High Demand Religions?

[Judas Maccabeus]

I'm sorry, you really don't have the qualifications to determine what is heresy on those things. It is an opinion not shared by all- actually it wouldn't fall under the category of "heresy" . Since the Apostles taught infant baptism, you cannot know, only speculate. Monasticism is not heresy either-
It doesn't matter what Mennonites opinion of Bercot is ( I was introduced to his books from Amish that recommended his books) this was not a book compiled of his opinions but of the faith passed down by the people that had the deposit of the faith and put the very Scriptures you read, together - if you don't trust them- it's strange.

David Bercot's encyclopedia is not inspired scripture, and he would be extremely concerned if anyone were treating it as such.

I talked to him at KFW once, and he was really a bit put off whe I told him one of my Orthodox friends was using his book to proselytize for Orthodoxy. I suspect if he knew how some people were using it, it would never have seen the light of day.

[Valerie]

1 Timothy 3:15:

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Many people don't accept oral teachings of the Church, however Scripture itself conveys there were oral teachings not written down, (2 Thessalonians 2:15)I can accept that.
I don't think the Church needed people 1500 years later to tell them they knew better- they gave us the Canon of the Scriptures.
However even some Protestant churches believe in the Apostolic teaching of infant baptism, using the same Scriptures do it is hardly heretical.

Everywhere, East or West, the Apostles started Churches, infants and children of Believers and converts to the faith were baptized

[MaxPC]

I find it interesting the differences in Bible comprehension and interpretation among various faith groups.

Luke 18:15–16 tells us that “they were bringing even infants” to Jesus; and he himself related this to the kingdom of God: “Let the children come to me . . . for to such belongs the kingdom of God.”

The RCC cites these verses to allow infants to receive the Rite of Baptism. Additionally the Early Church Fathers cite in their writings the administration of the Rite of Baptism to infants and children. A partial list of quotes can be read here.

How do the various Anabaptist groups interpret these Bible verses? I am only interested in how Anabaptist groups cite their Baptismal theology from the Bible. I am not interested in slander and denominational grudges.

[Josh]

I find it interesting the differences in Bible comprehension and interpretation among various faith groups.

Luke 18:15–16 tells us that “they were bringing even infants” to Jesus; and he himself related this to the kingdom of God: “Let the children come to me . . . for to such belongs the kingdom of God.”

The RCC cites these verses to allow infants to receive the Rite of Baptism. Additionally the Early Church Fathers cite in their writings the administration of the Rite of Baptism to infants and children. A partial list of quotes can be read here.

How do the various Anabaptist groups interpret these Bible verses? I am only interested in how Anabaptist groups cite their Baptismal theology from the Bible. I am not interested in slander and denominational grudges.

We interpret them exactly as they read.

People brought children and babies to Jesus.

It never says Jesus baptised them.

[Judas Maccabeus]

I find it interesting the differences in Bible comprehension and interpretation among various faith groups.

Luke 18:15–16 tells us that “they were bringing even infants” to Jesus; and he himself related this to the kingdom of God: “Let the children come to me . . . for to such belongs the kingdom of God.”

The RCC cites these verses to allow infants to receive the Rite of Baptism. Additionally the Early Church Fathers cite in their writings the administration of the Rite of Baptism to infants and children. A partial list of quotes can be read here.

How do the various Anabaptist groups interpret these Bible verses? I am only interested in how Anabaptist groups cite their Baptismal theology from the Bible. I am not interested in slander and denominational grudges.

Simply what the Bible actually says, nothing more. There is no case where the scriptural narrative clearly gives an example of infant baptism. The Matthew 28 19&20 instructions clearly state that the subjects of baptism are to be disciples of faith. No one has expressed it more clearly than one of our earliest leaders;

“ The quick-witted Hubmaier responded sarcastically: “With that it is not written explicitly, do not baptize them, to this I answer, can I also baptize my dog and my donkey … take infants to the Lord’s supper … sell the mass as a sacrifice, for [the Bible] does not prohibit anywhere with explicit words that we do these things? Realize what a nice double potpourri we would set up again if it were acceptable to joggle outside the word of God in those matters which concern God and the souls.”

Baptizing an infant makes as much sense Biblically as baptizing your dog.

Why do you keep asking these same questions over and over? Are you expecting a different answer? Remember, you are on a Mennonite forum. Our doctrinal position it that infant baptism is papist nonsense.

[Ken]

I find it interesting the differences in Bible comprehension and interpretation among various faith groups.

Luke 18:15–16 tells us that “they were bringing even infants” to Jesus; and he himself related this to the kingdom of God: “Let the children come to me . . . for to such belongs the kingdom of God.”

The RCC cites these verses to allow infants to receive the Rite of Baptism. Additionally the Early Church Fathers cite in their writings the administration of the Rite of Baptism to infants and children. A partial list of quotes can be read here.

How do the various Anabaptist groups interpret these Bible verses? I am only interested in how Anabaptist groups cite their Baptismal theology from the Bible. I am not interested in slander and denominational grudges.

Simply what the Bible actually says, nothing more. There is no case where the scriptural narrative clearly gives an example of infant baptism. The Matthew 28 19&20 instructions clearly state that the subjects of baptism are to be disciples of faith. No one has expressed it more clearly than one of our earliest leaders;

“ The quick-witted Hubmaier responded sarcastically: “With that it is not written explicitly, do not baptize them, to this I answer, can I also baptize my dog and my donkey … take infants to the Lord’s supper … sell the mass as a sacrifice, for [the Bible] does not prohibit anywhere with explicit words that we do these things? Realize what a nice double potpourri we would set up again if it were acceptable to joggle outside the word of God in those matters which concern God and the souls.”

Baptizing an infant makes as much sense Biblically as baptizing your dog.

Why do you keep asking these same questions over and over? Are you expecting a different answer? Remember, you are on a Mennonite forum. Our doctrinal position it that infant baptism is papist nonsense.

If you are constructing a world in which the church and state are one, and the expectation is that everyone is Christian because Europe is "Christendom" then infant baptism makes perfect sense. Of course every citizen of medieval France or Italy will be Catholic because there is nothing else but heresy. So you baptize infants. Catholics don't follow the doctrine of infant baptism because they gave an honest reading of Luke 18 and reached that conclusion. Rather, they do infant baptism because of 2000 years of church history, during much of which the church and state were inextricably intertwined and Catholicism was the only faith allowed.

On the other hand, if you are constructing a world in which faith matters, and Christianity is a separate sphere from the state then believers baptism makes perfect sense. That is the world of the reformation and early Anabaptists.

[MaxPC]

If you are constructing a world in which the church and state are one, and the expectation is that everyone is Christian because Europe is "Christendom" then infant baptism makes perfect sense. Of course every citizen of medieval France or Italy will be Catholic because there is nothing else but heresy. So you baptize infants. Catholics don't follow the doctrine of infant baptism because they gave an honest reading of Luke 18 and reached that conclusion. Rather, they do infant baptism because of 2000 years of church history, during much of which the church and state were inextricably intertwined and Catholicism was the only faith allowed.

PSA for Ken: In the first 400 years of Christianity, Catholics were persecuted with death sentences by the state. The Early Church Fathers also baptised infants during those centuries as noted in their writings and readings of Scripture (see the link). As a persecuted minority, this was not a political theocratic maneuver to perpetuate a theocracy as Christians had no political power. Rather it was a matter of belief in the graces imparted by the Sacrament of Baptism and an acknowledgement that due to the persecutions and high infant mortality rates, their children may not live to see the age of reason.
PSA finished. If you have further questions about the RCC, Robert created a category for that on this forum here.

My query is not about the Catholic practice. It is a query as to how the variety of actively practicing Anabaptists interpret the Scripture and Early Church Fathers.

[Soloist]

My query is not about the Catholic practice. It is a query as to how the variety of actively practicing Anabaptists interpret the Scripture and Early Church Fathers.

That was answered. As for the early church fathers, they were falible men and while we might read them, they don’t pass the level of commentary.

The “Ana”Baptists are 100% united on infant baptism being heresy.

[Valerie]

I find it interesting the differences in Bible comprehension and interpretation among various faith groups.

Luke 18:15–16 tells us that “they were bringing even infants” to Jesus; and he himself related this to the kingdom of God: “Let the children come to me . . . for to such belongs the kingdom of God.”

The RCC cites these verses to allow infants to receive the Rite of Baptism. Additionally the Early Church Fathers cite in their writings the administration of the Rite of Baptism to infants and children. A partial list of quotes can be read here.

How do the various Anabaptist groups interpret these Bible verses? I am only interested in how Anabaptist groups cite their Baptismal theology from the Bible. I am not interested in slander and denominational grudges.

We interpret them exactly as they read.

People brought children and babies to Jesus.

It never says Jesus baptised them.

Jesus didn't baptize anyone.
All say they interpret as they read but draw different conclusions.

I trust those that were taught by the Apostles and don't consider them liars.
I trust that the Holy Spirit was guiding the Church as Jesus said He would, and that this same early Church comprised the Canon of Scriptures.
I believe the Scripture says the church is the pillar and ground of the truth not apart from Scripture, but Scripture truly states there were both oral and written teachings.
I believe Jesus when He said the falling away of the faith once delivered to the saints is just as he prophesied- at the END before His second coming, and not as some imply here, that the falling away happened in the beginning, which is not Scriptural. These should be obvious unless we don't want them to be.

[Valerie]

I'm sorry, you really don't have the qualifications to determine what is heresy on those things. It is an opinion not shared by all- actually it wouldn't fall under the category of "heresy" . Since the Apostles taught infant baptism, you cannot know, only speculate. Monasticism is not heresy either-
It doesn't matter what Mennonites opinion of Bercot is ( I was introduced to his books from Amish that recommended his books) this was not a book compiled of his opinions but of the faith passed down by the people that had the deposit of the faith and put the very Scriptures you read, together - if you don't trust them- it's strange.

David Bercot's encyclopedia is not inspired scripture, and he would be extremely concerned if anyone were treating it as such.

I am not treating it as inspired Scripture. It is a compilation of how the Church believed about an abundance of topics.

The Church was never Sola Scriptura, because Scripture states its teachings were both oral AND written down. Oral was passed down. Jesus did not start His Church with a manuscript. He breathed the Holy Spirit into His disciples who then started Churches in every city- (Hey! Mrbilliam is right, taking the Gospel to every city was the norm, and should be)