Why Some Churches Practice Infant Baptism and others do not.

[Valerie]

In scripture Paul directly mentions baptism for the dead as a practice and uses it to make a point of the resurrection.

1Co 15:29  Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

Can you point to any verse where infant baptism is referenced so openly? Of course not. So I find more Scriptural support for baptism for dead people then I do for infant baptism.

None of this means I intend to practice either and I don’t think Paul was intending us to do this practice although he doesn’t condemn it.

Yes but Scripture says there were oral traditions. That means some things were orally taught, some written down. Which is why the reformation era as splintered the church every which way in interpretations.

Bottom line is rejection of Pauls Scripture that he orally taught some things and also the rejection of practice everywhere Apostles started Churches practicing it and rejection of the Scriptures that EO & Catholics cite as support for it and rejection of early Church writers before 3rd century that endorsed it so "where" did it come from that the Christian churches were doing this if you don't bel Ii Eve them? Why do you think some denominations apart from EO & RC still practice it? I really don't care what you practice my contention is that you cannot say "for sure" and God did not send a prophet to speak about it, and everyone was all over the place in reformation era I didn't see a need to get vehement about contesting baptizing infants and children of Christian parents. The same points keep getting made here.

[Soloist]

I really don't care what you practice my contention is that you cannot say "for sure" and God did not send a prophet to speak about it, and everyone was all over the place in reformation era I didn't see a need to get vehement about contesting baptizing infants and children of Christian parents. The same points keep getting made here.

You could stop arguing then

[mike]

They are certainly more charitable at handling those outside their ancient faith. At least all the ones we've personally gotten to know and they're anything but blind which we've listened long to both Anabaptists and EO & hubby born into Catholic family- it's important to know and learn before being stubborn.

These particular people you know may be more charitable, sure. The EO church isn’t the state church of America. So the EO doesn’t have any power or authority here. It’s much easier to restrain ones persecuty tendencies when it is illegal to do so.
They are known for the opposite of charity in their own countries, including persecution underground baptist groups - groups who then migrate to the good old USA for religious refuge.

Just as a thought experiment, it would be interesting to hear from EO and Catholics about how their church would function differently today if they were the only state-sanctioned church from how they did in other ages when that was the case.

[Ernie]

They are, no offense, about the most stubborn people I've met but love them anyway

I guess it takes one to know one, eh?

Many years ago, Duane Tucker (a man not raised in a traditional Plain Anabaptist setting but later joined the Washington/Franklin conference) was giving a history lecture to about 500 people at a Washington/Franklin history meeting. I forget his topic but at some point in the evening he said emphatically,
"Most of you would be as stubborn Roman Catholic as what you are stubborn Anabaptist, had you been born into a Roman Catholic church."
If you knew Duane you can imagine him saying this. There wasn't anyone else in the church who could have said this and got away with it. At the end of the meeting, the presiding bishop, one of Duane's former students said, "It was good have another history lesson this evening with Brother Tucker."

[Soloist]

Many years ago, Duane Tucker (a man not raised in a traditional Plain Anabaptist setting but later joined the Washington/Franklin conference) was giving a history lecture to about 500 people at a Washington/Franklin history meeting. I forget his topic but at some point in the evening he said emphatically,
"Most of you would be as stubborn Roman Catholic as what you are stubborn Anabaptist, had you been born into a Roman Catholic church."
If you knew Duane you can imagine him saying this. There wasn't anyone else in the church who could have said this and got away with it. At the end of the meeting, the presiding bishop, one of Duane's former students said, "It was good have another history lesson this evening with Brother Tucker."

Sounds about right. They all say we offer valuable contributions but never listen.

[Ernie]

I think this discussion really comes down to who we trust.

Do we trust the "ancients", and trust that doctrine from the Apostles was conveyed accurately from one generation to the next, through the biggest church that happened to be in existence in a particular region at a particular time?
Or do we trust faithful believers to help us understand and apply the Word of God in any generation?

Those of us who believe that The Church includes all believers who are living in love and holiness, and excludes all persons who are living in sin, do not trust oral transmission outside of the Bible, even though we acknowledge that some good things have been preserved by an impure "church". We believe that sinners who profess Christianity are not be able to orally transmit important doctrine generation after generation without altering it some.
We also believe that the New Testament provides a blueprint for orthodoxy an orthopraxy, and we believe every person and every generation is given the privilege of discerning whether what we've been told indeed lines up with the blueprint. We are skeptical of any faith tradition (church) that requires its adherents to support its doctrine, even if its doctrinal stances change over the decades/centuries. (This is true whether the faith tradition is EO, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, or Anabaptist.)

It also comes down to whether we are comfortable establishing doctrine based on what is not said in the New Testament, or whether doctrine must be established based on what Jesus both taught AND did and his Apostles affirmed.

And thirdly, it comes down to whether we believe the church is getting more mature in its understanding as the years go by, or whether we believe that a church can become less mature in its understanding as it ages. I (and every other Anabaptist on MN that I am aware of) have no problem pointing out doctrines that we think various Anabaptists have not gotten right and we are comfortable pointing out these things in other faith traditions as well. Perhaps this third point is the biggest point of difference.

[Judas Maccabeus]

All that has nothing to do with the ancient practice of baptizing a Christians infants & children and the other "Protestant" denominations that believe to do so too, which is what this topic was about. Bad behavior does not negate what was taught. We have visited probably 12 different Orthodox congregations. We spent about a year in one and visit periodically and these are very devout Christians. I refuse to see these people as Apostate no matter what's going on. Jesus did not write off the Jews nor did Paul because they messed up and God did command war so that doesn't make their teachings wrong - any more than bad Jews made the teachings wrong

If they are so devout, how come they openly support war? Against each other?

Infant baptism was not practiced by the apostles, you cannot prove otherwise, so that is the MORE ancient tradition.

I would be able to successfully defend the position that what we know as the Orthodox Church (which is anything but);did not exist before 1054, and they have altered their inalterable rites in 1652, particularly In Russia.

We don't discuss war. There are Orthodox against what's happening and you know that. God obviously didn't oppose war. I don't question God about that- why he wanted Jews to kill others.

You're entitled to your opinion, I just think it is incorrect and I don't agree with your conclusions

Don't discuss war? The leadership sure does, particularly Patriarch Krilli of Russia. He promised heaven to all who die in the war. Kinda of like Jihad:

https://cne.news/article/1756-dying-for ... -patriarch

[Ernie]

God obviously didn't oppose war.

I don't see it as that obvious.

I would say in this way, "God allowed war in the Old Testament. In the NT, he taught his followers to not resist evil and to love their enemies." I don't know that we can say anything more for sure about this.

[Neto]

God obviously didn't oppose war.

I don't see it as that obvious.

I would say in this way, "God allowed war in the Old Testament. In the NT, he taught his followers to not resist evil and to love their enemies." I don't know that we can say anything more for sure about this.

When asked about the "warring Israelites in the OT period" I point out that the kingdom of Israel was set up by God to be a theocracy, and as such, were sometimes used by God to carry out his righteous judgements on the earth. Jesus, on the other hand, "gave the good confession before Pilate" saying "Now my Kingdom is not of this world. If it had been, my followers would have fought." (I also think that the saints, yes, even "nonresistant anabaptists", MAY be a part of the armies of God when Christ returns in judgement, because then the Kingdom will be "on the earth" in a different sense than it is today. I say 'MAY' because Scripture is not terribly clear on this. But if called upon by God, I will fight on that Day of the LORD.)

[barnhart]

When asked about the "warring Israelites in the OT period" I point out that the kingdom of Israel was set up by God to be a theocracy, and as such, were sometimes used by God to carry out his righteous judgements on the earth. Jesus, on the other hand, "gave the good confession before Pilate" saying "Now my Kingdom is not of this world. If it had been, my followers would have fought." (I also think that the saints, yes, even "nonresistant anabaptists", MAY be a part of the armies of God when Christ returns in judgement, because then the Kingdom will be "on the earth" in a different sense than it is today. I say 'MAY' because Scripture is not terribly clear on this. But if called upon by God, I will fight on that Day of the LORD.)

I was once challenged on this by an evangelical unhappy with my pacifism, "What will you do when Jesus leads into battle on the last day?" I responded that my role is to follow Jesus, not get out in front of him. If he leads me into battle, I will follow, but for now he leads in paths of peace and I follow. That being said, I don't expect much of a battle. When the one who spoke the universe into existence fights with the sword coming out of his mouth, I don't think there will be significant resistance.