orthodox and baptism, split from are pc anabaptist?

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

orthodox and baptism, split from are pc anabaptist?

Post by Valerie »

Bootstrap wrote:
Valerie wrote:According to an explanation I heard by Orthodox, it really broadened my understanding why it was seen so serious, to basically denounce your first baptism- I had no idea how serious they took that and why and what it meant to rebaptize- basically from what I recall it was as if calling God a liar, because upon baptism, you're in the church and can partake of the sacraments- it would imply you were living a lie all your life- something to that affect.
In fact, I think the Swiss Brethren really were rejecting infant baptism because baptism is a sign of repentance, and infants cannot repent.

They did not believe that God was the liar, they believed that the State church was the liar, administering salvation via sacraments rather than repentance and discipleship.
I. Observe concerning baptism: Baptism shall be given to all those who have learned repentance and amendment of life, and who believe truly that their sins are taken away by Christ, and to all those who walk in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and wish to be buried with Him in death, so that they may be resurrected with Him and to all those who with this significance request it (baptism) of us and demand it for themselves. This excludes all infant baptism, the highest and chief abomination of the Pope. In this you have the foundation and testimony of the apostles. Matt. 28, Mark 16, Acts 2, 8, 16, 19. This we wish to hold simply, yet firmly and with assurance.
Well, it had been the norm to baptize infants and children of believing parents for 1500 years by then- it goes with the broadest understanding of Baptism- but that's not what this thread is about-, but it probably has a lot to do with other Protestants that still believed infants/children should be baptized if their parents were Believers as well- and even with Sola Scriptura, these same denominations continue 500 years later- there's something understood that maybe young influentials of the day didn't really understand-
0 x
Sudsy
Posts: 5856
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Are Plain Catholics Anabaptists?

Post by Sudsy »

Valerie wrote:
Bootstrap wrote: And of course, the "sin" of the Anabaptists was baptizing someone as an adult who had already been baptized as an infant:
Can. 845 §1. Since the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and orders imprint a character, they cannot be repeated.
According to an explanation I heard by Orthodox, it really broadened my understanding why it was seen so serious, to basically denounce your first baptism- I had no idea how serious they took that and why and what it meant to rebaptize- basically from what I recall it was as if calling God a liar, because upon baptism, you're in the church and can partake of the sacraments- it would imply you were living a lie all your life- something to that affect. That the Chrismation (anointing of oil for the Holy Spirit at your baptism) would be seen insignificant, etc- i can understand the big deal about that but not the way they were treated upon doing this. For the Church, that should have been between the rebaptizers and God- anyway this came up when an Orthodox who had been 'poured' on for his Orthodox Baptism, was fearful of not be immerged, and so he asked if he should be rebaptized- he was met with a serious NO and told why- they will not rebaptize anyone, unless they didn't receive their baptism in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit-

I had always wondered why it was such a huge deal to rebaptize and reading the explanation I think I understand why even so many that eventually became Anabaptist, were struggling with it in the early days-
Regarding the underlined - so the Orthodox would rebaptize all those who were baptised in the book of Acts because they were baptised in Jesus name and not in 'the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit' ?
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Are Plain Catholics Anabaptists?

Post by Valerie »

Sudsy wrote:
Valerie wrote:
Bootstrap wrote: And of course, the "sin" of the Anabaptists was baptizing someone as an adult who had already been baptized as an infant:
According to an explanation I heard by Orthodox, it really broadened my understanding why it was seen so serious, to basically denounce your first baptism- I had no idea how serious they took that and why and what it meant to rebaptize- basically from what I recall it was as if calling God a liar, because upon baptism, you're in the church and can partake of the sacraments- it would imply you were living a lie all your life- something to that affect. That the Chrismation (anointing of oil for the Holy Spirit at your baptism) would be seen insignificant, etc- i can understand the big deal about that but not the way they were treated upon doing this. For the Church, that should have been between the rebaptizers and God- anyway this came up when an Orthodox who had been 'poured' on for his Orthodox Baptism, was fearful of not be immerged, and so he asked if he should be rebaptized- he was met with a serious NO and told why- they will not rebaptize anyone, unless they didn't receive their baptism in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit-

I had always wondered why it was such a huge deal to rebaptize and reading the explanation I think I understand why even so many that eventually became Anabaptist, were struggling with it in the early days-
Regarding the underlined - so the Orthodox would rebaptize all those who were baptised in the book of Acts because they were baptised in Jesus name and not in 'the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit' ?

I doubt it- I think it was possibly 'error' in the writing- it was a Jesus baptism, vs a John the Disciple Baptism- Jesus was very clear about baptizing in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit- Matthew 28: 16Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. 17And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. 18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Are Plain Catholics Anabaptists?

Post by Valerie »

Bootstrap wrote:
Valerie wrote:Well, it had been the norm to baptize infants and children of believing parents for 1500 years by then- it goes with the broadest understanding of Baptism- but that's not what this thread is about-
Right, this thread is not about who is right. But it's very hard for me to imagine how a Catholic or Orthodox Christian could accept the Anabaptist theology of baptism and still remain a member of their own church.

For instance, when someone repents and becomes a Christian, should they be baptized? We would say yes, they would say no (assuming that the person had been baptized as an infant). We would each feel very strongly about it.

Our theology and practice of baptism is still heretical in the eyes of both churches.
Max should answer this on behalf of Catholics- I believe from an Orthodox teaching, a child is baptized and becomes part of the Church as a Christian and continues their life being raised in the fear and nurture of the Lord- living a life of repentance, as we all do- repenting is not a 'one time' event, it's a way of life for a Christian, young or old- they are not raised as non-Christians outside the faith, outside the Church.
0 x
Sudsy
Posts: 5856
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Are Plain Catholics Anabaptists?

Post by Sudsy »

Valerie wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:
Valerie wrote:Well, it had been the norm to baptize infants and children of believing parents for 1500 years by then- it goes with the broadest understanding of Baptism- but that's not what this thread is about-
Right, this thread is not about who is right. But it's very hard for me to imagine how a Catholic or Orthodox Christian could accept the Anabaptist theology of baptism and still remain a member of their own church.

For instance, when someone repents and becomes a Christian, should they be baptized? We would say yes, they would say no (assuming that the person had been baptized as an infant). We would each feel very strongly about it.

Our theology and practice of baptism is still heretical in the eyes of both churches.
Max should answer this on behalf of Catholics- I believe from an Orthodox teaching, a child is baptized and becomes part of the Church as a Christian and continues their life being raised in the fear and nurture of the Lord- living a life of repentance, as we all do- repenting is not a 'one time' event, it's a way of life for a Christian, young or old- they are not raised as non-Christians outside the faith, outside the Church.
This we call 'dedicating a child' as the parents intend to raise a child in a Godly home. Yes, repentance is an on-going way of life but it has a start point when an individual first knows what they are to turn from and who to turn to.
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Are Plain Catholics Anabaptists?

Post by Valerie »

Sudsy wrote:
Valerie wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:
Right, this thread is not about who is right. But it's very hard for me to imagine how a Catholic or Orthodox Christian could accept the Anabaptist theology of baptism and still remain a member of their own church.

For instance, when someone repents and becomes a Christian, should they be baptized? We would say yes, they would say no (assuming that the person had been baptized as an infant). We would each feel very strongly about it.

Our theology and practice of baptism is still heretical in the eyes of both churches.
Max should answer this on behalf of Catholics- I believe from an Orthodox teaching, a child is baptized and becomes part of the Church as a Christian and continues their life being raised in the fear and nurture of the Lord- living a life of repentance, as we all do- repenting is not a 'one time' event, it's a way of life for a Christian, young or old- they are not raised as non-Christians outside the faith, outside the Church.
This we call this dedicating a child as the parents intend to raise a child in a Godly home. Yes, repentance is an on-going way of life but it has a start point when an individual first knows what they are to turn from and who to turn to.
We don't read about 'child dedication' in the New Testament. But a child raised in the fear of the Lord and of course Apostle Paul called the children "holy" so I think that leaving them 'out' of taking part in the communion until they're older, well these little ones already believe, since I had been going for awhile to Orthodox Church, I witnessed their faith and love for Jesus. Of course, Jesus saw them that way too, He told US to have faith like THEM- for such is the Kingdom of Heaven- it's a beautiful picture of Christ's feelings about children- they do have faith!
0 x
Sudsy
Posts: 5856
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Are Plain Catholics Anabaptists?

Post by Sudsy »

Valerie wrote:
Sudsy wrote:
Valerie wrote:
According to an explanation I heard by Orthodox, it really broadened my understanding why it was seen so serious, to basically denounce your first baptism- I had no idea how serious they took that and why and what it meant to rebaptize- basically from what I recall it was as if calling God a liar, because upon baptism, you're in the church and can partake of the sacraments- it would imply you were living a lie all your life- something to that affect. That the Chrismation (anointing of oil for the Holy Spirit at your baptism) would be seen insignificant, etc- i can understand the big deal about that but not the way they were treated upon doing this. For the Church, that should have been between the rebaptizers and God- anyway this came up when an Orthodox who had been 'poured' on for his Orthodox Baptism, was fearful of not be immerged, and so he asked if he should be rebaptized- he was met with a serious NO and told why- they will not rebaptize anyone, unless they didn't receive their baptism in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit-

I had always wondered why it was such a huge deal to rebaptize and reading the explanation I think I understand why even so many that eventually became Anabaptist, were struggling with it in the early days-
Regarding the underlined - so the Orthodox would rebaptize all those who were baptised in the book of Acts because they were baptised in Jesus name and not in 'the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit' ?

I doubt it- I think it was possibly 'error' in the writing- it was a Jesus baptism, vs a John the Disciple Baptism- Jesus was very clear about baptizing in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit- Matthew 28: 16Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. 17And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. 18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
So, Acts 2:38; 8:12; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5 are all errors in writing ? Not once is there a reference to anyone being baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Now Oneness Pentecostals have an easy answer to this saying that the apostles understood the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is the name of Jesus. Did the apostles understand Mathew 28:19 as saying baptise in Jesus name ? It appears they did if we are to take these occurrences of immersion literally.
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Are Plain Catholics Anabaptists?

Post by Valerie »

Sudsy wrote:
Valerie wrote:
Sudsy wrote:
Regarding the underlined - so the Orthodox would rebaptize all those who were baptised in the book of Acts because they were baptised in Jesus name and not in 'the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit' ?

I doubt it- I think it was possibly 'error' in the writing- it was a Jesus baptism, vs a John the Disciple Baptism- Jesus was very clear about baptizing in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit- Matthew 28: 16Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. 17And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. 18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
So, Acts 2:38; 8:12; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5 are all errors in writing ? Not once is there a reference to anyone being baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Now Oneness Pentecostals have an easy answer to this saying that the apostles understood the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is the name of Jesus. Did the apostles understand Mathew 28:19 as saying baptise in Jesus name ? It appears they did if we are to take these occurrences of immersion literally.
Jesus is the One who said it- I think you are missing the difference- a Jesus Baptism vs a John the Baptism- are two different 'kinds' of Baptism- Jesus' Baptism was in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit- John the Disciple's baptism, was a baptism of repentance-(only) so Jesus is the one who told the Disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit- if anyone erred on this, it was not Jesus- certainly the Oneness Pentecostals were incorrect, nice guesswork on their part- but incorrect.
0 x
Sudsy
Posts: 5856
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Are Plain Catholics Anabaptists?

Post by Sudsy »

Valerie wrote: We don't read about 'child dedication' in the New Testament. But a child raised in the fear of the Lord and of course Apostle Paul called the children "holy" so I think that leaving them 'out' of taking part in the communion until they're older, well these little ones already believe, since I had been going for awhile to Orthodox Church, I witnessed their faith and love for Jesus. Of course, Jesus saw them that way too, He told US to have faith like THEM- for such is the Kingdom of Heaven- it's a beautiful picture of Christ's feelings about children- they do have faith!
I agree this practise of child dedications goes back to the OT just like using musical instruments in worship. My guess is that most Anabaptists view children as in a saved state until they reach an age where they can decide for themselves what they will believe and some chose not to believe in Christ. What the Schleitheim confession says is - underlined mine -
Observe concerning baptism: Baptism shall be given to all those who have learned repentance and amendment of life, and who believe truly that their sins are taken away by Christ, and to all those who walk in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and wish to be buried with Him in death, so that they may be resurrected with Him, and to all those who with this significance request it [baptism] of us and demand it for themselves. This excludes all infant baptism, the highest and chief abomination of the pope.
Some very stern words about the pope and child baptism. I prefer dialogue like we are having to consider all the possible ways of looking at this and appreciate reading others explanations of the RC and Orthodox views.
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
Sudsy
Posts: 5856
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Are Plain Catholics Anabaptists?

Post by Sudsy »

Valerie wrote: Jesus is the One who said it- I think you are missing the difference- a Jesus Baptism vs a John the Baptism- are two different 'kinds' of Baptism- Jesus' Baptism was in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit- John the Disciple's baptism, was a baptism of repentance-(only) so Jesus is the one who told the Disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit- if anyone erred on this, it was not Jesus- certainly the Oneness Pentecostals were incorrect, nice guesswork on their part- but incorrect.
I'm still not getting it, sorry. I agree these are two different baptisms. Yes, Jesus told them how to baptise and in what name, however in all of those Acts texts I gave they didn't obey Him if you read literally what the text says, right ? I doubt they were being disobedient but it certainly appears that way.
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
Post Reply