and the church began and it was said long before Constantine by Origen that the Apostles themselves taught to baptize infants. This was not a late invention. Certainly the ancient Church can go make a Scriptural case for it even if you don't agree with their interpretations but historically this was practiced and has been for about 2000 years not made up by Roman Catholics later which is what Early Anabaptists thought.

Origen is not one of the apostles, and for this his writings are not part of the canon of scripture. Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.

Are you part of a church that baptizes infants? If not, why not? Why do you expect most people on a Mennonite web forum not to push back strongly against the idea of infant baptism, a cardinal reason for the beginning of the Anabaptist movement? You seem shocked and disappointed by this. What else would you expect?

I am anything but shocked Mike. Scripture itself teaches there were oral teachings not written down. Infant baptism is evident in literally every country the Apostles took the Gospel and started Churches. Origen is not the only one who said it but he certainly didn't make that piece of history up.

I absolutely understand why the push back here. I live the A MN a Baptist people but they have their own extra Biblical dogmas.

No. We parked ourselves at Parkside when we were not sure where we "fit" with all this. They do not practice infant baptism NOR head covering & other Anabaptist practices. But we can't honestly try to join an Anabaptist church when we learned what we learned. They are, no offense, about the most stubborn people I've met but love them anyway

[MaxPC]

We have the writings of the apostles, the New Testament. In none of them do we have an example of them baptizing infants. You have to read that back into the text in the instances of a household being baptized. And in none of their writings do they indicate that infants should be baptized. Jesus says of children that of such are the kingdom of heaven, and that we must become like little children to enter the kingdom of God. Children have no need of baptism; it adds nothing to their status with God. The calls for baptism in the scriptures are accompanied with calls to believe and repent, something we all know infants can't do, and don't need to do.

I quite like your use of deductive logic here, Mike.

... the idea of infant baptism, a cardinal reason for the beginning of the Anabaptist movement?

From my understanding, I see the Anabaptist and Catholic/Orthodox views of the ROLE that Baptism plays as differing somewhat. As I understand it, Anabaptists consider Baptism as a personal, stand alone decision for Christ. The RCC sees Baptism as a part of a larger Rite of Christian Initiation involving two other Sacraments.

Regarding these two roles: Is it an Either/Or situation or is it possible that it is a Both/And situation?

That God can do all things I am quite certain. Of how God views how Baptism is applied to different age groups, I am not as certain. Nevertheless I do believe that God perfects all things and in His Mercy has a purpose of which I am unaware.
As always YMMV.

[MattY]

Jesus started the Church with His Apostles. The Holy Spirit then was poured out on them and the church began and it was said long before Constantine by Origen that the Apostles themselves taught to baptize infants. This was not a late invention. Certainly the ancient Church can go make a Scriptural case for it even if you don't agree with their interpretations but historically this was practiced and has been for about 2000 years not made up by Roman Catholics later which is what Early Anabaptists thought.

Origen is not one of the apostles, and for this his writings are not part of the canon of scripture. Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.

Are you part of a church that baptizes infants? If not, why not? Why do you expect most people on a Mennonite web forum not to push back strongly against the idea of infant baptism, a cardinal reason for the beginning of the Anabaptist movement? You seem shocked and disappointed by this. What else would you expect?

I am anything but shocked Mike. Scripture itself teaches there were oral teachings not written down. Infant baptism is evident in literally every country the Apostles took the Gospel and started Churches. Origen is not the only one who said it but he certainly didn't make that piece of history up.

I absolutely understand why the push back here. I live the A MN a Baptist people but they have their own extra Biblical dogmas.

No. We parked ourselves at Parkside when we were not sure where we "fit" with all this. They do not practice infant baptism NOR head covering & other Anabaptist practices. But we can't honestly try to join an Anabaptist church when we learned what we learned. They are, no offense, about the most stubborn people I've met but love them anyway

Which Parkside? I play board games every month at Parkside Green.

[mike]

I live the A MN a Baptist people but they have their own extra Biblical dogmas.

That we may, but our position on baptism is not one of them.

[Josh]

I used to play Ultimate Frisbee with some Parkside Green people. Oddly enough, after they found out I had become born again and was attending a Mennonite church, they invited me to their church and Bible studies etc.

I guess before that, I was too much of a heathen to invite.

[Josh]

From my understanding, I see the Anabaptist and Catholic/Orthodox views of the ROLE that Baptism plays as differing somewhat. As I understand it, Anabaptists consider Baptism as a personal, stand alone decision for Christ. The RCC sees Baptism as a part of a larger Rite of Christian Initiation involving two other Sacraments.

Regarding these two roles: Is it an Either/Or situation or is it possible that it is a Both/And situation?

It is an “Anabaptists consider the Catholic/Orthodox view of baptism to be false, heretical, and to not grant salvation;” that is, “the chiefest of abominations of the Pope.”

We consider baptism to be an outward sign of an inward cleansing; the believer’s first of many acts of outward obedience that happens because of a truly changed life.

That God can do all things I am quite certain. Of how God views how Baptism is applied to different age groups, I am not as certain. Nevertheless I do believe that God perfects all things and in His Mercy has a purpose of which I am unaware.
As always YMMV.

God has told us how he views baptism in the Bible. This is not a “your mileage may vary” sort of thing. There is only one way, one faith, one God, one baptism.

[Sudsy]

We have the writings of the apostles, the New Testament. In none of them do we have an example of them baptizing infants. You have to read that back into the text in the instances of a household being baptized. And in none of their writings do they indicate that infants should be baptized. Jesus says of children that of such are the kingdom of heaven, and that we must become like little children to enter the kingdom of God. Children have no need of baptism; it adds nothing to their status with God. The calls for baptism in the scriptures are accompanied with calls to believe and repent, something we all know infants can't do, and don't need to do.

Regarding reading 'back into the text' many would say those who believe in nonviolence are doing that. Jesus could have said something like 'follow me and get rid of your swords' but we do read where He says 'he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one'. And when Peter drew his sword and cut off the guys ear, this again was an opportunity to say 'Peter my followers have no need to physically resist anyone' but rather He said for Peter to put it back into its sheath.

I'm just suggesting that what some regard as a simple reading of the text, others think this simple reading means something different. Another example is the text you referred to as becoming like little children. Some would say this is reading into the text what was not being meant.

I don't see where Anabaptists lead the way in interpreting the scriptures simply in various areas and various texts are interpreted in what they mean as do non-Anabaptists. Our practises in Christianity have their differences and reasons and although I have not seen anyone challenge my understanding on infant baptism, I'll repeat it here as I think the main reason had to do with a belief we are born in sin, born sinners, and so we need protection from going to hell. Some thought water baptism has saving properties to keep a person from hell. So because a baby could not protect themselves it was up to the parents to baptise them quickly after birth to save them from hell.

In my thinking the more serious issue is whether later in life this individual receives Jesus by their own choice as their Lord and Saviour. If they think parents baptising them as a baby saves them, then that is quite a serious matter to consider if scriptures attest to that in the various texts regarding salvation.

Well, off to do meals on wheels. Will be back this afternoon to talk more.

[mike]

We have the writings of the apostles, the New Testament. In none of them do we have an example of them baptizing infants. You have to read that back into the text in the instances of a household being baptized. And in none of their writings do they indicate that infants should be baptized. Jesus says of children that of such are the kingdom of heaven, and that we must become like little children to enter the kingdom of God. Children have no need of baptism; it adds nothing to their status with God. The calls for baptism in the scriptures are accompanied with calls to believe and repent, something we all know infants can't do, and don't need to do.

Regarding reading 'back into the text' many would say those who believe in nonviolence are doing that. Jesus could have said something like 'follow me and get rid of your swords' but we do read where He says 'he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one'. And when Peter drew his sword and cut off the guys ear, this again was an opportunity to say 'Peter my followers have no need to physically resist anyone' but rather He said for Peter to put it back into its sheath.

I'm just suggesting that what some regard as a simple reading of the text, others think this simple reading means something different. Another example is the text you referred to as becoming like little children. Some would say this is reading into the text what was not being meant.

If that were the only applicable scripture, I would agree with you. But it isn't.

[RZehr]

The fact that Jews of OT had evil and went to war did not make the religion itself Apostate. You do need to learn the difference.

Russia and Ukraine’s war with each other is complete apostasy. And the Eastern Orthodox on both sides bless and condone troops going to war.

And J M is right - they changed a bunch of traditions. The Old Believers try to stick to the older ones. Which group is right? The EO hierarchy simply claims “We are the authorities so whatever we say is right.”

Again. This topic was about which churches have infant baptism. Not supposed to be about EO.

You are almost always the first one who bring up the ancient apostate church into topics such as this.

To speak about the authority of the ancient apostate church, is sort of like telling us what the Pharisees think about infant baptism.
True, Pharisees and infant baptism are two separate things. But we frankly don’t care what their opinion is, what their teaching is, beyond maybe casual interest. They just aren’t going to be viewed as any sort spiritual authority on anything. In fact as corrupt as they are, it is understandable to hold all of their distinctions with suspicion.

And to be clear, I find it easy to believe that your EO friends are against the war, and genuinely care about what God. They may love God more than myself, and may be better Christian’s than myself.
They are unfortunately part of an apostate church that is led by the blind. And we hope your friends get better eyesight themselves and cease to be led by these people.