Church Attendance

General Christian Theology
Heirbyadoption
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:57 pm
Affiliation: Brethren

Re: Church Attendance

Post by Heirbyadoption »

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.
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Church Attendance

Post by Bootstrap »

I agree with most of what Heirbyadoption says here.

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.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Heirbyadoption
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:57 pm
Affiliation: Brethren

Re: Church Attendance

Post by Heirbyadoption »

Valerie - reading back through my post, I don't intend my questions/comments to necessarily be a personal attack, especially since there were several anti-paedobaptism comments in addition to mine. Perhaps it might be better for me to ask: what evidence does the Orthodox church provide for infant baptism in the first 2 centuries of the church?
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 »

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.
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 »

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.
You don't need to be apologetic for believing truth.
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 »

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.
No worries, I didn't bring this up, someone else brought it up with Boot on another page of this topic- it caused me to want to defend it, since he is attending Presbyterian, and was called out on this. Otherwise I would have remained silent (this time). The beginning of my search was when I bought David Bercot's Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs- and these are pre Nicene statements because David Bercot didn't want to go beyond the Nicene Fathers- I will have to provide you with what I learned, it was REALLY challenging for me to consider infant baptism to be sure!! BUT I will say since no one from the Reformation era was there during the time the Apostles were baptizing thousands- then they really cannot say with certainty whether infants and children were included or not- and I will say too that the Orthodox believe the Scriptures support it so both Oral, and Written support what I have read was an Apostolic tradition- and of course, the people we all trust to have canonized the Scriptures, are the ones that make the claim. BUT I may not be able to get back to this tonight as we have someplace to go-
I didn't believe in infant baptism when I joined MD. BUT I was willing to learn, as for the first time in my life I really explored Church history- and I will add one thing that made me consider the validity is that even Mennonites who became Orthodox, and even an AMish Bishop who became an Orthodox priest- and another who had come from Mennonite heritage & wife's ancestory had signed Dordrect Confesstion- all believe it to be true now- I had to consider if these whose very ancestors lost their lives over this and still came to believe in infant baptism, who am i to dig my heals in and insist those from the Reformation era, knew better- and even still, most from the Reformation, including Martin Luther, still believed in infant baptism- for some reason- so it made me look further. We HAD to seek the truth about this because we were at a crossroad of where we were going-
0 x
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23827
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Church Attendance

Post by Josh »

There's an odd source of authority Valerie. You seem to be saying Eastern Orthodoxy and paedobaptism are valid because people of Amish descent or former Amish bishops believe in it.

The fact remains: Anabaptists were murdered and martyred for one reason and one reason alone: they preached obedience to the scriptures including "repent and be baptised", and then they actually went and did it. And most of them died for it.

I do not desire to follow in the footsteps of those who would murder someone for obeying Acts 2:38.
0 x
silentreader
Posts: 2511
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship

Re: Church Attendance

Post by silentreader »

Valerie wrote:
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.
No worries, I didn't bring this up, someone else brought it up with Boot on another page of this topic- it caused me to want to defend it, since he is attending Presbyterian, and was called out on this. Otherwise I would have remained silent (this time). The beginning of my search was when I bought David Bercot's Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs- and these are pre Nicene statements because David Bercot didn't want to go beyond the Nicene Fathers- I will have to provide you with what I learned, it was REALLY challenging for me to consider infant baptism to be sure!! BUT I will say since no one from the Reformation era was there during the time the Apostles were baptizing thousands- then they really cannot say with certainty whether infants and children were included or not- and I will say too that the Orthodox believe the Scriptures support it so both Oral, and Written support what I have read was an Apostolic tradition- and of course, the people we all trust to have canonized the Scriptures, are the ones that make the claim. BUT I may not be able to get back to this tonight as we have someplace to go-
I didn't believe in infant baptism when I joined MD. BUT I was willing to learn, as for the first time in my life I really explored Church history- and I will add one thing that made me consider the validity is that even Mennonites who became Orthodox, and even an AMish Bishop who became an Orthodox priest- and another who had come from Mennonite heritage & wife's ancestory had signed Dordrect Confesstion- all believe it to be true now- I had to consider if these whose very ancestors lost their lives over this and still came to believe in infant baptism, who am i to dig my heals in and insist those from the Reformation era, knew better- and even still, most from the Reformation, including Martin Luther, still believed in infant baptism- for some reason- so it made me look further. We HAD to seek the truth about this because we were at a crossroad of where we were going-
There is another very obvious possibility.
0 x
Noah was a conspiracy theorist...and then it began to rain.~Unknown
Sudsy
Posts: 5859
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Church Attendance

Post by Sudsy »

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 see the membership into the body of Christ being Holy Spirit baptism and water baptism being a symbolic testimony that this has occurred and as Paul points out water baptism is best pictured by the mode of immersion. Without a believer picturing what immersion pictures, then are those using any other non-immersion mode any more baptised in water than those who have not been baptised at all ?
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
Hats Off
Posts: 2532
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:42 pm
Affiliation: Plain Menno OO

Re: Church Attendance

Post by Hats Off »

I would take offense at anyone suggesting that I am no more baptized than one who has never been baptized. I was baptized upon the confession of my faith.
0 x
Post Reply