OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 16, 2014, 11:35:08 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Believer's Baptism  (Read 50606 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,880



« Reply #270 on: May 09, 2011, 12:53:36 PM »

This is the point where they can say "It's a mystery!"  laugh
Logged
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,368


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #271 on: May 09, 2011, 03:47:29 PM »

And since we're raising the subject of completely unanswered responses, what about the biblical case for paedofaith?

The NT explicitly teaches believer's baptism... Clearly then infants are excepted...
Forgive me if some of this has been said -long thread!

The middle (hidden) premise above is "infants cannot have faith"; however Luther (and I believe also Calvin) regarded infants as having a kind of "faith."

Some passages cited in favor of this thesis include Psalm 8:2 ("Out of the mouths of babes and nursing infants you have perfected praise"; quoted by Jesus in Matt 21:16) and Luke 1:15b, 41: "He [John the Baptist] will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb..."; "...and it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit." It is argued that even before birth in this instance some kind of faith/cognizance would have to be present for the unborn John to have reacted joyously to the presence of Mary, then pregnant with the Maker of the starfields, and that even a babe in the womb can receive grace is evident from Lk 1:15. Other commonly cited examples are found here. Some Lutherans will object to the baptism of John example as playing a part in their defense of infant baptism in that they hold prior faith, even mentioned as an alternative possibility, is not the best way to represent the Lutheran perspective although it is commonly cited by other Lutheran and many Catholic writers.

I think the common hidden assumption which would balk at the above passages is tied to the presumption that faith *must* be correlated with propositional information in every case, a broad debate in and of itself with examples such as the faith of the OT prostitute Rahab typically being called into court. I will leave the details aside and simply mention it in passing here as it will doubtless come to the reader's mind. But the scripture assigning faith to infants seems to clearly break the necessity of such a connection between faith and propositional connection as many see it. This is not to say propositional knowledge is irrelevant to faith, for once it begins to factor in we realize it becomes inescapable as it constitutes our being in the world one way or another; ideas do have consequences, and they are at least in scripture dialectically relatable to faith, not strictly prior or consequential. But they are arguably never the primary thing; encountering God in the manner he has laid down for us -not merely as a manner, but as Energy- arguably is, e.g. in the askesis of prayer, in the Eucharist, and so on.

Of course paedofaith does not necessarily entail paedobaptism. The biblical evidence considered alone (in a sort of artificial vaccuum) has been deemed ambiguous either way by some very good scholars. However if the evidence can be deemed ambiguous and interpreted in different ways, what determines which choice is individually affirmed? Tradition, tacitly or explicitly, plays a role in every theological trajectory within Christendom whether this is recognized or not. It often goes unrecognized by Protestants on a sort of outmoded hermeneutic characteristic of outmoded Enlightenment foundationalism, and indeed supposing doctrines can be "proved by the scripture" like this one, when even within Protestantism there are strong proponents of every position at the highest level of academic theological and exegetical competence, seems rather dubious IMHO, else why has the debate continued for so many centuries after the Reformation? Neither does sola scriptura avoid extra biblical information in terms of the vast studies about the philological historiography of the biblical languages which look beyond the scriptures themselves to, yes, culture and tradition, the endless attention to backgrounds in ancient Judaism, historical, liturgical, rhetorical, and other sitz im leben, and on and on, and yet a giant wall is put up by some Protestants when it comes to the early fathers (though admittedly all do not do this -I never did before becoming Orthodox and essentially considered myself paleo-orthodox for quite some time before personally making the move to Orthodoxy- but many certainly do) even when certain theological points, like the belief in the possibility of apostasy and so on, were universally held with no exceptions whatsoever in every major geographic region where early Christianity spread from the earliest attested dates, and among those for whom Koine Greek was a mother tongue to boot, and among those who had direct lines of descent among their revered teachers to the apostles themselves.

Logged

Silly Stars
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,834


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #272 on: May 16, 2011, 09:49:54 AM »

I'm a bit out of touch, having been away from home for a while, and I am not minded to trawl through all the longish posts that have appeared in that time. Could we possibly agree on two matters: (1) that the early Christians required both faith and baptism for a full Christianity, and (2) that it is not in itself wrong to baptise a person after he comes to faith? You require faith in Jesus Christ to follow baptism (except of course of older converts from Islam or wherever); we require faith to precede baptism. Even if, therefore, you are right to baptise infants, it does not make us wrong to baptise believers.

The only baptism we as Baptists see specifically mentioned in scripture is that of people when they come to faith. Therefore, it is what we practise. I do not see how we can be wrong to do so.

Seeing also that God has abundantly blessed multitudes of pædobaptists down the centuries, and is still manifestly doing so, I am content to leave the matter of your practice with you and God. For me, my conscience has allowed me to baptise only those who profess faith that Jesus is Lord.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2011, 09:51:47 AM by David Young » Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,273


WWW
« Reply #273 on: May 16, 2011, 10:02:51 AM »

Seeing also that God has abundantly blessed multitudes of pædobaptists down the centuries, and is still manifestly doing so, I am content to leave the matter of your practice with you and God. For me, my conscience has allowed me to baptise only those who profess faith that Jesus is Lord.

The Orthodox do not base faith practices solely on an individual's conscience.  Take the example of children born out of wedlock between an Orthodox partner and a non-Orthodox partner - some Orthodox Priests, regrettably, refused to baptize the children of such a relationship.  Today, a vast majority of Orthodox Priests, save for ultra-conservative types, would baptize children born out of wedlock largely as a function of economia (Economy).  After all, should the child be held responsible for the sins of the parents, even if the parents are unable to commit raising the children as Orthodox Christians?   Huh

If a Baptist couple comes to you asking to baptize their child born out of wedlock, how would your "conscience" prevent you from Baptizing the child regardless if the family continues on as Baptists?
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,880



« Reply #274 on: May 16, 2011, 11:53:13 AM »

If a Baptist couple comes to you asking to baptize their child born out of wedlock, how would your "conscience" prevent you from Baptizing the child regardless if the family continues on as Baptists?

This makes me think you don't really understand Baptists very much.
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,273


WWW
« Reply #275 on: May 16, 2011, 02:56:10 PM »

If a Baptist couple comes to you asking to baptize their child born out of wedlock, how would your "conscience" prevent you from Baptizing the child regardless if the family continues on as Baptists?

This makes me think you don't really understand Baptists very much.

I was responding to the "in conscience" part of David Young's post.  If I have misinterpreted what Baptists believe and practice, that is a different matter.   Wink
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,798


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #276 on: May 16, 2011, 03:06:41 PM »

I'm a bit out of touch, having been away from home for a while, and I am not minded to trawl through all the longish posts that have appeared in that time. Could we possibly agree on two matters: (1) that the early Christians required both faith and baptism for a full Christianity, and (2) that it is not in itself wrong to baptise a person after he comes to faith? You require faith in Jesus Christ to follow baptism (except of course of older converts from Islam or wherever); we require faith to precede baptism. Even if, therefore, you are right to baptise infants, it does not make us wrong to baptise believers.

The only baptism we as Baptists see specifically mentioned in scripture is that of people when they come to faith. Therefore, it is what we practise. I do not see how we can be wrong to do so.

Seeing also that God has abundantly blessed multitudes of pædobaptists down the centuries, and is still manifestly doing so, I am content to leave the matter of your practice with you and God. For me, my conscience has allowed me to baptise only those who profess faith that Jesus is Lord.

Adults must make a profession of Faith... Clearly, infants and children were Baptized in the early Church. It would require a change of the Faith of the Apostles to exclude or deny Baptism to a small child. We have already shown you that your conjecture that the Apostles excluded children can't possibly have been the case... Yet, you cling to your opinions.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2011, 03:07:47 PM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Tags: baptism ecclesiology infant baptism 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.062 seconds with 33 queries.