Defense of Orthodoxy

[Valerie]

Valerie,

If you think infant baptism is the best way to go, have you considered changing from a Reformed Baptist church to a Reformed church that practices infant baptism?

I think I have told you this before recently, our church is not a reformed Baptist Church our Pastor would be very surprised that you seem to know this and he doesn't.
I understand why he arrives at adult baptism as most Protestants do.

[Soloist]

Those were quotes the EO woman posted- I will ask her where she got the one you're asking about.

In Davids book, the earliest statement he provided was by Irenaues (c.180, E/W), 1.391:

He came to save all persons by means of himself - all, I say who threw him are born again to God - infants, children, boys, you, and old men."

It was suggested to me that the burden of proof is on those who dispute infant baptism. Peter said the promise was to you and your children, and then several places in Acts entire households were baptized at once. I don't know of any denomination where that happens but it happened then. I was told it was ridiculous to believe that those households wouldn't have included perhaps infants and definitely children- what does a household usually consist of?

Of course one could argue that the burden of proof is on those who don’t believe. I’m not convinced and I don’t see that I can prove it to you with way. I do not believe a child can repent and the first command was repent followed by baptism. If the infant baptized follows Jesus faithfully believing they were baptized, who am I to judge them? I believe them to be wrong but other things always go along with false teachings. Most Catholics and Orthodox people I know do not have lives dedicated to following Jesus and their bath as a baby profited them nothing.

With all of the statements by so many writers believing in infant baptism and children being baptized can you find any church writers from the first century that was against infant baptism? Of course you only would baptize your infants and children if you were believers yourself.

The vast majority of these people came after several generations removed from the Apostles. If it was important to practice, God would not have hidden it away like the gnostic writings. He has made the doctrine of salvation plain and perhaps infant baptism is disputable but I don’t see it as commanded.

At least we know that this wasn't some made-up thing by the Pope later- Rome was not making decisions on their own until much later which is what led to the Great Schism of 1,054 ad. Until then decisions of the church was made by the five major patriarchs- the practice of church council's to make decisions for the church based on Acts 15.

Well that is the core of the problem. Both sides claim Apostolic authority and have come out in different places. So again, one can ask, where is the proof?

If One believes their mode of baptism by sprinkling was scriptural and yet we find by the early church writers and the Didache that the mode of baptizing was going down into the water and then coming up, if one can accept that the belief of sprinkling was not scriptural then can one accept that being against infant baptism maybe an error as well?

I don’t agree that sprinkling or pouring is the best way but I also don’t see it practically to immerse babies. Especially those with medical compromises.
At the end of the day, a question to pose, what is the point of baptism for babies? Couldn’t you simply baptized someone if they died young under the practice of baptism for the dead? What was it that made it so important to conduct a rite on someone who was ignorant of anything?

[Valerie]

Well if you can trust those who canonize the Bible for you then I don't know what to say. I don't know why all of a sudden people all over the world were baptizing infants because that is exactly what happened. And if you don't trust these people don't you think the same people could have put it in the Bible that they canonized somewhere if they were going to be deceiving about it?

[Soloist]

There is far more evidence for canon then for infant baptism. Even the orthodox don’t agree on canon anyway.

[Soloist]

Since right now the quotations in question are of unknown origin or much later in history, why not address icons?

Ultimately if the Orthodox claim tradition for the source, they need to address why the Catholic tradition is wrong. They can’t actually do that outside of ambiguity as the tradition on both sides has later era sources.

[Josh]

Valerie,

If you think infant baptism is the best way to go, have you considered changing from a Reformed Baptist church to a Reformed church that practices infant baptism?

I think I have told you this before recently, our church is not a reformed Baptist Church our Pastor would be very surprised that you seem to know this and he doesn't.
I understand why he arrives at adult baptism as most Protestants do.

Okay. Then what denomination and/or doctrine is it?

[Valerie]

Valerie,

If you think infant baptism is the best way to go, have you considered changing from a Reformed Baptist church to a Reformed church that practices infant baptism?

I think I have told you this before recently, our church is not a reformed Baptist Church our Pastor would be very surprised that you seem to know this and he doesn't.
I understand why he arrives at adult baptism as most Protestants do.

Okay. Then what denomination and/or doctrine is it?

It is non-denomination, which doctrine? Sola Scriptura, by Jesus and the Apostles

[Josh]

I think I have told you this before recently, our church is not a reformed Baptist Church our Pastor would be very surprised that you seem to know this and he doesn't.
I understand why he arrives at adult baptism as most Protestants do.

Okay. Then what denomination and/or doctrine is it?

It is non-denomination, which doctrine? Sola Scriptura, by Jesus and the Apostles

Lots of people claim to be nondenominational.

Yet with a little investigation, one finds they are actually Baptist, Pentecostal, Reformed, Charity type Mennonites, and so forth.

[Valerie]

Okay. Then what denomination and/or doctrine is it?

It is non-denomination, which doctrine? Sola Scriptura, by Jesus and the Apostles

Lots of people claim to be nondenominational.

Yet with a little investigation, one finds they are actually Baptist, Pentecostal, Reformed, Charity type Mennonites, and so forth.

I realize. I went to a Baptist Church when I was younger and I visited with friends that were baptist. It doesn't remind me of being in the Baptist church. Or a Pentecostal church. Or a reformed Church. Definitely not in a night church although I do see people that used to be mennonite. And now we have several Amish families attending. Looks like 4 generations.

[Coifi]

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking, Soloist. Are you looking for a discourse on infant baptism, icons, and liturgical theology? If so, I'd suggest you reach out to a local parish priest and start a dialogue there. If that makes you uncomfortable, maybe ask your questions at OrthodoxIntro. They have a team dedicated to answering honest questions about Orthodox life and practice. You will get more informed answers there. That being said, I am not qualified to give a defense for the Orthodox Church; nor do I think anyone here is. After all, this is predominately a forum comprised of folks from the Anabaptist tradition.

I can share with you what I've learned, though it will be far from adequate. I've only been an Orthodox Christian for several years.

--- "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Baptism is how one is brought into the family of Christ; it is similar to how circumcision was one of the things done to bring infants into Israel/the Church (the other being eating the passover). It is not something that is dependent on the understanding of the person being baptized as being part of the family of God. Personally, I think the fact that Christ did not forbid the little children to draw close to Him is another reason to baptize infants.

--- Icons are an affirmation of the incarnation. Because Christ became man, we can now have icons (images) of God.

--- In the liturgy, because we believe Christ is present in the Eucharist - and paradise is where God is - the liturgy makes where we are heaven/paradise on earth.

I know these are very brief comments about the three things you brought up, but I'm not quite sure what exactly you are looking for. If it is history specifically, I thought Valerie presented some good information regarding baptism. I'm curious as to how you would define apostolic tradition, though, as you seemed to dismiss the quotations she provided. You've indicated that St. John Chrysostom is too late to argue on the basis of apostolic tradition and I would like to know why.

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM
“You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members” (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

These quotes are too late to argue the basis of apostolic tradition.