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-Heirbyadoption wrote:Lol. I believe this one caught fire. 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... 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: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).I can accept people from the Reformation era being mistaken- but not calling those who know better, 'liars'.
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.
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'.