Why Some Churches Practice Infant Baptism and others do not.

[Judas Maccabeus]

I appreciate the honesty of the Orthodox commentary when they use the word "presumably" in their defense of infant baptism.

And circumcision not analogous, because only boys are circumcised.

I am waiting for the contention that the EO church had not split. They have, and I have examples.

[RZehr]

I appreciate the honesty of the Orthodox commentary when they use the word "presumably" in their defense of infant baptism.

And circumcision not analogous, because only boys are circumcised.

I am waiting for the contention that the EO church had not split. They have, and I have examples.

The reason the EO church is attracting some in the west is simply because people don’t have the history of it like they do the Catholic Church.
The EO is filled and over flowing with past and current atrocities, violence, and splits. It is as evil of an organization as Rome. And Valerie, you ought to quit venerating it by referring to it as the “ancient” church. And quit reading their Bible.
They think nothing of killing and hatred and violence and their splits openly utilize all three. It has long since had its candlestick removed. It is a church led by terribly unregenerate men, who love power and don’t love God. Go to Jerusalem, go to the Eastern bloc countries where it has been for centuries, meet the leaders. They are often very unkind, and very willing to use violence. Go see them in their native countries, where they aren’t pressured into moderation by Protestant or Western thought and culture. You will be shocked that they have the audacity to play Christian.

“Ancient” church -

[Josh]

To quote an acquaintance of mine who is a baptised and regularly faithful Eastern Orthodox member, he calls the current stance of his church "caesaropapism" - that is, they replaced the Pope with something even worse: whomever the current czar (or Russian President) is. Half of EOs are the Russian Orthodox church, which effectively does whatever President Putin wants it to do.

[ken_sylvania]

As long as heresy is promoted, you can expect to see it countered. This isn’t non-resistance to keep quiet in face of lies.

Jud 1:3  Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints

I find it highly ironic how strongly you defend what you yourself can’t follow.

The heresy was against infant baptism though. Heresy goes against the common teaching of the Church.

From my Orthodox Study Bible,:

INFANT BAPTISM:. There are numerous Biblical passages which support the ancient Christian practice of infant baptism, which was universal in the CHURCH until the Anabaptist reaction after the Protestant Reformation. Among these are " Let the little children come unto Me and do not forbid them for of such is the kingdom of heaven". (Mt 19:14,); the BAPTISM of whole households and families, presumably including children (Acts 16:14, 15, 25-33), and Paul's comparison of circumcision-given to infant boys- to baptism (Col 2:11, 12; see also Jn 3:3-6; Rom 6:3,4; Gal 3:27; 1 Pr 3:21)

So in reality, contending for the faith- once delivered to the saints against the heresy not to baptize infants & children is giving a voice to the practice done everywhere the Apostles started the Church and those who claimed the Apostles taught to do so. This is why other Protestants continued the practice & do to this day.

There are those that were Anabaptist and now Orthodox who must have realized the error.

There are those that were Anabaptist and were deceived or went astray. Just because one, or a few, individuals have embraced the abominations taught by certain so-called churches doesn't at all mean they left error and converted to truth.

You repeat, ad nauseum, your argument about "households" necessarily including babies, but to the best of my recollection you have never explained how you think it is that the supposed babies in these households consciously believed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

[ken_sylvania]

For the record, I never said believers baptism was a later invention. Neither does Rome. Neither does Eastern Orthodox. The Ancient Churches have always believed in both believers baptism of converts, and also, baptizing children and infants of believers. It's not either or- it's been both.

The claim that the Church has always believed in baptizing infants is wholly without proof. There is not one scintilla of evidence within the regularly accepted canon of Scripture to prove that the early Church baptized infants.

The Roman Catholic Church does not practice Believers Baptism. They sometimes baptize believers, but that is not the same as practicing Believers Baptism.

[Ernie]

It's one thing to promote a church that did evil things in the past but does not do evil today. I can see why a person might do this even though it is still very wrong.

It is quite another thing to promote a church that is currently doing evil. There is no excuse for this at all and it is abominable.

[Judas Maccabeus]

I appreciate the honesty of the Orthodox commentary when they use the word "presumably" in their defense of infant baptism.

And circumcision not analogous, because only boys are circumcised.

I am waiting for the contention that the EO church had not split. They have, and I have examples.

The reason the EO church is attracting some in the west is simply because people don’t have the history of it like they do the Catholic Church.
The EO is filled and over flowing with past and current atrocities, violence, and splits. It is as evil of an organization as Rome. And Valerie, you ought to quit venerating it by referring to it as the “ancient” church. And quit reading their Bible.
They think nothing of killing and hatred and violence and their splits openly utilize all three. It has long since had its candlestick removed. It is a church led by terribly unregenerate men, who love power and don’t love God. Go to Jerusalem, go to the Eastern bloc countries where it has been for centuries, meet the leaders. They are often very unkind, and very willing to use violence. Go see them in their native countries, where they aren’t pressured into moderation by Protestant or Western thought and culture. You will be shocked that they have the audacity to play Christian.

“Ancient” church -

When we were in language school, it was not the Muslims that were trying to get our activities as Evangelicals limited more strictly.

It was the Eastern Orthodox,

Go figure.

[barnhart]

It's one thing to promote a church that did evil things in the past but does not do evil today. I can see why a person might do this even though it is still very wrong.

It is quite another thing to promote a church that is currently doing evil. There is no excuse for this at all and it is abominable.

I might understand promoting Orthodoxy for other attributes, like scholarship or charity but holding them up as an example of unity while they are killing each other in the name of Jesus is beyond reason.

[RZehr]

And circumcision not analogous, because only boys are circumcised.

I am waiting for the contention that the EO church had not split. They have, and I have examples.

The reason the EO church is attracting some in the west is simply because people don’t have the history of it like they do the Catholic Church.
The EO is filled and over flowing with past and current atrocities, violence, and splits. It is as evil of an organization as Rome. And Valerie, you ought to quit venerating it by referring to it as the “ancient” church. And quit reading their Bible.
They think nothing of killing and hatred and violence and their splits openly utilize all three. It has long since had its candlestick removed. It is a church led by terribly unregenerate men, who love power and don’t love God. Go to Jerusalem, go to the Eastern bloc countries where it has been for centuries, meet the leaders. They are often very unkind, and very willing to use violence. Go see them in their native countries, where they aren’t pressured into moderation by Protestant or Western thought and culture. You will be shocked that they have the audacity to play Christian.

“Ancient” church -

When we were in language school, it was not the Muslims that were trying to get our activities as Evangelicals limited more strictly.

It was the Eastern Orthodox,

Go figure.

That doesn’t surprise me in the least. It’s exactly what I would have predicted. I’ve heard that from other countries.

[Sudsy]

For the record, I never said believers baptism was a later invention. Neither does Rome. Neither does Eastern Orthodox. The Ancient Churches have always believed in both believers baptism of converts, and also, baptizing children and infants of believers. It's not either or- it's been both.

The claim that the Church has always believed in baptizing infants is wholly without proof. There is not one scintilla of evidence within the regularly accepted canon of Scripture to prove that the early Church baptized infants.

The Roman Catholic Church does not practice Believers Baptism. They sometimes baptize believers, but that is not the same as practicing Believers Baptism.

There is also no biblical proof in the 'canon of Scripture' of anyone being baptised in water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There is, however, scriptural evidence that people were baptised in Jesus name. Just saying, various practises have become a norm that are not literally backed up by them occuring in scripture.

Regarding baptism of infants I have often heard this text used - Acts 16:33 - And he took them the same hour of the night and bathed [them because of their bloody] wounds, and he was baptized immediately and all [the members of] his [household]. AMP. Some believe this leaves the door open for children in the household to have been baptised. Pretty weak support in my opinion. However, I believe the baptising of infants was because we are all born sinners and there was a belief that water baptism would keep them out of hell before they became accountable and could make decisions for themselves. Perhaps I got that wrong but that is my understanding of why infants were baptised.