Church Attendance

General Christian Theology
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Church Attendance

Post by Valerie »

Heirbyadoption wrote:Lol. I believe this one caught fire. :hug: Hugs all around before we continue. Now, have said that, there is a certain irony to see infant baptism propounded on a Mennonite site, consider the very nature of Anabaptism itself... :P However, Valerie, I honestly don't wish to demean your acceptance of the Orthodox claims to possess the Apostolic traditions. I do, however, have a couple thoughts/questions.

First off, and I'm being frank here (please forgive me if too much so), but this seems extremely unhelpful in any way:
I can accept people from the Reformation era being mistaken- but not calling those who know better, 'liars'.
Nobody needs to call anybody liars, but I don't see anybody proposing Anabaptist or Reformation era infallibility; on the other hand, I do regularly encounter from my several Orthodox friends (offline, mostly) such proposals to a varying degree. When clung to, it actually defeats the purpose of continuing dialogue, except for the one who refuses to release the idea of their denominational or interpretative superiority/infallibility, and it is why most discussions between Orthodox and Anabaptists either die off or end with a bang, even more than simply the difference in foundational sources (scripture or scripture and tradition).

Having said all that, Paedobaptist advocates (not just Orthodox) generally claim that the practice of infant baptism dates back to the apostles, and therefore should be accepted. Anabaptists stepped out or were driven out of the organized churches for a couple reasons, one of the most specific being a lack of positive evidence for infant baptism and a host of negative experience for infant baptism. The big question in my mind comes to this: What evidence would you site for the existence of infant baptism prior to the third century? I recognize that there seems to be little record of controversy over infant baptism (at least until Origen, perhaps), if it truly was a later addition into the churches, and I could speculate about that, but my above question remains. Secondly, what is the Orthodox view of Tertullian (heretic, accepted Church father, etc?), considering he did speak out against infant baptism?

From studying various church fathers, several of them underwent catechesis but didn’t receive baptism until later in adulthood, even though they were born to Christian parents, if I recall correctly. I’ll try to dig up the paper I did on this, but off the top of my head, a couple would have been Athanasius, Basil, Clement (of Alexandria), Hippolytus, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Jerome, and actually Augustine himself. Therefore, it seems to me (and perhaps you have come across something I’m missing), that if paedobaptism was a custom since the time of the Apostles, these men would have been baptized before ever entering adulthood, rather than being products of the catechumen system…

But the question still remains, what proof do we have that baptism was administered only to believers and not to infants before the 3rd century? Second-century references to baptism reflect confession of faith as an essential qualification for baptism. I am assuming your familiarity with the Didache (please correctly me if I assume wrongly), but it gets fairly extensive on baptism. I can pull up a couple quotes if you’d like, but from what I recall it not only establishes some moral qualifications for the one to be baptized, but it requires the baptismal candidates to fast for a couple days also… It seems odd to me that through the centuries, Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Prebyterians, etc. have insured the survival of paedobaptism, but the Didache fails to reference it.

Other 2nd century references to baptism generally yield similar results. Some try to use Justin Martyr to support infant baptism when he wrote about “men and women of sixty or seventy years old, who from children were disciples of Christ”, but if a child is mature enough to be a “disciple of Christ” then it follows that they are capable of a confession of faith and can be baptized.

Some use Irenaeus because he said something to the effect that people of all ages are reborn through Christ, including infants, but there’s not a baptism reference in that, only the idea that Jesus brought a second beginning to the whole human race. Every Anabaptist’s favorite heretic, Tertullian, wrote a treatise on baptism, De baptismo. He emphasized the catechumen system, he believed that people should delay baptism until they were well instructed, and promoted believers baptism.

When you get into the 3rd century and on, you find church fathers like Cyprian, Origen, and Augustine approving of infant baptism, but even Origen admitted it was not without protest among the brethren. Hence my question, and I regret putting you on the spot, but since you are the local Orthodox proponent here, can you point us to any particular evidence other that infant baptism was practiced in the first two centuries of the Christian church. I’m open to info, but I haven’t personally found anything compelling historically, and certainly no Scripture to support the idea of baptism without believer’s own confession of faith. Sorry if this is a bit much. Thank in advance for the reply.
When you have time, I would really appreciate anything you can share contrary to infant baptism- everything I have read by early church writers and fathers support it- and again- they stated 'THE' Apostles- taught it- if it is something being done in every solitary country the original Apostles started the Churches, and we see no council in every country that said 'now we will start this new practice' then I tend to believe everything I have read about it, supporting it- I think what happened in the west- in Rome after the Great Schism, has a lot to do with what happened but again all the Sola Scriptura mainline denominations still baptized their infants with the exception of Baptists, and Anabaptists- SOMETHING must have convinced the others that this practice was supposed to be upheld even though they were coming against Catholicism in many other areas-
Many of the people you mentioned also have statements I read supporting it- and this was 'The Church' pre-denomination- I had read that 'some' delayed their baptism- but by and large, they took Jesus' words about children literally, and the Apostles taught it- they were not statements saying 'i think' the Apostles taught it- or opinions- they were statements- I have read statements about whether to baptize them within the first few days or wait 8 days like circumcision was-
If you would like to share these things with me and I will share with you behind the scenes, to not upset anyone, that would be fine with me, I would really just like to read what you think you remembered, and i will share all that I have read-

I don't hear the Orthodox really quoting Tertullian, I know David Bercot used his statements in his book "Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs" but also makes a distinction in what Tertullian said before he left the Church to join the Montanists, and those statements he made after joining the Montanists (heretical group) so at that point, the Church would have definitely considered him in error I imagine-
Origin is one of the ones who said the Apostles taught infant baptism- Origin gave many 'opinions' on things, but that one he stated like a 'fact'.
0 x
Hats Off
Posts: 2532
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:42 pm
Affiliation: Plain Menno OO

Re: Church Attendance

Post by Hats Off »

Valerie wrote: No one claims to have a 'secret decoder ring' Boot- of course there is Oral and Written tradition, the Apostle said so, in Scripture- you have a hard time with that I realize- that does not make it, not so- it is Scriptural. The 'rebellion' happened in the west and is understandable why it happened and we are seeing the result of that rebellion in the Church's fragmentation into an unrecognizable unity of faith- you don't mind that, I know- but it certainly explains a good reason why the 'falling away' precedes the Lord's return.
Which apostle refers to the oral and written tradition? I don't have time tonight to search that out.

Are you suggesting that we see the fragmentation into an unrecognizable unity of faith here on MennoNet?

I can't begin to understand why you continue to argue about this topic when we have shown what the Bible actually has to say on the subject. We are not quoting Origen or anyone else; we are sticking to some very plain teaching from the Bible. We would like to respect you and your ideas but you insist on making it hard!
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Church Attendance

Post by Valerie »

Hats Off wrote:
Valerie wrote: No one claims to have a 'secret decoder ring' Boot- of course there is Oral and Written tradition, the Apostle said so, in Scripture- you have a hard time with that I realize- that does not make it, not so- it is Scriptural. The 'rebellion' happened in the west and is understandable why it happened and we are seeing the result of that rebellion in the Church's fragmentation into an unrecognizable unity of faith- you don't mind that, I know- but it certainly explains a good reason why the 'falling away' precedes the Lord's return.
Which apostle refers to the oral and written tradition? I don't have time tonight to search that out.

Are you suggesting that we see the fragmentation into an unrecognizable unity of faith here on MennoNet?

I can't begin to understand why you continue to argue about this topic when we have shown what the Bible actually has to say on the subject. We are not quoting Origen or anyone else; we are sticking to some very plain teaching from the Bible. We would like to respect you and your ideas but you insist on making it hard!
Apostle Paul, Hats off, stated-2 Thessalonians 2: (plus you can read many scriptures about tradions, Apostles traditions, etc)
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. They did not write all their teachings down- the Church, was the pillar and ground of the Truth- (1 Timothy 3:15) I am not here to argue about it- I was defending it when boot was called out on it because God led him to a church that practices infant baptism- (Presbyterian) and many denominations realize it was practiced even outside of the Orthodox and Catholic Church, from the beginning- it was not a 'new' thing- but the Church had been started long before any of the Apostles even started wrting the New Testament- they were not using the New Testament, to teach- nor start Churches. It was all started orally- with the Old Testament being used, to teach and read- Jesus sent the Apostles to build His Church and He did not tell them to even write it all down, when they did- (Like God said to do in the old testament) so a lack of 'detail' about things like parents having their children and babies baptized, becomeing members of the Church with their parents- was not necessary as it was part of the norm at the time- it doesn't seem right to me, to get upset about this- when the early Anabpatists had no issue with upsetting others with their own doctrine? That just doesn't even make sense to me.
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Church Attendance

Post by Bootstrap »

Valerie wrote:- it doesn't seem right to me, to get upset about this- when the early Anabaptists had no issue with upsetting others with their own doctrine? That just doesn't even make sense to me.
I think it's because this is a Mennonite board. Here, when we talk about our understandings of infant baptism, it's not something that will upset most people. If we said the same things on an Orthodox discussion board, people would get upset.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Hats Off
Posts: 2532
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:42 pm
Affiliation: Plain Menno OO

Re: Church Attendance

Post by Hats Off »

One of the things you need to realize is that the teaching for adult baptism is not the "Anabaptist's doctrine." As RZehr so plainly pointed out we need to believe, repent and be baptised. Infants are not capable of believing and repenting. However, since you intend to persist in your error, I will not respond any longer.
0 x
lesterb
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:41 pm
Location: Alberta
Affiliation: Western Fellowship
Contact:

Re: Church Attendance

Post by lesterb »

Sudsy wrote:
lesterb wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:And let me add this: most people in the church know that I don't believe in infant baptism. I've never had to debate anyone one the issue. There are other people in the church who do not believe in infant baptism, and their children are baptized when they reach the age of consent, often the week before they join the church together with other youth. To me, this is not a reason to leave the church.
I don't think I could say that. Believer's baptism is very basic to the Christian faith. Infant baptism implies coercion, whereas believers baptism implies voluntary membership in the body of Christ. The power of choice is very important to being in the faith. I don't think my conscience would allow me to be part of a group that promotes or practices infant baptism.
Curious - are you saying unbaptised Salvation Army professing believers and those professing belief in Christ waiting to be baptised at some future date are not members in the body of Christ ?
I am not saying anything about the Salvation Army's practice. I am talking about infant baptism and believer's baptism. So please don't put words in my mouth that aren't there.

[bible]acts 2,38[/bible]

There are a number of passages that talk about believing or repenting, and being baptized. I can't find any that say, baptize your children so that they will believe later.
0 x
RZehr
Posts: 7027
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:42 am
Affiliation: Cons. Mennonite

Re: Church Attendance

Post by RZehr »

Hats Off wrote:One of the things you need to realize is that the teaching for adult baptism is not the "Anabaptist's doctrine." As RZehr so plainly pointed out we need to believe, repent and be baptised. Infants are not capable of believing and repenting. However, since you intend to persist in your error, I will not respond any longer.
I think that was a ken_sylvania post.
0 x
User avatar
ohio jones
Posts: 5222
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:23 pm
Location: undisclosed
Affiliation: Rosedale Network

Re: Church Attendance

Post by ohio jones »

Valerie wrote:I had read that 'some' delayed their baptism- but by and large, they took Jesus' words about children literally...
A literal reading of Jesus' words about children would conclude that he said nothing at all about baptizing them. Or am I missing something?
I am not here to argue about it-
Yet here you are, arguing about it. :)
0 x
I grew up around Indiana, You grew up around Galilee; And if I ever really do grow up, I wanna grow up to be just like You -- Rich Mullins

I am a Christian and my name is Pilgram; I'm on a journey, but I'm not alone -- NewSong, slightly edited
temporal1
Posts: 16279
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:09 pm
Location: U.S. midwest and PNW
Affiliation: Christian other

Re: Church Attendance

Post by temporal1 »

Page 5:
ken_sylvania wrote: .. Seems to me the scriptural command is fairly clear and direct,
(1) Believe, (2) Repent, and (3) Be Baptized.
Infant baptism ignores (1) and (2), Salvation Army ignores (3).
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
Hats Off
Posts: 2532
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:42 pm
Affiliation: Plain Menno OO

Re: Church Attendance

Post by Hats Off »

temporal1 wrote:Page 5:
ken_sylvania wrote: .. Seems to me the scriptural command is fairly clear and direct,
(1) Believe, (2) Repent, and (3) Be Baptized.
Infant baptism ignores (1) and (2), Salvation Army ignores (3).
My apologies to RZehr and Ken_sylvania; for mis-attributing that post.
0 x
Post Reply