Believer's Baptism

[GreekChef]

This is true... it is only one passage that we are speaking of here.  Even if one does not accept this passage (illogical, but still...), there is so much more evidence yet.  What do you say, Cleopas, to all the other evidence presented here(I'll kindly redirect you to the article I posted above as well, which eloquently and succinctly says what it would take many pages and bumbling paragraphs for me to say)?  May I humbly ask you to respond to the rest?

Sister, I really feel that my replies thus far have (at least in a generic fashion) addressed all such. Albeit, if you will provide a point by point list of specifc brief statements and/or arguments still lacking to which you want me to directly respond, I shall.

Fair enough?

I'm sorry, maybe I missed you addressing the following points:

-the translation of the word "household" as used in the original Greek and the Hebrew (as seen in the OT) to mean the entire family-- men, women, children, infants-- the original Greek word has ALWAYS been used to include infants, and there has never been another usage
-all of the OTHER households that were baptized (were they ALL childless?  doubtful, at best)
-The fact that older children were NEVER recorded as being baptized, nor is there any record of the adult baptism of a Christian child, nor is there any record of an "age of accountability" when a child is old enough to make that decision, nor is there any hint whatsoever of children being in any kind of suspended state of salvation before they reach said age
-The saving power of Christ's presence in Holy Baptism (too long a point to explain here, it can be found in the article I posted above)
-The Old Testament symbols of Salvation and Baptism include infants (such as circumcision-- again, can be read above)
-Faith as relationship of love and trust not limited to the mind-- The OT and NT examples of infants recognizing salvation and having faith
-The fact that the command of "believer's baptism" was one intended for adults, because the Bible was not written for infants- and the distinction between adult believers and infant- one needs to repent, the other does not (again, can be read above)
-The fact that "infant baptism" was probably not recorded because the Gospel writers didn't see a need- it was rather obvious
-The entire LIST of questions that are put forward in the second half of the article posted above (I'm not going to retype here, even though I've already been redundant by typing all the other points)

Maybe I missed your answers to all of those facts and questions.  If so, I apologize and ask you to please point me to them.  But considering all the reasons and evidence we have put forward, you can hardly expect us to entertain your notion that infant baptism is wrong (based on "it says believe!") until you disprove each reason and each piece of evidence, answer each question and provide proof for those answers.  Again, I ask kindly and sincerely.  I'm sure there must be answers.  You hardly strike me as the kind of person to have such conviction of faith without having thought out the reasons.  I am quite interested to hear your thoughts on all of the above (sincerely).  The list I gave here is basically a point by point summary of the article I posted toward the beginning of the thread.  I'll ask you to refer to it for more details (including Scriptural references).

BTW just FYI, personally, when I post articles and quotes like that, it is not because I am trying to provoke or to dodge questions or anything.  It is because whoever wrote the article says exactly what I would like to say clearly and succinctly.  I figure it's better to just post the article (and reference it, of course) than to try and say the same things, as we know it can take me a long time to say what they can say quite fast.  I do it simply to not waste others' time.  I apologize if people don't like it when I post articles.  I rather enjoyed that particular one, though.

In Christ,
Presbytera Mari

[David Young]

I would like to humbly ask David Young and Cleopas to comment

I shall. But I'm still grappling with Ignatius and Justin Martyr on the Eucharist, and reading up on the development of Tradition in the early church!

For the record, my mother was Anglican and my father Methodist, and they had me christened in the Anglican church in case I myself wanted to get confirmed later in life, though they attended the Methodist church. I was sent to Methodist Sunday School, and started attending church when I was about 11. (I disliked Sunday School and agreed to attend church with my father instead.) I came to faith within Methodism at the age of about 15 (unimaginably long ago now), but when I was 19 and was at university I came to the conviction from scripture that baptism was a rite only for believers. One verse particularly fixed itself on my mind: "John was baptising at Enon, because there was much water there." So I cast around for the next church holding a baptismal service in Cambridge, and explained that I wanted to be baptised to confess my faith in the biblical way, but did not wish to join their church. So I was baptised at a Brethren assembly in 1966. Some months later I did transfer to the Baptists, and there I am today.

As I have written in a different thread on a different subject, there are two separate questions that warrant discussion, and ought not to be confused. Regarding baptism they are:

1) the mode of baptism and its proper subjects

2) the meaning of baptism: does it have regenerating power, or is it a sign of an inward spiritual work that has already taken place? That is, does it effect the work, or does it betoken it?

I may take a few days to get on to this: as I say, Tradition, sola scriptura and the Eucharist are currently engaging my attention.

[ialmisry]

Yes, I've noticed that we haven't gotten an answer on the authority of the Pharisess, the difference of the Baptism of John, baptism being the cause and not of the result of the forgiveness of sins, etc.

I've already stated my position on such things. I would merely be restating them. Simply put...
My authority to baptize comes from heaven, from the Lord Himself.

So you say.  So Joseph Smith Jr. said too.

Again, unless you are going to argue a) that you have restored baptism or b) the non-baptized can baptize, and related to that c) no authority needs to be given to baptize, you have a problem.  Now, although the last one might seem attractive, there's the problem that we see the Christ commissioning his disciples "he who receives you receives Me....he who rejects you rejects Me and Him who sent me" (St. John recording that the disciples but not Christ baptized) in the Gospels, we see no one doing much of anything without a laying on of hands (note that when St. Paul is called by God Himself during liturgy, the hands are still laid on him), St. Paul warns Timothy and Titus to appoint the hierarchy in the Churches, not to mention the warning in Hebrews "no man takes this honor on himself," well Solo Scriptura is going to find it less than appealing.

[PeterTheAleut]

Yes, I've noticed that we haven't gotten an answer on the authority of the Pharisess, the difference of the Baptism of John, baptism being the cause and not of the result of the forgiveness of sins, etc.

I've already stated my position on such things. I would merely be restating them. Simply put...
My authority to baptize comes from heaven, from the Lord Himself.

So you say.  So Joseph Smith Jr. said too.

Again, unless you are going to argue a) that you have restored baptism or b) the non-baptized can baptize, and related to that c) no authority needs to be given to baptize, you have a problem.  Now, although the last one might seem attractive, there's the problem that we see the Christ commissioning his disciples "he who receives you receives Me....he who rejects you rejects Me and Him who sent me" (St. John recording that the disciples but not Christ baptized) in the Gospels, we see no one doing much of anything without a laying on of hands (note that when St. Paul is called by God Himself during liturgy, the hands are still laid on him), St. Paul warns Timothy and Titus to appoint the hierarchy in the Churches, not to mention the warning in Hebrews "no man takes this honor on himself," well Solo Scriptura is going to find it less than appealing.

To those who would take it upon themselves to baptize as though the authority were granted them directly from heaven above, I offer the following:

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution  of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
St. Ignatius of Antioch: Epistle to the Smyrnæans, Chapter 8  < http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.vii.viii.html >

For as many as are of Christ are also with the bishop; but as many as fall away from him, and embrace communion with the accursed, these shall be cut off along with them. For they are not Christ’s husbandry, but the seed of the enemy, from whom may you ever be delivered by the prayers of the shepherd, that most faithful and gentle shepherd who presides over you.
St. Ignatius of Antioch: Epistle to the Philadelphians, Chapter 3  < http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.vi.iii.html >

It seems to me that one of the earliest Church Fathers, a disciple of the beloved apostle John himself, would disagree with your (Cleopas's) claim to have authority directly from God to baptize.  Apart from the local orthodox bishop, you have no authority to baptize, for this authority, coming as it does FROM Christ, comes only THROUGH the Church.  To say otherwise is to mark yourself as a schismatic.

[c38]

Cleopas

No one has mentioned so far that sacraments are signs of God’s covenant with humanity. Take it or leave it God is offering up His Son for forgiveness and eternal life. That’s what it means to be a covenant; it’s a unilateral arrangement on God’s part, and we are the recipients. What does it matter if I understand this mystery a little, completely, or not at all? In truth, we grasp a bit more with each passing day. “Baptism” has never been a discernable event which happens on a particular day at some particular hour in a particular parish. We drown and re-emerge from the waters daily.

We like to call ourselves witnesses, but how could this be? I wasn’t there when Jesus was nailed to the cross, and I didn’t see him rise up 3 days later. But I have taken this on faith, and as a result I can face things that would otherwise terrify me. Do you listen closely to some of the stories people have to say? One man remarks, “this is killing me”. Another describes, “the black hole of my life”. That’s our baptism calling us. The natural reaction to “a black hole” is to turn and run, and that’s what we generally like to do. Christianity is describing something counter intuitive. There is life in that black hole; you can go into it and emerge safely on the other side. We die and are reborn daily when we believe Jesus did it first for us. And why are Christians so morbid and fixated on death? Well, why does a swimmer jump into the pool each day and practice swimming before heading off to the Olympics? To get really good at it I suppose. Christians are champions at dying and rising up again; and one day it’s going to happen for real.
 
I’m trying to shake lose any materialistic notion of baptism. Look at how all the other sacraments work. Is marriage a discrete event taking place in church? Is the sacrament of priesthood a single moment? Lived-sacraments have no beginning or end, no boarder, only a center. One analogy I recall is that of a mountain range. This mountain range had 7 high points or peaks. But take a few steps down from the summit; isn’t this still “mountain”, and still with a great view? And these mountains are all joined one to the other. So it is with sacraments, a Christian's life is a sacrament.

[LBK]

No one has mentioned so far that sacraments are signs of God’s covenant with humanity.

Excuse me, but circumcision for the Hebrews was the sign of God's covenant with His chosen people. With the coming of God Incarnate, Him being the completion and fulfilment of the old Law, baptism is the NT equivalent and fulfilment of OT circumcision. All who are baptised into Christ have put on Christ. Alleluia.

[Cleopas]

I'm sorry, maybe I missed you addressing the following points:

I did not address them pont by point, no. I did feel like my replies in general gave adequate insight into my difference with such thoughts. That is what I meant by "generic" responses.

-the translation of the word "household" as used in the original Greek and the Hebrew (as seen in the OT) to mean the entire family-- men, women, children, infants-- the original Greek word has ALWAYS been used to include infants, and there has never been another usage

In esscence the term would apply to any in a given household. Thus, generally speaking, it coud include infants IF they were present in the home. However, to substantiate that one must be able to PROVE infants were in fact present. Besides, the context being that of baptism, which is directly connected Scripturally with a personal declaration of faith in Christ, limits the application of household here to only those in a given household who were personally capable of making such a declaration. In short -- believer's baptism provides' the context for understanding the application of household. To reason otherwise is to undo the statment of Scripture by adding to and broadening it. Indeed, contradicting it.

-all of the OTHER households that were baptized (were they ALL childless?  doubtful, at best)

I did not say children should never be baptized. In only insist that they be of sufficient mental ability to make a personal and true declaration of faith in Christ.

-The fact that older children were NEVER recorded as being baptized, nor is there any record of the adult baptism of a Christian child, nor is there any record of an "age of accountability" when a child is old enough to make that decision, nor is there any hint whatsoever of children being in any kind of suspended state of salvation before they reach said age

The age need not be given of baptismal candidates since due to the fact that baptism is expressly stated to be for believers the practice assumes each candidate of sufficient "age" able to believe for themselves -- child or no.

-The saving power of Christ's presence in Holy Baptism (too long a point to explain here, it can be found in the article I posted above)

Disagree with the premise. Can Christ save in or through baptism? I suppose. Can and does Christ save prior to baptism? Yep. So, does salvation wait for baptism? Nope.
Hence baptism is more a corollary of salvation, a witness to the inner work of saving grace and faith already present in those who have believed.

-The Old Testament symbols of Salvation and Baptism include infants (such as circumcision-- again, can be read above)

Indeed! Like as they were those born of the flesh, believers are those born again of the Spirit.
Their circumscision was literal and pertained to literal birth (infants, etc.) -- ours is metaphorical, spiritual and pertains only to those who have spiritually been reborn. You stumble here with Nicodemus. As paul expressed to the Cornthians concerning "birth from the grave" so to we can discern application here... There is a natural and there is a spiritual. Albeit that which is spiritual is not first, but that which is natural. Afterward that which is spiritual. Hence, only spiritual infants have a right to the waters of baptism.

-Faith as relationship of love and trust not limited to the mind-- The OT and NT examples of infants recognizing salvation and having faith

I'm sorry, but you'll have to show me explicit Scriptural explanation that infants either recognized salvation or personally placed faith in salvation while in infancy. I see where God recognized infants, and graced them with divine purpose even form the womb. I see where confirmation of that purpose may be demonstrated by the infant, even pre-born, as in the case of John the baptist. But that is a far cry from infants actually understanding and applying saving faith in the person and work of Christ.

Now, perhaps if they came from the womb actually speaking intelligently I would be inclined to consider such an exaggeration.

-The fact that the command of "believer's baptism" was one intended for adults, because the Bible was not written for infants- and the distinction between adult believers and infant- one needs to repent, the other does not (again, can be read above)

And yet, by defintion, one CANNOT be a believer if they have not repented!

-The fact that "infant baptism" was probably not recorded because the Gospel writers didn't see a need- it was rather obvious

Arguing from silence here. If you could give me a strong enough reason to entertain the Biblical validity for infant baptism (such as showing infants having sufficient reason and mental faculty to accept and place faith in Christ as Lord and Savior) then I might would entertain the notion as haing a semb lance of relevance. Otherwise, well, I cannot.

-The entire LIST of questions that are put forward in the second half of the article posted above (I'm not going to retype here, even though I've already been redundant by typing all the other points)

I appreciate the referece to the article. I am sure I wil enjoy perusing it, and others in the future. However, I did not come here to dilaog with an article, but with other particpants. Simply stated, I want to know what you think in your words, and engage you with mine. I want to interact with you, a being, and not with lifeless articles. Reference them, quote bite size excerpts from them, fine. Otherwise I will probably (as here) just skip right over them and keep on going.

BTW just FYI, personally, when I post articles and quotes like that, it is not because I am trying to provoke or to dodge questions or anything.  It is because whoever wrote the article says exactly what I would like to say clearly and succinctly.  I figure it's better to just post the article (and reference it, of course) than to try and say the same things, as we know it can take me a long time to say what they can say quite fast.  I do it simply to not waste others' time.  I apologize if people don't like it when I post articles.  I rather enjoyed that particular one, though.

I understand, really. However, quotes of that length tend to stifle conversation (IMO). So do original comments and posts normally. But in your case, I have so come to enjoy your written expression of thought, your passion in engaging the subject, not to mention your tact and personability, that I find myself willing, even eager in most cases, to savor YOUR words. I can handle snippets of quotes from others added therewith for taste, but not much else. To use a metaphor that may have meaning to a chef  -- I don't want a warmed over "meal" someone else prepared. I want your own unique fresh presentation of the dish. 

[Cleopas]

Now, although the last one might seem attractive, there's the problem that we see the Christ commissioning his disciples "he who receives you receives Me....he who rejects you rejects Me and Him who sent me" (St. John recording that the disciples but not Christ baptized) in the Gospels

But I have received them, in as much as by their word (the NT) I have believed on the Lord. By that same word I have received Apostolic affirmation of divine authorization to baptize. Simply put, the Lord called me to be His minister, and he has authorized me to baptize. If you really have an issue with that, then I can't really help you. Take it up with Him.

we see no one doing much of anything without a laying on of hands (note that when St. Paul is called by God Himself during liturgy, the hands are still laid on him), St. Paul warns Timothy and Titus to appoint the hierarchy in the Churches, not to mention the warning in Hebrews "no man takes this honor on himself," well Solo Scriptura is going to find it less than appealing.

Thank God for Paul -- the Apostle not ordained of other Apostles. The one born out of due season, and giving precedent to the Lord Himself calling, authorizing, and ordaining ANY He sees fit to the work of His ministry, through His Spirit even apart from "official" recognition of ecclesiastical bodies who assume the Spirirt must work through them and their channels like the Jews of old in the case of both Christ and His forerunner. The head of the church can still act without permission from His recognized subjects ya know. 

[ialmisry]

Now, although the last one might seem attractive, there's the problem that we see the Christ commissioning his disciples "he who receives you receives Me....he who rejects you rejects Me and Him who sent me" (St. John recording that the disciples but not Christ baptized) in the Gospels

But I have received them, in as much as by their word (the NT) I have believed on the Lord. By that same word I have received Apostolic affirmation of divine authorization to baptize. Simply put, the Lord called me to be His minister, and he has authorized me to baptize. If you really have an issue with that, then I can't really help you. Take it up with Him.

we see no one doing much of anything without a laying on of hands (note that when St. Paul is called by God Himself during liturgy, the hands are still laid on him), St. Paul warns Timothy and Titus to appoint the hierarchy in the Churches, not to mention the warning in Hebrews "no man takes this honor on himself," well Solo Scriptura is going to find it less than appealing.

Thank God for Paul -- the Apostle not ordained of other Apostles.

Which Paul would that be? 'cuz the St. Paul the Apostle we know was ordained by the Church, recognized the authority of Her hierarchy, and perpetuated that authority:

Acts 9:3 As he was traveling, it happened that he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; 4 and he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” 5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?” And He said, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, 6 but get up and enter the city, and it will be told you what you must do.” 7 The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. 8 Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; and leading him by the hand, they brought him into Damascus. 9 And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank.
10 Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias; and the Lord said to him in a vision, “Ananias.” And he said, “Here I am, Lord.” 11 And the Lord said to him, “Get up and go to the street called Straight, and inquire at the house of Judas for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying, 12 and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him, so that he might regain his sight.” 13 But Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he did to Your saints at Jerusalem; 14 and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on Your name.” 15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; 16 for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake.” 17 So Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized  Now for several days he was with the disciples who were at Damascus, 20 and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “He is the Son of God.” 21 All those hearing him continued to be amazed, and were saying, “Is this not he who in Jerusalem destroyed those who called on this name, and who had come here for the purpose of bringing them bound before the chief priests?” 22 But Saul kept increasing in strength and confounding the Jews who lived at Damascus by proving that this Jesus is the Christ.  23 When many days had elapsed, the Jews plotted together to do away with him, 24 but their plot became known to Saul. They were also watching the gates day and night so that they might put him to death; 25 but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a large basket.
26 When he came to Jerusalem, he was trying to associate with the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took hold of him and brought him to the apostles and described to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had talked to him, and how at Damascus he had spoken out boldly in the name of Jesus. 28 And he was with them, moving about freely in Jerusalem, speaking out boldly in the name of the Lord. 29 And he was talking and arguing with the Hellenistic Jews; but they were attempting to put him to death. 30 But when the brethren learned of it, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him away to Tarsus...


Acts 10:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47 “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” 48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.  Acts 11:1 Now the apostles and the brethren who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2 And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those who were circumcised took issue with him, 3 saying, “You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them.” 4 But Peter began speaking and proceeded to explain to them in orderly sequence,....15 “And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning. 16 “And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 “Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” 18 When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.”

19 So then those who were scattered because of the persecution that occurred in connection with Stephen made their way to Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except to Jews alone. 20 But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who came to Antioch and began speaking to the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus. 21 And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a large number who believed turned to the Lord. 22 The news about them reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas off to Antioch. 23 Then when he arrived and witnessed the grace of God, he rejoiced and began to encourage them all with resolute heart to remain true to the Lord; 24 for he was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And considerable numbers were brought to the Lord. 25 And he left for Tarsus to look for Saul; 26 and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.  27 Now at this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. 28 One of them named Agabus stood up and began to indicate by the Spirit that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world. And this took place in the reign of Claudius. 29 And in the proportion that any of the disciples had means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the relief of the brethren living in Judea. 30 And this they did, sending it in charge [lit. by the hand of] of Barnabas and Saul to the elders [lit. presbyters/priests].

Acts 12:1 Now about that time Herod the king laid hands on some who belonged to the church in order to mistreat them. 2 And he had James the brother of John put to death with a sword. 3 When he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to arrest Peter also. Now it was during the days of Unleavened Bread....4 When he had seized him, he put him in prison, delivering him to four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending after the Passover to bring him out before the people. 5 So Peter was kept in the prison, but prayer for him was being made fervently by the church to God. 6 On the very night when Herod was about to bring him forward, Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains, and guards in front of the door were watching over the prison. 7 And behold, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared and a light shone in the cell; and he struck Peter’s side and woke him up, saying, “Get up quickly.” And his chains fell off his hands...11 When Peter came to himself, he said, “Now I know for sure that the Lord has sent forth His angel and rescued me from the hand of Herod and from all that the Jewish people were expecting.” 12 And when he realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John who was also called Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying... 17 But motioning to them with his hand to be silent, he described to them how the Lord had led him out of the prison. And he said, “Report these things to James and the brethren.” Then he left and went to another place...25 And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their mission, taking along with them John, who was also called Mark

Acts 13:1 Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers: Barnabas, and Simeon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 While they were ministering [lit: celebrating the Liturgy] to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
4 So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit...

Acts 14:23 When they had appointed elders[lit. presbyters/priests for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed. 24 They passed through Pisidia and came into Pamphylia. 25 When they had spoken the word in Perga, they went down to Attalia. 26 From there they sailed to Antioch, from which they had been commended to the grace of God for the work that they had accomplished. 27 When they had arrived and gathered the church together, they began to report all things that God had done with them and how He had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles. 28 And they spent a long time with the disciples. 15:1 Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.... 4 When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them...6 The apostles and the elders [presbyters/priests] came together to look into this matter. 7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe...12 All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.  13 After they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, “Brethren, listen to me....19 “Therefore it is my judgment...22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas—Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, 23 and they sent this letter by them,...30 So when they were sent away, they went down to Antioch; and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter. 31 When they had read it, they rejoiced because of its encouragement. 32 Judas and Silas, also being prophets themselves, encouraged and strengthened the brethren with a lengthy message. 33 After they had spent time there, they were sent away from the brethren in peace to those who had sent them out. 34 (But it seemed good to Silas to remain there.) 35 But Paul and Barnabas stayed in Antioch, teaching and preaching with many others also, the word of the Lord. 36 After some days Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us return and visit the brethren in every city in which we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are.”

Acts 19:1 It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. 2 He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.

[sidenote: this shows a) baptism in the name of Jesus is in the triune formula, not literally Jesus' name, b) baptism is connected with the Holy Spirit c) laying on of hands, i.e. chrismation now, is seperate from but linked to baptism, and it is confered by the authority of the Church.  btw, by these verses we know that the laying on of hands in Acts 13 was that of the episcopacy, cf. Acts 8:16]

Acts 20:17 From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders [lit. presbyters/priests] of the church. 18 And when they had come to him, he said to them,...28 “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers [lit. bishops: from this we know that the references to presbyters/priests were to chorbishops, the early office of auxiliary bishop who functioned as parish priest], to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. [as an aside, St. Paul goes on in verse 35 to quote "the words of the Lord Jesus, that He Himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive," which are not found in the Gospels.  So much for sola scriptura.]...

Acts 21:17 After we arrived in Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 After he had greeted them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; 21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 “What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 “Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. 25 “But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.” 26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them....39 But Paul said, “I am a Jew of Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no insignificant city; and I beg you, allow me to speak to the people.” 40 When he had given him permission, Paul, standing on the stairs, motioned to the people with his hand; and when there was a great hush, he spoke to them in the Hebrew dialect, saying,  Acts 22:1 “Brethren and fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you.”...12 “A certain Ananias, a man who was devout by the standard of the Law, and well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, 13 came to me, and standing near said to me, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight!’ And at that very time I looked up at him. 14 “And he said, ‘The God of our fathers has appointed you to know His will and to see the Righteous One and to hear an utterance from His mouth. 15 ‘For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard. 16 ‘Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.’





 

The one born out of due season, and giving precedent to the Lord Himself calling, authorizing, and ordaining ANY He sees fit to the work of His ministry, through His Spirit even apart from "official" recognition of ecclesiastical bodies who assume the Spirirt must work through them and their channels like the Jews of old in the case of both Christ and His forerunner. The head of the church can still act without permission from His recognized subjects ya know. 

But His subjects cannot.

You seem to be setting Galatins against Acts, but Scripture does not contradict scriputre:

Galatians 1:15 But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased 16 to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, [note: no mention of Ananias] 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.
18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother...2:1 Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. 2 It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.

Btw, it seems the false brethren are the proto-Ebionites.

I have to get the kids ready (and myself) for DL.  Hopefully, Lord willing, I'll be able to return soon and finish.  But in the meantime, I'll summarize with reference to my present parish.  It started as a Bible study at Wheaton College.  Pursuing sola scriptura, they realized finally that the scripture required bishops, so they would have to get them.  But, as Hebrews warns, no man takes this honor on himself, but it is given him, so they had to find those to whom the episcopacy had been given, to whom the Apostles through Paul entrusted the Church in Acts 20, and as Titus had fulfilled their commission to set the Church in order by appointing elders/bishops (lit. presbyters/priests/chorbishops).  In other words, someone who could trace their succession, unbroken, to the Apostles: if they thought starting from scratch would do it, they could have joined the Mormons.  You know, those who gave their "official" recognition to the canon of scripture and transmitted it, recognition you do not recognize but presume to take their Gospel (and as St. Paul warns, there were and are other Gospels: the Ebionites had one for instance).  Or do you have the autographs of Scripture? Or has it been revealed to you a la Joseph Smith (I have always found it more logical to believe the Mormon story than to think, for instance, like a Jehovah's Witness that no one understood that document that they were copying manuscript by manuscript over the centuries.  How can you trust them?  How do you not know that they changed the text to fit their beliefs, as defenders of the Gnostic Gospels?). 

Those ecclesiastical bodies who know the Spirirt works through them and their channels (Christ I know, Paul I known, Peter I know, St. Ignatius of Antioch I know, Patriarch Ignatius IV of Antioch I know, but who are you?).  Those same channels that produced, canonized and preserved the Bible.  Consider the source, if you can't trust them for interpretting it right, why do you trust their, i.e. OUR, text?

So this parish knew they had to go to the Vatican, the Anglicans or the Orthodox (the Lutheran church of Sweden and Finland were options they didn't know about).  Then Anglicans (and Lutherans) by the time came had shown they couldn't preserve Apostolic Christianity, and the Vatican, in contradiction to Scripture and Tradition (which is the same thing), claimed that their bishop was really the only one.  So the parish was receieved into the Orthodox.

Received by that same Church of Antioch where the disciples were first called Chrsitians, where St. Paul was ordained, and where St. Peter's successor still sits on his throne.  Our priest was ordained by a bishop who was born on that street called Straight in Damascus, baptized, like St. Paul, in St. Ananias' house, and ordained in the cathedral on that same street near the gate St. Paul was let down over the wall.  As our priest says, when the bishop lays his hands on you, like they did we see all through Acts, you are only an arms length from an Apostle.

The precedent of St. Paul is to submit the Gospel you preach to those of reputation.  Have you done that?

[Αριστοκλής]

Yes, Saint Paul was uniquely chosen...and accepted as such by the apostles.

[PeterTheAleut]

Acts 13:1 Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers: Barnabas, and Simeon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 While they were ministering [lit: celebrating the Liturgy] to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.

IOW, even St. Paul was ordained for his ministry by the Church manifesting itself in a specific location (i.e., a local church).  Even St. Paul didn't act in any way apart from the established ecclesiastical order.

[Marc1152]

Yes, I've noticed that we haven't gotten an answer on the authority of the Pharisess, the difference of the Baptism of John, baptism being the cause and not of the result of the forgiveness of sins, etc.

I've already stated my position on such things. I would merely be restating them. Simply put...
My authority to baptize comes from heaven, from the Lord Himself.

I'm thinking about making myself the President of the United States..or maybe the mayor of Key West... I love Key West... I claim divine authority to do so. 

[ozgeorge]

Thank God for Paul -- the Apostle not ordained of other Apostles.

Is your avatar a picture of you? Is that a Bible you are holding open? Have you actually read it?

I'm thinking about making myself the President of the United States..or maybe the mayor of Key West... I love Key West... I claim divine authority to do so. 

Sorry, but the US is now a Constitutional Monarchy as I have now claimed the Divine Right of Kings. I'll send you an email when I decide to open your new Parliament.

[Marc1152]

who was born on that street called Straight in Damascus, baptized, like St. Paul, in St. Ananias' house, and ordained in the cathedral on that same street near the gate St. Paul was let down over the wall.  As our priest says, when the bishop lays his hands on you, like they did we see all through Acts, you are only an arms length from an Apostle.


A group of Protestants traveled to Iraq after the fall of Saddam hoping the spread the Gospel there. They came to a village and were surprised to learn that the people living there were Christians. They asked the head man "who was it that converted your family?"..
He hesitated for a moment and then replied: " St. Paul "  

[ozgeorge]

Tangent topic split off and moved here: c38 Says "Abandon Orthodox Doctrine And Just Hug"

[ozgeorge]

I've already stated my position on such things. I would merely be restating them. Simply put...
My authority to baptize comes from heaven, from the Lord Himself.

Given that this was based on your belief that you were imitating St. Paul whom you thought had not been ordained by the Apostles:

Thank God for Paul -- the Apostle not ordained of other Apostles. The one born out of due season, and giving precedent to the Lord Himself calling, authorizing, and ordaining ANY He sees fit to the work of His ministry, through His Spirit even apart from "official" recognition of ecclesiastical bodies who assume the Spirirt must work through them and their channels like the Jews of old in the case of both Christ and His forerunner. The head of the church can still act without permission from His recognized subjects ya know. 

And it has now been shown to you that this is, in fact, erroneous, and that St. Paul did receive chierotonia (Ordination) from the Apostles (see ialmisry's post above), does this change your view in the light of Scripture, or do you still insist you are correct?

[ialmisry]

Now, although the last one might seem attractive, there's the problem that we see the Christ commissioning his disciples "he who receives you receives Me....he who rejects you rejects Me and Him who sent me" (St. John recording that the disciples but not Christ baptized) in the Gospels

But I have received them, in as much as by their word (the NT)

You mean OUR Word.

Your Bible, I take it, has such ascriptions as "The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John."  In reality, what that means is "The Gospels according to what the Orthodox say Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote."

Let me be clear: When St. Paul speaks of another Gospel, he is not only talking about an abstract concept.  There were other gospels.  The Ebionites, whose "fathers" St. Paul is writting against in Galatians, had another gospel.  It seems they took the most Jewish gospel, Matthew, and "purged" it of any reference that could support St. Paul and Gentile Christianity.  Symmachus the Ebionite (late 2nd cent.) even wrote a "refutation" of the canonical, i.e. OUR ORTHODOX, Gospel of Matthew:  (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiae, VI, xvii) "As to these translators it should be stated that Symmachus was an Ebionite. But the heresy of the Ebionites, as it is called, asserts that Christ was the son of Joseph and Mary, considering him a mere man, and insists strongly on keeping the law in a Jewish manner, as we have seen already in this history. Commentaries of Symmachus are still extant in which he appears to support this heresy by attacking the Gospel of Matthew. Origen states that he obtained these and other commentaries of Symmachus on the Scriptures from a certain Juliana, who, he says, received the books by inheritance from Symmachus himself."

"These translators," btw, are those Ebionites and Jews who retranslated the OT, or rather Tanakh, to replace the Septuagint, the translation used by the Apostles and the Church, i.e. the Orthodox Church, they founded.  Said translations were done to favor their theology against ORTHODOX theology.  Hence, no Virgin in Isaiah, hence no Virgin birth.  Now, I take it, your "OT" is really an English translation of the Masoretic Tanakh, a recension also compiled in opposition to the Orthodox OT.  Your problem is that no (never, not a one, none) CHRISTIAN manuscript of the OT is based on the Masoretic text.  Further, all the Greek manuscripts of the Bible, from which you get your NT, all have the Septuagint text.  So why do you accept the NT, and reject the OT?  If the generations of Orthodox copied the wrong OT, why do you think they copied the right NT?

Marcion also produced another "gospel," from the flip side of the Ebionites: he thought the God of the OT was the evil demiurge, and so produced a Lucan text with the references to the OT deleted, and he chucked the whole OT.  Why don't you use his "gospel?"

I could go on with the "Gospel of Thomas," etc., but you get the idea.  At least Pagels admits she is rejecting the authority of Church to make the canon.  If you want a Virgin Birth of the Word in the Flesh, you got to come to us.

I have believed on the Lord.

Romans 10:14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? 15 How will they preach unless they are sent?

Since you won't listen to the Church, where did you hear of Him from?  Who sent them to you?

By that same word

...that you are plagerizing, and violating copyright...

I have received Apostolic affirmation of divine authorization to baptize.

Like Joseph Smith?

Simply put, the Lord called me to be His minister,

Like Joseph Smith?

and he has authorized me to baptize.

Like Joseph Smith?

If you really have an issue with that, then I can't really help you. Take it up with Him.

Him I know, and the Apostles I know, and St. Ignatius of Antioch I know, and Patriarch Ignatius IV of Antioch I know, but who are you?

Look at Acts 19:15 to see about the dangers of acting in His name without proper authority.  He who does not gather, scatters.

[c38]

ialmisry

Acts 19:15 is a great example of Tradition having no authority over the Spirit. Tradition we see in fact withers and cracks without Living Sap to nourish it. Jesus anticipates many coming in His name, even ‘non-apostolic’ healers, and He left these instructions: "leave him alone, anyone who is not against me is for me". Further, "no one can say 'Jesus is Lord', except by the Holy Spirit". That said, we need not believe all spirits who come to us, but should "test the Spirit first" to see if it is indeed the Spirit of Truth. (“Spirit of Truth” is not the same thing as Truth, if this is new to you)

At the moment, I'm not coming to you in the right spirit ialmisry, because your errors are provoking pride. I hope to do better.

[PeterTheAleut]

ialmisry

Acts 19:15 is a great example of Tradition having no authority over the Spirit. Tradition we see in fact withers and cracks without Living Sap to nourish it.

What is this "Spirit" to you that you actually set Tradition against Him?  Are you not aware that Tradition is nothing--cannot even be called Tradition--without the Spirit?  Can you not see that, to the Orthodox mind, Tradition vs. Holy Spirit is a dichotomy that just does not--cannot--exist?

Jesus anticipates many coming in His name, even ‘non-apostolic’ healers, and He left these instructions: "leave him alone, anyone who is not against me is for me". Further, "no one can say 'Jesus is Lord', except by the Holy Spirit". That said, we need not believe all spirits who come to us, but should "test the Spirit first" to see if it is indeed the Spirit of Truth. (“Spirit of Truth” is not the same thing as Truth, if this is new to you)

What is Truth to you?

At the moment, I'm not coming to you in the right spirit ialmisry, because your errors are provoking pride. I hope to do better.

What is Truth that you can actually tell ialmisry he is in error?

[c38]

The "Tradition vs. Holy Spirit ... dichotomy" (or better, complementary pair) is a weak point in iamisry's argument (I just got the name  ). Spirit, and Scripture, seem to tell us to "leave him alone", but Tradition has always permited us to badger him over his authority to baptise.

By the way, read my first comments in this thread and you will know where I'm coming from on baptism. If you want to shut me out of this discussion for good, then refute this ... and demonstrate that you still have baptism.

[LizaSymonenko]

I was told that in case of an emergency and no Orthodox priest is present, that any baptized Orthodox Christian could "baptize" an individual. 

For example, if a woman births a child far, far away...and the child is not well, and is in fact dying, a baptized person could baptize the infant with water and proclaim that this little person was being baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

While this is not the norm, nor "recommended", is it not possible?  Does the Holy Spirit not reside within us after our baptism?

I gave an example of a child (which some say would go to Heaven, either way), but, what if it were an adult who wished to be baptized and due to circumstances was not.  This person finds themself leaving this earth and they wish to be baptized.  For example, a soldier in the field has "found" God and lying wounded wants to be baptized before he dies.  Can a fellow, baptized soldier, baptize him or not?

Hopefully, we won't experience these situations, and hopefully we are all already baptized, however, for the sake of discussion, what can be done for the dying person?

...and plleeeease don't argue.

I wholeheartedly agree that a priest/bishop SHOULD be the one baptizing individuals...no question.  However, in emergency situations...does this rule hold fast?

[Marc1152]

Now, although the last one might seem attractive, there's the problem that we see the Christ commissioning his disciples "he who receives you receives Me....he who rejects you rejects Me and Him who sent me" (St. John recording that the disciples but not Christ baptized) in the Gospels

But I have received them, in as much as by their word (the NT)

You mean OUR Word.

Your Bible, I take it, has such ascriptions as "The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John."  In reality, what that means is "The Gospels according to what the Orthodox say Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote."

Let me be clear: When St. Paul speaks of another Gospel, he is not only talking about an abstract concept.  There were other gospels.  The Ebionites, whose "fathers" St. Paul is writting against in Galatians, had another gospel.  It seems they took the most Jewish gospel, Matthew, and "purged" it of any reference that could support St. Paul and Gentile Christianity.  Symmachus the Ebionite (late 2nd cent.) even wrote a "refutation" of the canonical, i.e. OUR ORTHODOX, Gospel of Matthew:  (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiae, VI, xvii) "As to these translators it should be stated that Symmachus was an Ebionite. But the heresy of the Ebionites, as it is called, asserts that Christ was the son of Joseph and Mary, considering him a mere man, and insists strongly on keeping the law in a Jewish manner, as we have seen already in this history. Commentaries of Symmachus are still extant in which he appears to support this heresy by attacking the Gospel of Matthew. Origen states that he obtained these and other commentaries of Symmachus on the Scriptures from a certain Juliana, who, he says, received the books by inheritance from Symmachus himself."

"These translators," btw, are those Ebionites and Jews who retranslated the OT, or rather Tanakh, to replace the Septuagint, the translation used by the Apostles and the Church, i.e. the Orthodox Church, they founded.  Said translations were done to favor their theology against ORTHODOX theology.  Hence, no Virgin in Isaiah, hence no Virgin birth.  Now, I take it, your "OT" is really an English translation of the Masoretic Tanakh, a recension also compiled in opposition to the Orthodox OT.  Your problem is that no (never, not a one, none) CHRISTIAN manuscript of the OT is based on the Masoretic text.  Further, all the Greek manuscripts of the Bible, from which you get your NT, all have the Septuagint text.  So why do you accept the NT, and reject the OT?  If the generations of Orthodox copied the wrong OT, why do you think they copied the right NT?

Marcion also produced another "gospel," from the flip side of the Ebionites: he thought the God of the OT was the evil demiurge, and so produced a Lucan text with the references to the OT deleted, and he chucked the whole OT.  Why don't you use his "gospel?"

I could go on with the "Gospel of Thomas," etc., but you get the idea.  At least Pagels admits she is rejecting the authority of Church to make the canon.  If you want a Virgin Birth of the Word in the Flesh, you got to come to us.

I have believed on the Lord.

Romans 10:14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? 15 How will they preach unless they are sent?

Since you won't listen to the Church, where did you hear of Him from?  Who sent them to you?

By that same word

...that you are plagerizing, and violating copyright...

I have received Apostolic affirmation of divine authorization to baptize.

Like Joseph Smith?

Simply put, the Lord called me to be His minister,

Like Joseph Smith?

and he has authorized me to baptize.

Like Joseph Smith?

If you really have an issue with that, then I can't really help you. Take it up with Him.

Him I know, and the Apostles I know, and St. Ignatius of Antioch I know, and Patriarch Ignatius IV of Antioch I know, but who are you?

Look at Acts 19:15 to see about the dangers of acting in His name without proper authority.  He who does not gather, scatters.

Bravo !!!  Post of the Month Nomination....

[ialmisry]

I was told that in case of an emergency and no Orthodox priest is present, that any baptized Orthodox Christian could "baptize" an individual. 

For example, if a woman births a child far, far away...and the child is not well, and is in fact dying, a baptized person could baptize the infant with water and proclaim that this little person was being baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

While this is not the norm, nor "recommended", is it not possible?  Does the Holy Spirit not reside within us after our baptism?

I gave an example of a child (which some say would go to Heaven, either way), but, what if it were an adult who wished to be baptized and due to circumstances was not.  This person finds themself leaving this earth and they wish to be baptized.  For example, a soldier in the field has "found" God and lying wounded wants to be baptized before he dies.  Can a fellow, baptized soldier, baptize him or not?

Hopefully, we won't experience these situations, and hopefully we are all already baptized, however, for the sake of discussion, what can be done for the dying person?

...and plleeeease don't argue.

I wholeheartedly agree that a priest/bishop SHOULD be the one baptizing individuals...no question.  However, in emergency situations...does this rule hold fast?

Any baptized Christian can baptize in case of emergency, and certainly a christmated one (which would be the case with all Orthodox).  There is one priest, Christ: the ordained orders (bishop, etc) embody this like a married couple embody the relationship between Christ and the Church, but there is the unordained royal priesthood of all those who have been vested with Christ in baptism.  It is somewhat, but exactly, like the idea that baptism should be done by full immersion, but in case of emergency a priest would do it by pouring.  The problem is that with the Protestants, what should be an emergency exception is becoming the rule.

[GreekChef]

In esscence the term would apply to any in a given household. Thus, generally speaking, it coud include infants IF they were present in the home. However, to substantiate that one must be able to PROVE infants were in fact present. Besides, the context being that of baptism, which is directly connected Scripturally with a personal declaration of faith in Christ, limits the application of household here to only those in a given household who were personally capable of making such a declaration. In short -- believer's baptism provides' the context for understanding the application of household. To reason otherwise is to undo the statment of Scripture by adding to and broadening it. Indeed, contradicting it.

I'm sorry, what is your source for this?  Do you speak Liturgical Greek?  My husband does (fluently, as well as modern Greek-- in fact he has won awards for his translation and is currently consulting on some works that will be coming out of a monastery in Greece in the near future).  The term was used to denote ENTIRE families.  Now no, this doesn't mean that there absolutely WAS an infant or child in every household, but what are the chances that of all the households mentioned, there were NO children?  Slim to none.  We do not need to prove that infants were present.  As the term includes infants, you need to prove that they were NOT present.  You also need to prove that this was not a practice of the NT church. 

The term is not limited by Scripture, YOU are limiting it with YOUR interpretation of Scripture.  You realize that this is going to be a circular argument?  By binding yourself to the exact words of Scripture and refusing to acknowledge any other source (be it a source within the Church or a "secular" historical source), we are going to keep coming around to the same place.  That is, with your reply of "but the Scriptures don't specifically say infants!"

"Believer's Baptism" does not provide the context.  YOU are forcing a context which proves your point.  Not the same thing.

I did not say children should never be baptized. In only insist that they be of sufficient mental ability to make a personal and true declaration of faith in Christ.

Why do you insist this when the Early Church did not?  Just curious.

The age need not be given of baptismal candidates since due to the fact that baptism is expressly stated to be for believers the practice assumes each candidate of sufficient "age" able to believe for themselves -- child or no.

That's funny, I said the age need not be given!  Why?  Because infant baptism was done from the beginning.  It is incumbent upon you to prove that it wasn't. 

Oh, and the other reason is because infants can and do believe.  See below where I discuss my nephew and niece.  Not that they're some paragon of Christianity, and though I may tell you I think they're the smartest kids in the world, I know they're not able to understand God fully (being 3 and 1), but they most definitely love and have faith in Him!  I think their example will do just fine.

-The saving power of Christ's presence in Holy Baptism (too long a point to explain here, it can be found in the article I posted above)

Disagree with the premise. Can Christ save in or through baptism? I suppose. Can and does Christ save prior to baptism? Yep. So, does salvation wait for baptism? Nope.

We are specifically told that baptism is needed for salvation.  Why would that be, if the rite of baptism itself had no saving power?  Romans 6:4 makes it clear:
"Romans 6:4   4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life."
The emphasis is on God and what HE does for us.  This is a fundamental difference between us.  And really, I think we will not be able to come to any kind of meeting of the minds until we agree on this: that Baptism is more than just a commitment we make to God.  It is something GOD does for us.  Baptism bears witness to God's action of choosing us to be members of His body.  Christ was not baptized because He needed to commit Himself to God.  He accomplished seven things by being baptized, not one of which was "to commit Himself to God" or any other such affirmation of His own faith (as stated in the Orthodox Study Bible):
1. He affirmed John the Baptist's Ministry
2. He was revealed by the Father and the Holy Spirit to be the Christ, God's beloved Son
3.  HE IDENTIFIED HIMSELF WITH HIS PEOPLE BY DESCENDING INTO THE WATERS WITH THEM
4. He prefigured His own death, giving baptism its ultimate meaning
5. He entered the waters, sanctifying the water itself (again--- sanctifying matter-- this is what I said in the Eucharist thread)
6. He fulfilled the many types given in the OT, as when Moses led the people from bondage through the red sea, etc.
7. HE OPENED HEAVEN TO A WORLD SEPARATED FROM GOD THROUGH SIN.

I stress numbers 3 and 7 because, indeed, baptism is a sign of God's action, of what HE does for US.  Yes, as adults being baptized, we must have faith and repentance, but OUR FAITH AND REPENTANCE OR LACK THEREOF DOES NOT, CANNOT, WILL NOT EVER TRUMP THE GRACE OF GOD AND WHAT HE DOES FOR US.  As my Grammy used to occasionally say, "Not everything is about you."  God forbid we just accept what God does, rather than trying to shove ourselves into the middle of His action and His plan, eh?

Hence baptism is more a corollary of salvation, a witness to the inner work of saving grace and faith already present in those who have believed.

Show me where it says corollary, please.  All I have seen is where Christ tells us it is REQUIRED (John 3).  It is not a witness to US and OUR faith, it is a witness of GOD's work, GOD's action, GOD's grace.  Again, it ain't all about us.

-The Old Testament symbols of Salvation and Baptism include infants (such as circumcision-- again, can be read above)

Indeed! Like as they were those born of the flesh, believers are those born again of the Spirit.
Their circumscision was literal and pertained to literal birth (infants, etc.) -- ours is metaphorical, spiritual and pertains only to those who have spiritually been reborn. You stumble here with Nicodemus. As paul expressed to the Cornthians concerning "birth from the grave" so to we can discern application here... There is a natural and there is a spiritual. Albeit that which is spiritual is not first, but that which is natural. Afterward that which is spiritual. Hence, only spiritual infants have a right to the waters of baptism.

I'm sorry, explain to me how it is that you think I stumble with Nicodemus?
I think, rather, that you stumble with Paul, who tells us VERY clearly in Colossians:
"11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins[c] of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it. "

He directly likens Baptism to Chrismation, calling it the "circumcision of Christ."  He is clear that Baptism is the new circumcision.  He does not make one different from another.  So if, indeed, Baptism is the circumcision of Christ, then how can one object to giving that to infants?  YOU may make this faulty distinction, but HE doesn't.

As well, we see two direct pre-figurements in the Old Testament of baptism.  Lest we descend into Marcianism (discarding of the OT altogether), we are bound to recognize them, the first one most especially.

The first is Moses and the red sea.  We must recognize this pre-figurement, as the Apostle specifically tells us to in 1Corinthians 10:1-4.  He specifically says that they were "baptized into Moses."  Did Moses leave the infants and children in Egypt?  I daresay he didn't.  ALL were baptized into Moses.  And if Paul saw that the baptism of infants was a problem, he would have surely taken that opportunity to tell us!  Surely he would have stopped right then and mentioned that we should not baptize infants, since he was giving this specifically as an example.  If there was a place where the example differed from what was intended, he would have told us.

The second is Noah and the Ark.  And we know his whole family was there.

I basically just parroted what was said in the article I posted, adding my opinion here and there.  But since you didn't want to read the article, it left me no choice.  No problem.  I enjoyed it. 

-Faith as relationship of love and trust not limited to the mind-- The OT and NT examples of infants recognizing salvation and having faith

I'm sorry, but you'll have to show me explicit Scriptural explanation that infants either recognized salvation or personally placed faith in salvation while in infancy. I see where God recognized infants, and graced them with divine purpose even form the womb. I see where confirmation of that purpose may be demonstrated by the infant, even pre-born, as in the case of John the baptist. But that is a far cry from infants actually understanding and applying saving faith in the person and work of Christ.

Are you telling me that when John the Baptist leapt in his mother's womb at the sound of the Theotokos' voice (she who carried his savior), that he DIDN'T recognize?!?  What, exactly, is it that you think he DID recognize?  You think he was just dancing at the sound of her pretty voice?  NO!  He recognized that HIS SAVIOR WAS NEAR, THAT HIS SALVATION WAS IN FRONT OF HIM!  It had nothing to do with the Theotokos.  Her purpose has always been only in relation to Christ.  And what is Christ's purpose?  Well, if we really have to go that basic, there's a problem.  This is a terribly legalistic and un-believing argument you are trying to present here.  John's divine purpose was TO RECOGNIZE THE SALVATION OF CHRIST!  It was the entire purpose of his existence... to pave the way for Him who came after, yet before him.  He did this even from the womb!  Are you telling me he DIDN'T?  whoa.

Now, perhaps if they came from the womb actually speaking intelligently I would be inclined to consider such an exaggeration.

Yes, because, of course, the Bible was written for infants, right.  So it must instruct them specifically to get to the church and be baptized, else they won't be recognized as Christians!  Don't be ridiculous!  It is you who are exaggerating, my friend.  Exaggerating your own importance (I don't mean your importance personally, I mean as a human being) in God's plan-- He does the work in Baptism. 

-The fact that the command of "believer's baptism" was one intended for adults, because the Bible was not written for infants- and the distinction between adult believers and infant- one needs to repent, the other does not (again, can be read above)

And yet, by defintion, one CANNOT be a believer if they have not repented!

Wrong!  Here I will just quote the article for you, rather than parrot it.

Larry Christenson, in his pamphlet "What About Baptism", quotes Edmund Schlink (author of The Doctrine of Baptism) as stating that the rejection of infant baptism was based on the secular philosophy of the sixteenth century which assured man's individuality, and was not the result of a new Scriptural inquiry:

    "'Belier was seen in rationalistic and volitional terms, as an act of the mind and the will. 'Because an infant cannot think or decide, it cannot have faith, and therefore should not be baptized.' To this day. that is the only argument raised against the validity of infant baptism. One tosses off the sentence as though it were self-evident truth: 'A child can't believe.' But that 'truth,' upon examination, is neither self-evident, nor is it Biblical."

As Christenson goes on to say, faith is not merely a product of reason but relation. It is a relationship of love and trust, a relationship which is not limited to the mind. Some Scriptures which support the possibility of an "infant faith" are these:

    "Yet Thou are He who didst bring me forth from the womb; Thou didst make me trust when upon my mother's breast." (Psalm 22:9)

    "And whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea." (Mark 9:42)

    "For behold, when the sound of your greeting [Theotokos] reached my ears [Elizabeth], the baby [John the Baptist] leaped in my womb for joy." (Luke 1:44)

And then:

Over and over again I am told that is incorrect to allow infants to be baptized because the Scriptural order is to first believe, and then to be baptized (Mark 16:16). The error in this thinking is not that it is incorrect to have an adult believe before he is baptized, but that one cannot apply a command intended for adults to infants. The Bible was not written to infants and is therefore not going to direct them to do anything. They are under the care of their parents who can hear, understand, and believe. Additionally, there is an important distinction to be made between baptizing an infant and an adult believer-one has the need to repent, the other does not.

-The fact that "infant baptism" was probably not recorded because the Gospel writers didn't see a need- it was rather obvious

Arguing from silence here. If you could give me a strong enough reason to entertain the Biblical validity for infant baptism (such as showing infants having sufficient reason and mental faculty to accept and place faith in Christ as Lord and Savior) then I might would entertain the notion as haing a semb lance of relevance. Otherwise, well, I cannot.

There are times when an argument from silence is perfectly valid.  This is one.  As in the example I gave above-- Paul gives us examples that we are to follow.  If he meant for us to except children, he would have specified that. 
As far as infants having faith in Christ, see above.  What other possible reason can you give (and PROVE!) for why John the Baptist leapt in his mother's womb?  Why would the Gospel have mentioned it?  Because he recognized that His Lord and Savior was near!  Not because he loved Mary's voice! 

And what exactly does, "these little ones who have faith" mean, anyway?

And what about coming to Christ as a child?  Matthew 18:3: "And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."  What did he mean?  We should grow physically younger?  Nonsense!  We are to come to him as a child-- with trust, loyalty, total dependence, and FAITH EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T UNDERSTAND!  Apparently Christ thought children could have faith despite a lack of intellectual knowledge (they had knowledge of love and experience of faith).  Why don't you?

My heart and my experience tells me infants can have faith as well.  My little nephew, Nicholas and my niece, Emma both as babies, recognized Christ and His work and love.  I can tell you all kinds of stories of how they recognized Christ and His love- literally!  Wanting to kiss the icons for no apparent reason, pointing at them and laughing, hugging them (I know that they didn't learn that from their parents or anyone else-- we kiss icons, but I can't recall ever hugging one in front of them-- not that it's bad, we just haven't done it).  I can tell you that they converse with angels, but I'm sure you'll brush it aside as hogwash, since it doesn't explicitly say in the Bible that babies can recognize angels, even though we know this to be true through experience.  My nephew, Nicholas, is now three and a half.  He can't possibly understand God fully, but he sure does love Him, and he sure does have faith in Him!  You can't tell me that babies and children don't understand and expect me to buy it.  Ridiculous! 

-The entire LIST of questions that are put forward in the second half of the article posted above (I'm not going to retype here, even though I've already been redundant by typing all the other points)

I appreciate the referece to the article. I am sure I wil enjoy perusing it, and others in the future. However, I did not come here to dilaog with an article, but with other particpants. Simply stated, I want to know what you think in your words, and engage you with mine. I want to interact with you, a being, and not with lifeless articles. Reference them, quote bite size excerpts from them, fine. Otherwise I will probably (as here) just skip right over them and keep on going.

Okay, then.  I guess I'll have to ask them myself.  I'll just waste my time parroting here again, since you don't want to just scroll up and read them.  I reference it because I would really like to hear the answers to the questions.  That is discussion.
So...
1. If infant baptism is a later invention, when did it begin and who began it? Where did it originate?
2. Why are there no protests against the validity of infant baptism from anyone in the early Church?
3. Where is anything found in Scripture that expressly forbids the baptism of infants or children?
4. How is it that God established a covenantal, corporate relationship with the tribes of Israel in the Old Testament, but you interpret the New Testament as abolishing the faith of an entire household with the father at its head in favor of a solely individualistic faith?
5. Where does Scripture prescribe any age for baptism?
6. Even if there were a special age when someone's faith reached "maturity," how could one discern that? Doesn't faith always mature? When is faith mature enough for baptism and when is it not? Who can judge?
7. Where in Scripture does it say that children are free from the effects of the Fall simply because they are not old enough to believe? (Even creation is under the curse of mankind's fall - Romans 8:19-21).
8. What about the many Biblical meanings and early Christian understandings of baptism other than the one defining it as a visible sign of inward repentance, meanings such as the sacrament of regeneration (Titus 3:5), a grafting into the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13), a passage from the reign of Satan into Christ's authority (Romans 6:17), the expression of the manifestation of God (Luke 3:21,22), an admission into God's covenant (Colossians 2:11), the Lord's act of adoption and our putting on of Christ (Galatians 3:26,27)? Why should these things be taken away from the small child of a Christian family?
9. If it was the norm to baptize children at a later age, why is there no evidence in Scripture or early Church history of instruction given to parents on how to help their adolescent children prepare for baptism?
10. If it is granted that baptism is for the remission of sins, why would the Church ever want to give baptism to infants if there were nothing in the infants which needed remission? Would not the grace of baptism, in this context, seem superfluous?
11. In essence, laying aside all the polemics and prejudices and academic intricacies, what Scriptural principle is being violated if a child is baptized and matures in his faith?

Some of these, I feel sure, will be answered in the course of discussion.  Do me a favor, though, and if they are not answered in the rest of the discussion, answer them.   

BTW just FYI, personally, when I post articles and quotes like that, it is not because I am trying to provoke or to dodge questions or anything.  It is because whoever wrote the article says exactly what I would like to say clearly and succinctly.  I figure it's better to just post the article (and reference it, of course) than to try and say the same things, as we know it can take me a long time to say what they can say quite fast.  I do it simply to not waste others' time.  I apologize if people don't like it when I post articles.  I rather enjoyed that particular one, though.

I understand, really. However, quotes of that length tend to stifle conversation (IMO). So do original comments and posts normally. But in your case, I have so come to enjoy your written expression of thought, your passion in engaging the subject, not to mention your tact and personability, that I find myself willing, even eager in most cases, to savor YOUR words. I can handle snippets of quotes from others added therewith for taste, but not much else. To use a metaphor that may have meaning to a chef  -- I don't want a warmed over "meal" someone else prepared. I want your own unique fresh presentation of the dish. 

Metaphor appreciated!  On the other hand, all that has become of your refusal to read the article and respond is that it has forced me to parrot it and take up time and space doing so.  Your refusal to read it does not mean that I don't want answers to the questions and points made.  It just means that, even though you think it's saving time to skip it, it's actually just wasting time.  No offense, just being honest.

Also, I think the article on the original website was moved.  So to make sure I clearly reference my source, I will post the new web address below:
http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7067

In Christ,
Presbytera Mari

[serb1389]

I was told that in case of an emergency and no Orthodox priest is present, that any baptized Orthodox Christian could "baptize" an individual. 

For example, if a woman births a child far, far away...and the child is not well, and is in fact dying, a baptized person could baptize the infant with water and proclaim that this little person was being baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

While this is not the norm, nor "recommended", is it not possible?  Does the Holy Spirit not reside within us after our baptism?

I gave an example of a child (which some say would go to Heaven, either way), but, what if it were an adult who wished to be baptized and due to circumstances was not.  This person finds themself leaving this earth and they wish to be baptized.  For example, a soldier in the field has "found" God and lying wounded wants to be baptized before he dies.  Can a fellow, baptized soldier, baptize him or not?

Hopefully, we won't experience these situations, and hopefully we are all already baptized, however, for the sake of discussion, what can be done for the dying person?

...and plleeeease don't argue.

I wholeheartedly agree that a priest/bishop SHOULD be the one baptizing individuals...no question.  However, in emergency situations...does this rule hold fast?

Any baptized Christian can baptize in case of emergency, and certainly a christmated one (which would be the case with all Orthodox).  There is one priest, Christ: the ordained orders (bishop, etc) embody this like a married couple embody the relationship between Christ and the Church, but there is the unordained royal priesthood of all those who have been vested with Christ in baptism.  It is somewhat, but exactly, like the idea that baptism should be done by full immersion, but in case of emergency a priest would do it by pouring.  The problem is that with the Protestants, what should be an emergency exception is becoming the rule.

In regards to Christ being the High priest, and how that relates to the laity, please see this thread on the forum http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,18304.0.html  which goes into the implications of One priesthood, of all believers.  It's not as simple as it seems...

[ialmisry]

I was told that in case of an emergency and no Orthodox priest is present, that any baptized Orthodox Christian could "baptize" an individual. 

For example, if a woman births a child far, far away...and the child is not well, and is in fact dying, a baptized person could baptize the infant with water and proclaim that this little person was being baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

While this is not the norm, nor "recommended", is it not possible?  Does the Holy Spirit not reside within us after our baptism?

I gave an example of a child (which some say would go to Heaven, either way), but, what if it were an adult who wished to be baptized and due to circumstances was not.  This person finds themself leaving this earth and they wish to be baptized.  For example, a soldier in the field has "found" God and lying wounded wants to be baptized before he dies.  Can a fellow, baptized soldier, baptize him or not?

Hopefully, we won't experience these situations, and hopefully we are all already baptized, however, for the sake of discussion, what can be done for the dying person?

...and plleeeease don't argue.

I wholeheartedly agree that a priest/bishop SHOULD be the one baptizing individuals...no question.  However, in emergency situations...does this rule hold fast?

Any baptized Christian can baptize in case of emergency, and certainly a christmated one (which would be the case with all Orthodox).  There is one priest, Christ: the ordained orders (bishop, etc) embody this like a married couple embody the relationship between Christ and the Church, but there is the unordained royal priesthood of all those who have been vested with Christ in baptism.  It is somewhat, but exactly, like the idea that baptism should be done by full immersion, but in case of emergency a priest would do it by pouring.  The problem is that with the Protestants, what should be an emergency exception is becoming the rule.

In regards to Christ being the High priest, and how that relates to the laity, please see this thread on the forum http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,18304.0.html  which goes into the implications of One priesthood, of all believers.  It's not as simple as it seems...

Ah, now I get what you were getting at on that thread.

[c38]

No one has mentioned so far that sacraments are signs of God’s covenant with humanity.

Excuse me, but circumcision for the Hebrews was the sign of God's covenant with His chosen people. With the coming of God Incarnate, Him being the completion and fulfilment of the old Law, baptism is the NT equivalent and fulfilment of OT circumcision. All who are baptised into Christ have put on Christ. Alleluia.

Your right, my first read was too quick. Credit to those individuals and hopefully Cleopas has it too now.

[PeterTheAleut]

The "Tradition vs. Holy Spirit ... dichotomy" (or better, complementary pair) is a weak point in iamisry's argument (I just got the name  ). Spirit, and Scripture, seem to tell us to "leave him alone", but Tradition has always permited us to badger him over his authority to baptise.

So, you would now set Tradition against the Spirit and Scripture.  You do realize that this is not an Orthodox approach to either the Scriptures or Tradition?

By the way, read my first comments in this thread and you will know where I'm coming from on baptism. If you want to shut me out of this discussion for good, then refute this ... and demonstrate that you still have baptism.

I've seen on this thread several very good statements from our Orthodox faith what baptism is, and with equally good support from patristic and liturgical sources.  Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you stated in your first post on this thread that the sacrament of baptism is not so much a significant moment as it is a lifelong process.  I acknowledge the lifelong work of appropriating the grace of one's baptism into one's life in cooperation with the sanctifying work of the Holy Trinity, but the idea of de-emphasizing the significance of the singular moment of baptism is a new concept to me.  I don't recognize this as coming from any traditional sources stated on this thread or found elsewhere.  Therefore, I think the context of this thread demands that YOU prove YOUR thesis true; I don't believe I bear any burden to prove you wrong.

[ialmisry]

No where in all the pages of the Holy Writ will one find any record of the Christian baptism of a woman.

Actually, there is. See Acts 16:12-15 below.

And from thence to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia, and a colony: and we were in that city abiding certain days. And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither. And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

Btw, I was actually waiting for you to bring up Galatians 3:28:
There are neither Jews nor Greeks, slaves nor free people, males nor females. You are all the same in Christ Jesus.

But on to the subject at hand:

I'm sorry, maybe I missed you addressing the following points:

I did not address them pont by point, no. I did feel like my replies in general gave adequate insight into my difference with such thoughts. That is what I meant by "generic" responses.

-the translation of the word "household" as used in the original Greek and the Hebrew (as seen in the OT) to mean the entire family-- men, women, children, infants-- the original Greek word has ALWAYS been used to include infants, and there has never been another usage

In esscence the term would apply to any in a given household. Thus, generally speaking, it coud include infants IF they were present in the home. However, to substantiate that one must be able to PROVE infants were in fact present. Besides, the context being that of baptism, which is directly connected Scripturally with a personal declaration of faith in Christ, limits the application of household here to only those in a given household who were personally capable of making such a declaration. In short -- believer's baptism provides' the context for understanding the application of household. To reason otherwise is to undo the statment of Scripture by adding to and broadening it. Indeed, contradicting it.

-all of the OTHER households that were baptized (were they ALL childless?  doubtful, at best)

I did not say children should never be baptized. In only insist that they be of sufficient mental ability to make a personal and true declaration of faith in Christ.

-The fact that older children were NEVER recorded as being baptized, nor is there any record of the adult baptism of a Christian child, nor is there any record of an "age of accountability" when a child is old enough to make that decision, nor is there any hint whatsoever of children being in any kind of suspended state of salvation before they reach said age

The age need not be given of baptismal candidates since due to the fact that baptism is expressly stated to be for believers the practice assumes each candidate of sufficient "age" able to believe for themselves -- child or no.

-The saving power of Christ's presence in Holy Baptism (too long a point to explain here, it can be found in the article I posted above)

Disagree with the premise. Can Christ save in or through baptism? I suppose. Can and does Christ save prior to baptism? Yep. So, does salvation wait for baptism? Nope.
Hence baptism is more a corollary of salvation, a witness to the inner work of saving grace and faith already present in those who have believed.

-The Old Testament symbols of Salvation and Baptism include infants (such as circumcision-- again, can be read above)

Indeed! Like as they were those born of the flesh, believers are those born again of the Spirit.
Their circumscision was literal and pertained to literal birth (infants, etc.) -- ours is metaphorical, spiritual and pertains only to those who have spiritually been reborn. You stumble here with Nicodemus. As paul expressed to the Cornthians concerning "birth from the grave" so to we can discern application here... There is a natural and there is a spiritual. Albeit that which is spiritual is not first, but that which is natural. Afterward that which is spiritual. Hence, only spiritual infants have a right to the waters of baptism.

-Faith as relationship of love and trust not limited to the mind-- The OT and NT examples of infants recognizing salvation and having faith

I'm sorry, but you'll have to show me explicit Scriptural explanation that infants either recognized salvation or personally placed faith in salvation while in infancy. I see where God recognized infants, and graced them with divine purpose even form the womb. I see where confirmation of that purpose may be demonstrated by the infant, even pre-born, as in the case of John the baptist. But that is a far cry from infants actually understanding and applying saving faith in the person and work of Christ.

Now, perhaps if they came from the womb actually speaking intelligently I would be inclined to consider such an exaggeration.

-The fact that "infant baptism" was probably not recorded because the Gospel writers didn't see a need- it was rather obvious

Arguing from silence here. If you could give me a strong enough reason to entertain the Biblical validity for infant baptism (such as showing infants having sufficient reason and mental faculty to accept and place faith in Christ as Lord and Savior) then I might would entertain the notion as haing a semb lance of relevance. Otherwise, well, I cannot.[/quote]

-The fact that the command of "believer's baptism" was one intended for adults, because the Bible was not written for infants- and the distinction between adult believers and infant- one needs to repent, the other does not (again, can be read above)

And yet, by defintion, one CANNOT be a believer if they have not repented![/quote]

An Old argument (well, as old as anabaptist.  The thousand+ years before them no one would have thought of mental ability etc. as being a prerequisite), Luke 18:

Parables on Prayer
1 Now He was telling them a parable to show that at all times they ought to pray and not to lose heart, 2 saying, “In a certain city there was a judge who did not fear God and did not respect man. 3 “There was a widow in that city, and she kept coming to him, saying, ‘Give me legal protection from my opponent.’ 4 “For a while he was unwilling; but afterward he said to himself, ‘Even though I do not fear God nor respect man, 5 yet because this widow bothers me, I will give her legal protection, otherwise by continually coming she will wear me out.’” 6 And the Lord said, “Hear what the unrighteous judge said; 7 now, will not God bring about justice for His elect who cry to Him day and night, and will He delay long over them? 8 “I tell you that He will bring about justice for them quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?”

The Pharisee and the Publican

9 And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: 10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 “The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 ‘I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’ 13 “But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ 14 “I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

15 And they were bringing even their babies to Him so that He would touch them, but when the disciples saw it, they began rebuking them. 16 But Jesus called for them, saying, “Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17 “Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.”

The Rich Young Ruler

18 A ruler questioned Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. 20 “You know the commandments, ‘DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, DO NOT MURDER, DO NOT STEAL, DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER.’” 21 And he said, “All these things I have kept from my youth.” 22 When Jesus heard this, He said to him, “One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 23 But when he had heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich. 24 And Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God! 25 “For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” 26 They who heard it said, “Then who can be saved?” 27 But He said, “The things that are impossible with people are possible with God.”
28 Peter said, “Behold, we have left our own homes and followed You.” 29 And He said to them, “Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, 30 who will not receive many times as much at this time and in the age to come, eternal life.”
31 Then He took the twelve aside and said to them, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things which are written through the prophets about the Son of Man will be accomplished. 32 “For He will be handed over to the Gentiles, and will be mocked and mistreated and spit upon, 33 and after they have scourged Him, they will kill Him; and the third day He will rise again.” 34 But the disciples understood none of these things, and the meaning of this statement was hidden from them, and they did not comprehend the things that were said.

Bartimaeus Receives Sight

35 As Jesus was approaching Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the road begging. 36 Now hearing a crowd going by, he began to inquire what this was. 37 They told him that Jesus of Nazareth was passing by. 38 And he called out, saying, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” 39 Those who led the way were sternly telling him to be quiet; but he kept crying out all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” 40 And Jesus stopped and commanded that he be brought to Him; and when he came near, He questioned him, 41 “What do you want Me to do for you?” And he said, “Lord, I want to regain my sight!” 42 And Jesus said to him, “Receive your sight; your faith has made you well.” 43 Immediately he regained his sight and began following Him, glorifying God; and when all the people saw it, they gave praise to God.

to which we will add Luke 9

Ministry of the Twelve
1 And He called the twelve together, and gave them power and authority over all the demons and to heal diseases. 2 And He sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to perform healing. 3 And He said to them, “Take nothing for your journey, neither a staff, nor a bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not even have two tunics apiece. 4 “Whatever house you enter, stay there until you leave that city. 5 “And as for those who do not receive you, as you go out from that city, shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them.” 6 Departing, they began going throughout the villages, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere.
7 Now Herod the tetrarch heard of all that was happening; and he was greatly perplexed, because it was said by some that John had risen from the dead, 8 and by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen again. 9 Herod said, “I myself had John beheaded; but who is this man about whom I hear such things?” And he kept trying to see Him.
10 When the apostles returned, they gave an account to Him of all that they had done. Taking them with Him, He withdrew by Himself to a city called Bethsaida. 11 But the crowds were aware of this and followed Him; and welcoming them, He began speaking to them about the kingdom of God and curing those who had need of healing.

Five Thousand Fed

12 Now the day was ending, and the twelve came and said to Him, “Send the crowd away, that they may go into the surrounding villages and countryside and find lodging and get something to eat; for here we are in a desolate place.” 13 But He said to them, “You give them something to eat!” And they said, “We have no more than five loaves and two fish, unless perhaps we go and buy food for all these people.” 14 (For there were about five thousand men.) And He said to His disciples, “Have them sit down to eat in groups of about fifty each.” 15 They did so, and had them all sit down. 16 Then He took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, He blessed them, and broke them, and kept giving them to the disciples to set before the people. 17 And they all ate and were satisfied; and the broken pieces which they had left over were picked up, twelve baskets full.
18 And it happened that while He was praying alone, the disciples were with Him, and He questioned them, saying, “Who do the people say that I am?” 19 They answered and said, “John the Baptist, and others say Elijah; but others, that one of the prophets of old has risen again.” 20 And He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” And Peter answered and said, “The Christ of God.” 21 But He warned them and instructed them not to tell this to anyone, 22 saying, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed and be raised up on the third day.”
23 And He was saying to them all, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me. 24 “For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it. 25 “For what is a man profited if he gains the whole world, and loses or forfeits himself? 26 “For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory, and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. 27 “But I say to you truthfully, there are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.”

The Transfiguration

28 Some eight days after these sayings, He took along Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray. 29 And while He was praying, the appearance of His face became different, and His clothing became white and gleaming. 30 And behold, two men were talking with Him; and they were Moses and Elijah, 31 who, appearing in glory, were speaking of His departure which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. 32 Now Peter and his companions had been overcome with sleep; but when they were fully awake, they saw His glory and the two men standing with Him. 33 And as these were leaving Him, Peter said to Jesus, “Master, it is good for us to be here; let us make three tabernacles: one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah”—not realizing what he was saying. 34 While he was saying this, a cloud formed and began to overshadow them; and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. 35 Then a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him!” 36 And when the voice had spoken, Jesus was found alone. And they kept silent, and reported to no one in those days any of the things which they had seen.
37 On the next day, when they came down from the mountain, a large crowd met Him. 38 And a man from the crowd shouted, saying, “Teacher, I beg You to look at my son, for he is my only boy, 39 and a spirit seizes him, and he suddenly screams, and it throws him into a convulsion with foaming at the mouth; and only with difficulty does it leave him, mauling him as it leaves. 40 “I begged Your disciples to cast it out, and they could not.” 41 And Jesus answered and said, “You unbelieving and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you and put up with you? Bring your son here.” 42 While he was still approaching, the demon slammed him to the ground and threw him into a convulsion. But Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, and healed the boy and gave him back to his father. 43 And they were all amazed at the greatness of God.
But while everyone was marveling at all that He was doing, He said to His disciples, 44 “Let these words sink into your ears; for the Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men.” 45 But they did not understand this statement, and it was concealed from them so that they would not perceive it; and they were afraid to ask Him about this statement.
The Test of Greatness

46 An argument started among them as to which of them might be the greatest. 47 But Jesus, knowing what they were thinking in their heart, took a child and stood him by His side, 48 and said to them, “Whoever receives this child in My name receives Me, and whoever receives Me receives Him who sent Me; for the one who is least among all of you, this is the one who is great.”
49 John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us.” 50 But Jesus said to him, “Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you.”
51 When the days were approaching for His ascension, He was determined to go to Jerusalem; 52 and He sent messengers on ahead of Him, and they went and entered a village of the Samaritans to make arrangements for Him. 53 But they did not receive Him, because He was traveling toward Jerusalem. 54 When His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” 55 But He turned and rebuked them, [and said, “You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; 56 for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.”] And they went on to another village.

Exacting Discipleship

57 As they were going along the road, someone said to Him, “I will follow You wherever You go.” 58 And Jesus said to him, “The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.” 59 And He said to another, “Follow Me.” But he said, “Lord, permit me first to go and bury my father.” 60 But He said to him, “Allow the dead to bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim everywhere the kingdom of God.” 61 Another also said, “I will follow You, Lord; but first permit me to say good-bye to those at home.” 62 But Jesus said to him, “No one, after putting his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.”

I quote the whole chapters so as to show the context of these discources on little children and the kingdom of heaven.  In Luke, you notice, they come in the middle of discources on discipleship, faith, disbelief and belief, accepting the kingdom and understanding.  I boldface the last because you emphasize that as a barrier to infant baptism, whereas, as Luke shows, the disciples lacked understanding, even though at the time (as St. John tells us) they were already baptizing.

Now the word brephos, which Luke uses in chapter 18 indicates a child in the womb or just out of it.  So we are talking about infants.  So too the word paidion "little child": in all of Luke's use of the word (Luke is the Evangelist with the best grasp of Greek), it clearly refers to infants (e.g. the infancy narratives of St. John the Baptist and Christ).  Although Matthew and Mark use paidion for a twelve year old (Luke uses "pais," boy, child), in the parrellel verses they state Christ took the child in his arms, showing we are speaking of a little child. In Luke 1:80 he speaks of the paidion John becoming strong in the spirit.  How is that possible, if infancy is a barrier to faith?

I gotta run, hopefully I'll be able to return, but I'll leave you with the thought: are you saying adults can better accept Christ as a child than a child can?  Isn't that a tad silly?
 

[ialmisry]

The "Tradition vs. Holy Spirit ... dichotomy" (or better, complementary pair) is a weak point in iamisry's argument (I just got the name  ). Spirit, and Scripture, seem to tell us to "leave him alone", but Tradition has always permited us to badger him over his authority to baptise.

So, you would now set Tradition against the Spirit and Scripture.  You do realize that this is not an Orthodox approach to either the Scriptures or Tradition?

By the way, read my first comments in this thread and you will know where I'm coming from on baptism. If you want to shut me out of this discussion for good, then refute this ... and demonstrate that you still have baptism.

I've seen on this thread several very good statements from our Orthodox faith what baptism is, and with equally good support from patristic and liturgical sources.  Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you stated in your first post on this thread that the sacrament of baptism is not so much a significant moment as it is a lifelong process.  I acknowledge the lifelong work of appropriating the grace of one's baptism into one's life in cooperation with the sanctifying work of the Holy Trinity, but the idea of de-emphasizing the significance of the singular moment of baptism is a new concept to me.  I don't recognize this as coming from any traditional sources stated on this thread or found elsewhere.  Therefore, I think the context of this thread demands that YOU prove YOUR thesis true; I don't believe I bear any burden to prove you wrong.

His thesis would be a good counter to the instananeous born again/once saved always saved nonsense that replaces baptism in some circles.  How much that was his idea,....

[Fr. David]

What say ye?

I say THIS.

Specifically, from that article:

Certainly, says the Evangelical, the witness of Scripture is solely one of adults who, exercising their own, independent free will, themselves elected to follow Christ in baptism. Yet we Orthodox would point readily to many Scriptures that in our view teach the contrary—verses that were pointed to in like manner by those who were trained by the very authors of those Scriptures as supporting the baptism of infants.

The most commonly cited passage is St. Peter’s sermon at Pentecost:

Then Peter said to them, Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call (Acts 2:38-39).

Notice a few things here. As has already been established, the baptism is for remission of sins and the reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit, not just repentance. But the baptism was not only for the adults who heard him that day, but for their children as well. St. Peter gave this imperative of baptism, and included the children in this. It’s useful to remember at this point that, in the culture of the apostles’ day, both children and slaves (and even women!) were considered the property of the man. As went the man, so went the whole family; individual choice had very little to do with whether or not a child—or even a full-grown female or slave!—would have chosen to have been baptized. This is not to say that we ought to reinstate the patriarchy of previous centuries, but the practice indeed colors St. Peter’s statement, to be sure. Given this historical context, it is entirely unreasonable to think that the Apostles would have been uncomfortable with baptizing an infant, since the very practice is mentioned in the first sermon of Christianity.

The clearest reference to the legitimacy of infant baptism, however, is in St. Paul’s letter to the Colossians:

"In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead" (2:11-12).

Here we see baptism being compared to circumcision—“the circumcision made without hands.” Since we know that circumcision was done primarily to eight-day old boys at the consent of their parents in order to bring them into the nation of Israel, and baptism is the initiation rite into the Christian Church (the present-day continuation and fulfillment of the People of Israel), it stands to reason that, just as circumcision was not withheld from infants, neither is baptism."

[Cleopas]

Yes, Saint Paul was uniquely chosen...and accepted as such by the apostles.

Right! And that was all I was saying about him.

I never said Paul was nto eventually accepted by the leadership of the Church, the other Apostles, etc. Afterall, they gave to him the right hand of fellowship.
I neversaid he did not submit to and recognize the authority of the church. After all he reported to and recognized the office held by james and the other Apostles and elders.

I was simply saying Paul was called, gifted, and authorized by Christ himself apart from any official sanction with the church beforehand.

I get that you guys don't like that, and vehemently disagree with the implications I have drawn from it. To do otherwise is to blow a huge whole in your onw ecclisology via polity,etc. Nevertheless, I have been called of the Lord Jesus himself, through the Spirit, and authorized by Him to preach and defend the gospel, establish churches, baptize converts and any other duty that may rightly fall upon me as His minister. I am not ashamed of Him or of the calling He has placed upon me, even if you refuse to recognize it.

[prodromas]

Yes, Saint Paul was uniquely chosen...and accepted as such by the apostles.

Right! And that was all I was saying about him.

I never said Paul was nto eventually accepted by the leadership of the Church, the other Apostles, etc. Afterall, they gave to him the right hand of fellowship.
I neversaid he did not submit to and recognize the authority of the church. After all he reported to and recognized the office held by james and the other Apostles and elders.

I was simply saying Paul was called, gifted, and authorized by Christ himself apart from any official sanction with the church beforehand.

I get that you guys don't like that, and vehemently disagree with the implications I have drawn from it. To do otherwise is to blow a huge whole in your onw ecclisology via polity,etc. Nevertheless, I have been called of the Lord Jesus himself, through the Spirit, and authorized by Him to preach and defend the gospel, establish churches, baptize converts and any other duty that may rightly fall upon me as His minister. I am not ashamed of Him or of the calling He has placed upon me, even if you refuse to recognize it.

Fair enough. Well our clergy don't usually put themselves up to the same level as the holy apostle Saint Paul.

[serb1389]

Yes, Saint Paul was uniquely chosen...and accepted as such by the apostles.

I was simply saying Paul was called, gifted, and authorized by Christ himself apart from any official sanction with the church beforehand.

Yah, but he didn't do anything with that gift until AFTER he met with the other apostles.  Did you do that?  You're saying that you went through the same process as Paul....right?  So shouldn't you have gone to the elders of the church, the successors to the Apostles, and ask them how to proceed?  Just a thought. 

I get that you guys don't like that, and vehemently disagree with the implications I have drawn from it. To do otherwise is to blow a huge whole in your onw ecclisology via polity,etc.

Actually, it's a question of ECUMENICAL ecclesiology, not only Orthodox.  Here is the WCC (world council of churches) statement on the nature of the church.  take a look at the part regarding the mission of the one who unites the many.  (I have attached it for your convenience)  Here is also the direct link: http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-commissions/faith-and-order-commission.html

Nevertheless, I have been called of the Lord Jesus himself, through the Spirit, and authorized by Him to preach and defend the gospel, establish churches, baptize converts and any other duty that may rightly fall upon me as His minister. I am not ashamed of Him or of the calling He has placed upon me, even if you refuse to recognize it.

When and how did Christ call you?  How did he authorize you to do anything?  How did he place anything on you?  I havn't refused to recognize anything.  Have you explained everything? 

[ozgeorge]

I was simply saying Paul was called, gifted, and authorized by Christ himself apart from any official sanction with the church beforehand.

Nonsense! St. Paul was called and chosen by Christ, yes, but this choice and this call had to be confirmed by the Church. St. Paul was firstly called to listen to what the Church told him to do (Acts 9:6). The Church, by it's authority first healed St. Paul (Acts 9:17-18 ) then made St. Paul first a member of the Church through Baptism (Acts 9:18), then commissioned him as an Apostle (Acts 13:2-4). Through all this, God's choice of St. Paul had to be confirmed by the Church. God and the Church work together (Acts 9:16, 13:2, 15:6......)

[ialmisry]

Yes, Saint Paul was uniquely chosen...and accepted as such by the apostles.

Right! And that was all I was saying about him.

I never said Paul was nto eventually accepted by the leadership of the Church, the other Apostles, etc. Afterall, they gave to him the right hand of fellowship.
I neversaid he did not submit to and recognize the authority of the church. After all he reported to and recognized the office held by james and the other Apostles and elders.

I was simply saying Paul was called, gifted, and authorized by Christ himself apart from any official sanction with the church beforehand.

I get that you guys don't like that, and vehemently disagree with the implications I have drawn from it. To do otherwise is to blow a huge whole in your onw ecclisology via polity,etc. Nevertheless, I have been called of the Lord Jesus himself, through the Spirit, and authorized by Him to preach and defend the gospel, establish churches, baptize converts and any other duty that may rightly fall upon me as His minister. I am not ashamed of Him or of the calling He has placed upon me, even if you refuse to recognize it.

Refuse to recognzie it?  Have you, like St. Paul, submitted it to those of repute to recognzie it, so you not run in vain?

But again, Joe Smith, when Paul was called, gifted, and authorized by Christ Himself he was directed directly by Christ Himself to "go into the city, and you will be told what to do," and get the official sanction of the Church.

Christ does authorize Paul when he tells him "he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the chidlren of Israel."  But he tells Paul that THROUGH ANANIAS, i.e. the Church.  He does NOT say it to Paul directly when He speaks to him.

And if you are hanging your hat on Galatians 1:16 "I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood," you are going to have to square it with Acts 9:19 "Then Saul spent some time with the disciples at Damascus."  Btw, Ananias was one of the seventy, and hence an Apostle able to give the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:15-7), i.e. chrismation.  That is what confers the lowest order of the new, royal priesthood.  So no, St. Paul was never "called, gifted, and authorized by Christ himself apart from any official sanction with the church beforehand."  Christ TOLD St. Paul to go to the Church for her sanction.

You seem to be misled about a seeming discrepancy between the chronology of Acts and Galatians:

Acts Epistles
First visit to Jerusalem (Acts 9:26–27)
after Damascus conversion
preaches openly in Jerusalem with Barnabas
Second visit to Jerusalem (Acts 11:29–30)
For famine relief
Third visit to Jerusalem (Acts 15:1–19)
With Barnabas
"Council of Jerusalem"
Fourth visit to Jerusalem (Acts 18:21–22)
To "keep the feast" (Acts 18:21)
Fifth visit to Jerusalem (Acts 21:17ff)
Paul arrested
 No visit to Jerusalem immediately after conversion (Galatians 1:17–18)
First visit to Jerusalem (Galatians 1:18–20)
Sees only Cephas (Peter) and James
Second visit to Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1–10)
With Barnabas and Titus
Possibly the "Council of Jerusalem"
Paul agrees to "remember the poor"
Followed by confrontation with Peter in Antioch (Galatians 2:11–14)
Third visit to Jerusalem (Romans 15:25ff, 2 Corinthians 8–9, 1 Corinthians 16:1–3)
Paul delivers the collection for the poor  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle#Paul.27s_visits_to_Jerusalem_in_Acts_and_the_epistles

Well, remember that "Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction" 2 Peter 3:15-6.

Blow a big hole in our ecclesiology? No, just in your sola scriptura.  If you are so much like St. Paul, then you have composed scripture, no?  I mean, St. Paul, by your interpretation, preaching without prior approval and wrote his epistles without ecclesiastical sanction.  Joe Smith came with his own scriptures to go with his "call."  Why don't you?  Why do you insist on using our Scripture, since you are  so independent of the "offical sanction of the Church."'

Defend your own Gospel.  We'll defend ours.

Nevertheless, I have been called of the Lord Jesus himself, through the Spirit, and authorized by Him to preach and defend the gospel, establish churches, baptize converts and any other duty that may rightly fall upon me as His minister. I am not ashamed of Him or of the calling He has placed upon me, even if you refuse to recognize it.

When and how did Christ call you?  How did he authorize you to do anything?  How did he place anything on you?  I havn't refused to recognize anything.  Have you explained everything?

Anything?

[LBK]

Nevertheless, I have been called of the Lord Jesus himself, through the Spirit, and authorized by Him to preach and defend the gospel, establish churches, baptize converts and any other duty that may rightly fall upon me as His minister. I am not ashamed of Him or of the calling He has placed upon me, even if you refuse to recognize it.

Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Sun-yung Moon, Jim and Tammy Bakker, Oral Roberts, yada, yada, yada .....

[SolEX01]

^ I would have also included David Koresh.   

[prodromas]

^
Why not also Jim Jones?

[SolEX01]

^ I would have included him as well; However, I didn't wish to upset Cleopas that much.   

[prodromas]

lol yes SolEX01 forgive me David Koresh was a model person

[PeterTheAleut]

There is the old saying that you need to stop while you're ahead.

[ialmisry]

Preparing stuff for posting on your Apostolic succession thread, I sidetracked a bit on something that I have posted before, but I'll elaborate a bit:

1 Corinthians 12:1 Περὶ δὲ τῶν πνευματικῶν, ἀδελφοί, οὐ θέλω ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν.
Now concerning spiritual things, brothers, I don't want you to be ignorant.
1 Corinthians 12:2 οἴδατε ὅτι ὅτε ἔθνη ἦτε πρὸς τὰ εἴδωλα τὰ ἄφωνα ὡς ἂν ἤγεσθε ἀπαγόμενοι.
You know that when you were heathen, you were led away to those mute idols, however you might be led.
1 Corinthians 12:3 διὸ γνωρίζω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ λαλῶν λέγει· ἀνάθεμα Ἰησοῦς, καὶ οὐδεὶς δύναται εἰπεῖν· κύριος Ἰησοῦς, εἰ μὴ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ.
Therefore I make known to you that no man speaking by God's Spirit says, "Jesus is accursed." No one can say, "Jesus is Lord," but by the Holy Spirit.
1 Corinthians 12:4 Διαιρέσεις δὲ χαρισμάτων εἰσίν, τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα·
Now there are various kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit.
1 Corinthians 12:5 καὶ διαιρέσεις διακονιῶν εἰσιν, καὶ ὁ αὐτὸς κύριος·
There are various kinds of service (lit. diaconates), and the same Lord.
1 Corinthians 12:6 καὶ διαιρέσεις ἐνεργημάτων εἰσίν, (καὶ) ὁ [δὲ] αὐτὸς θεός ὁ ἐνεργῶν τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν.
There are various kinds of workings, but the same God, who works all things in all.
1 Corinthians 12:7 ἑκάστῳ δὲ δίδοται ἡ φανέρωσις τοῦ πνεύματος πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον.
But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the profit of all.
1 Corinthians 12:8 ᾧ μὲν γὰρ διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος δίδοται λόγος σοφίας, ἄλλῳ δὲ λόγος γνώσεως κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα,
For to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom, and to another the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit;
1 Corinthians 12:9 ἑτέρῳ πίστις ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ πνεύματι, ἄλλῳ δὲ χαρίσματα ἰαμάτων ἐν τῷ ἑνὶ πνεύματι,
to another faith, by the same Spirit; and to another gifts of healings, by the same Spirit;
1 Corinthians 12:10 ἄλλῳ δὲ ἐνεργήματα δυνάμεων, ἄλλῳ δὲ προφητεία ἄλλῳ δὲ διακρίσεις πνευμάτων, ἑτέρῳ γένη γλωσσῶν, ἄλλῳ δὲ ἑρμηνεία γλωσσῶν·
and to another workings of miracles; and to another prophecy; and to another discerning of spirits; to another different kinds of languages; and to another the interpretation of languages.
1 Corinthians 12:11 πάντα δὲ ταῦτα ἐνεργεῖ τὸ ἓν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα διαιροῦν ἰδίᾳ ἑκάστῳ καθὼς βούλεται.
But the one and the same Spirit works all of these, distributing to each one separately as He desires.
1 Corinthians 12:12 Καθάπερ γὰρ τὸ σῶμα ἕν ἐστιν καὶ μέλη πολλὰ ἔχει πάντα δὲ τὰ μέλη τοῦ σώματος πολλὰ ὄντα ἕν ἐστιν σῶμα, οὕτως καὶ ὁ Χριστός·
For as the body is one, and has many members, and all the members of the body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ.
1 Corinthians 12:13 καὶ γὰρ ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι ἡμεῖς πάντες εἰς ἓν σῶμα ἐβαπτίσθημεν, εἴτε Ἰουδαῖοι εἴτε Ἕλληνες εἴτε δοῦλοι εἴτε ἐλεύθεροι, καὶ πάντες ἓν πνεῦμα ἐποτίσθημεν.
For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all given to drink into one Spirit.1 Corinthians 12:14 καὶ γὰρ τὸ σῶμα οὐκ ἔστιν ἓν μέλος ἀλλὰ πολλά.
For the body is not one member, but many.
1 Corinthians 12:15 ἐὰν εἴπῃ ὁ πούς· ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ χείρ, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ σώματος, οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος;
If the foot would say, "Because I'm not the hand, I'm not part of the body," it is not therefore not part of the body.
1 Corinthians 12:16 καὶ ἐὰν εἴπῃ τὸ οὖς· ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ ὀφθαλμός, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ σώματος, οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος;
If the ear would say, "Because I'm not the eye, I'm not part of the body," it's not therefore not part of the body.
1 Corinthians 12:17 εἰ ὅλον τὸ σῶμα ὀφθαλμός, ποῦ ἡ ἀκοή; εἰ ὅλον ἀκοή, ποῦ ἡ ὄσφρησις;
If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the smelling be?
1 Corinthians 12:18 νῦν / νυνὶ δὲ ὁ θεὸς ἔθετο τὰ μέλη ἓν ἕκαστον αὐτῶν ἐν τῷ σώματι καθὼς ἠθέλησεν.
But now God has set the members, each one of them, in the body, just as he desired.
1 Corinthians 12:19 εἰ δὲ ἦν τὰ πάντα ἓν μέλος, ποῦ τὸ σῶμα;
If they were all one member, where would the body be?
1 Corinthians 12:20 νῦν δὲ πολλὰ [μὲν] μέλη, ἓν δὲ σῶμα.
But now they are many members, but one body.
1 Corinthians 12:21 οὐ δύναται δὲ ὁ ὀφθαλμὸς εἰπεῖν τῇ χειρί· χρείαν σου οὐκ ἔχω, ἢ πάλιν ἡ κεφαλὴ τοῖς ποσίν· χρείαν ὑμῶν οὐκ ἔχω·
The eye can't tell the hand, "I have no need for you," or again the head to the feet, "I have no need for you."
1 Corinthians 12:22 ἀλλὰ πολλῷ μᾶλλον τὰ δοκοῦντα μέλη τοῦ σώματος ἀσθενέστερα ὑπάρχειν ἀναγκαῖά ἐστιν,
No, much rather, those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary.
1 Corinthians 12:23 καὶ ἃ δοκοῦμεν ἀτιμότερα εἶναι τοῦ σώματος τούτοις τιμὴν περισσοτέραν περιτίθεμεν, καὶ τὰ ἀσχήμονα ἡμῶν εὐσχημοσύνην περισσοτέραν ἔχει,
Those parts of the body which we think to be less honorable, on those we bestow more abundant honor; and our unpresentable parts have more abundant propriety;
1 Corinthians 12:24 τὰ δὲ εὐσχήμονα ἡμῶν οὐ χρείαν ἔχει. ἀλλὰ ὁ θεὸς συνεκέρασεν τὸ σῶμα τῷ ὑστερουμένῳ περισσοτέραν δοὺς τιμήν,
whereas our presentable parts have no such need. But God composed the body together, giving more abundant honor to the inferior part,
1 Corinthians 12:25 ἵνα μὴ ᾖ σχίσμα ἐν τῷ σώματι ἀλλὰ τὸ αὐτὸ ὑπὲρ ἀλλήλων μεριμνῶσιν τὰ μέλη.
that there should be no division in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another.
1 Corinthians 12:26 καὶ εἴτε πάσχει ἓν μέλος, συμπάσχει πάντα τὰ μέλη· εἴτε δοξάζεται [ἓν] μέλος, συγχαίρει πάντα τὰ μέλη.
When one member suffers, all the members suffer with it. Or when one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.
1 Corinthians 12:27 ὑμεῖς δέ ἐστε σῶμα Χριστοῦ καὶ μέλη ἐκ μέρους.
Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.
1 Corinthians 12:28 καὶ οὓς μὲν ἔθετο ὁ θεὸς ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ πρῶτον ἀποστόλους, δεύτερον προφήτας, τρίτον διδασκάλους ἔπειτα δυνάμεις, ἔπειτα χαρίσματα ἰαμάτων, ἀντιλήμψεις κυβερνήσεις, γένη γλωσσῶν.
God has set some in the assembly: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracle workers, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, and various kinds of languages.
1 Corinthians 12:29 μὴ πάντες ἀπόστολοι; μὴ πάντες προφῆται; μὴ πάντες διδάσκαλοι; μὴ πάντες δυνάμεις;
Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all miracle workers?
1 Corinthians 12:30 μὴ πάντες χαρίσματα ἔχουσιν ἰαμάτων; μὴ πάντες γλώσσαις λαλοῦσιν; μὴ πάντες διερμηνεύουσιν;
Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with various languages? Do all interpret?

Since no one says "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit, and St. Paul specifically says the spirit gives the gift of Faith, and that the weaker (let's say the least) are necessary,"  and we are baptized into that Body, how do you withhold baptism from children born into households of the Body?

After all, if the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to those such as these, it is necessary for the Church to have such examples in our midst.  I know I have learned a lot from my sons.

[David Young]

Nevertheless, I have been called of the Lord Jesus himself, through the Spirit, and authorized by Him to preach and defend the gospel, establish churches, baptize converts and any other duty that may rightly fall upon me as His minister.

...quoting, I believe, Cleopas several posts further up the page.

I don't know how it worked for Cleopas, but let me describe (since one or two have asked this of Cleopas) how it worked in Britain for me. First of all, I felt an inward urge to preach, and openings came my way to do so or to take some other part in services. Then, my gift to preach was formally recognised by the local church where I was in membership. This was then made known to the other churches in the denomination via the usual channels (mainly denominational magazine, directory of ministers, word of mouth). After circulating for a while among the churches, I was unanimously invited by one of them to take up the pastorate. (I am not now in a pastorate: I have worked for a missionary society in a different capacity since the late 1980s.) As a minister, 'ordained' (if you like to use that word) through the formal recognition of my local church, I preached, taught, baptised, and presided at the Lord's Table. I still preach and preside at the Table fairly often, but I have not baptised anyone since leaving pastoral ministry.

I'm not telling you this to try to persuade you that we got it right; I am merely answering people's query as to how it is done among us. I would expect it to be fairly similar in the case of Cleopas.

Now let me ask you a question. As I wrote on a previous post, I believed in Christ when I was 15 or 16, and became exercised about the command to "repent and be baptised", so I was immersed upon profession of faith at a regularly functioning Christian church (actually, as I explained earlier, a Brethren assembly).

Now my question - be as blunt as you wish in replying. In your opinion, am I baptised?

[prodromas]

Now my question - be as blunt as you wish in replying. In your opinion, am I baptised?

That is for God to judge.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Topic: Believer's Baptism