Texts of the Eastern Orthodox Church relevant to Baptism

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

If the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin why do we need water?

 

The shedding of Christ’s blood – his sacrifice on the Cross –redeemed all men, closing the breach between God and man caused by original sin and our personal sins. Because of Jesus’ redemptive sacrifice on the Cross, we can place our faith in him and be baptized, i.e., be “saved.”.

To be blunt, we are baptised because Jesus taught it was the normative way to enter the Kingdom (John 3:5) and he commanded his Church to baptise (Matthew 28:19). Jesus would not command his Church to perform an empty, fruitless ritual, so we can be confident that baptism does what Jesus said it would in John 3:5 – that, in a real sense, it “now saves us” (1 Peter 3:21)

 

Right

 

Nope

 

Just for clarification I am a Christian of the Baptist preference. I do not believe water baptism is necessary for salvation.
It is an act of obedience by which we publicly proclaim our belief in (and identify with) the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Oh, I don't know, but the Scriptures sure says lots about it. And from some of the passages I have read it is not an option, but a requirement to be fully integrated into the Christian family.

 

With respect, I don't think EWF was suggesting that the various 'Orthodox' churches are unitarian. He was looking for some input from you. He asked, where does the Trinity interact in the saving grace of the individual? All you have to do is answer him; not with a link--I have learned that links are rarely read here, and long ones, never-- but what you believe.

Baptism is an ordinance of the Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore to be obeyed by all believers.

 

The claim that infant baptism was not around until late in the second or 3rd century is easily shown false. There is much earlier evidence.

And, finally, archeological discoveries in the Roman catacombs have long-ago proven that infant baptism was common in the primitive Roman Churches. Two clear examples, among dozens of similar inscriptions, are all that we really need to support this claim. A man with the resounding Roman/Latin name of Murtius Verinus placed on the tomb of his children the inscription: “Verina received Baptism at the age of ten months, Florina at the age of twelve months.” The date of this tomb has been firmly established by radio-carbon dating of the children’s bones as being 105 AD +/- 4 years. Another tomb, not far away from this one, has the inscription: “Here rests Achillia, a newly-baptized infant; she was one year and five months old, died February 23rd....” and then follows the year of the reigning emperor, which dates her death to 91 AD. [see W. Wall, “History of Infant Baptism”, 2 Vols., London, 1900. and other related articles in various archeological journals from early this century.]

 

Baptism at 12 months is not infant baptism as practiced now. Remember, baptism of the dead did occur even in the apostles’ time.

This baptism of dead or nearly dead infants was likely one of the precursors to infant baptism.

The Didache does not describe infant baptism.

Regular and consistent infant baptism did not occur until after the doctrine of original sin was cemented by not a St. Augustine. Infant baptism was one of the primary things he and Pelagius were arguing about.

 

Do you have any documentation of this? Either way, I thought baptism is only a symbol for those who have made a decision to accept Christ as Savior and Lord? Why bother to Baptize an infant? Plus, why no outrage expressed by the 'bible-believing Baptists' in response to those baptizing infants and children? These people were doing something commonly practiced long before the 'evil Catholic Church' was 'invented'.

 

According to my understanding of Roman Catholic Doctrine, the Sacrament of Baptism results in the individual being born-again and thereby becoming a member of God's family. Therefore, the baptism of an infant brings that soul into His family. They go so far as to make provision of the unborn child, while in the mother's womb to be baptized under dire circumstances.

Baptism | Catholic Answers

I. AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENT OF DOCTRINE

...."Holy Baptism holds the first place among the sacraments, because it Is the door of the spiritual life; for by it we are made members of Christ and incorporated with the Church. And since through the first man death entered into all, unless we be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, we cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven, as Truth Himself has told us. The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water; and it is indifferent whether it be cold or hot. The form is: I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. We do not, however, deny that the words: Let this servant of Christ be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; or: This person is baptized by my hands in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, constitute true baptism; because since the principal cause from which baptism has its efficacy is the Holy Trinity, and the instrumental cause is the minister who confers the sacrament exteriorly, then if the act exercised by the minister be expressed, together with the invocation of the Holy Trinity, the sacrament is perfected. The minister of this sacrament is the priest, to whom it belongs to baptize, by reason of his office. In case of necessity, however, not only a priest or deacon, but even a layman or woman, nay, even a pagan or heretic can baptize, provided he observes the form used by the Church, and intends to perform what the Church performs. The effect of this sacrament is the remission of all sin, original and actual; likewise of all punishment which is due for sin. As a consequence, no satisfaction for past sins is enjoined upon those who are baptized; and if they die before they commit any sin, they attain immediately to the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God,"


VI. MATTER AND FORM OF THE SACRAMENT
By the present authorized ritual of the Latin Church, baptism must be performed by a laving of the head of the candidate. Moralists, however, state that in case of necessity, the baptism would probably be valid if the water were applied to any other principal part of the body, as the breast or shoulder. In this case, however, conditional baptism would have to be administered if the person survived (St. Alph., no. 107). In like manner they consider as probably valid the baptism of an infant in its mother's womb, provided the water, by means of an instrument, would actually flow upon the child.

 

If actual redemption took place on the cross for all men, then none of us will ever be judged for our sins.
Those that are redeemed were purchased from God's wrath and thereby saved...
That is what "redemption" means...purchased ( Ephesians 1:14 )..."bought with a price" ( 1 Corinthians 6:20, 1 Corinthians 7:23 ).

When the Lord God purchases something, He takes it home and keeps it ( 1 Peter 1:5 ), because it is His.

Next:
What gets a man to Heaven?

Baptism? <----- Works.
Penance? <----- Works.
Placing our faith in Him? <----- Works.

Being a member of a church?
Living a holy life?
Preaching the Gospel?

None of it.
Many that do these things shall find themselves here:
Matthew 7:21-23.
..and here:
Matthew 25:31-46.

God's unmerited mercy and grace?
All that find themselves here:
Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5-6.
...are saved.

Salvation is eternal life ( John 17:3 ), and no one is saved on probation or by anything that we as men can take credit for.


May God bless you.

 

Jesus is describing the spiritual water of His word ( John 15:3, John 17:17, Ephesians 5:25-27 ) in John 3:5.

Yes, He did command believers to be baptized, and it is for a sign of His death, burial and resurrection.
Earthly water has no miraculous properties...only spiritual "water" does.
His word and His Spirit are what do the work of making a person born-again.

As I see it, the "evil Catholic Church" was not invented...it began as the church of God's children at Rome, and "developed" from there over more than a thousand years.
I see much the same thing happening over the past 500 years since the "Reformation", with various denominations taking on differing characteristics of the first heresies, the more time goes by.

For example, many denominations now teach a variation of "Pelagianism", which was first upheld at the Council of Diospolis in 418, and then defeated at the following Councils of both Carthage ( 418 ) and Ephesus ( 431 ). It was then defeated again at the Council of Orange in 529 in a slightly different form, now known as "Semi-Pelagianism" ( closely related to Roman Catholic "Molinism" ) .

Many Baptists now teach the same things that they started out hating in their beginning, as well.


What we now know as the Roman Catholic Church didn't start out in its current form...
From my perspective, it took quite awhile to get where it is.

 

Thank you for posting this. Yes, I understand why baptism is necessary. I asked the question simply because Christians were commonly baptizing babies in these very early times and it is obvious to me that they did so because they believed it to be more than symbolic. I don't think this was a version of 'baptism of the dead', but even if it was, why bother if it is only symbolic? Obviously they believed it to have an effect or they wouldn't do it and record the act on many tombstones.

 

How do you explain the fact that NONE of the early Christian writers interpreted this passage in that way? ALL of the early christian writers interpreted John 3:5 in the same way as Catholic/Orthodox/Lutheran/Anglican, etc.

I have asked this question repeatedly on this board. It doesn't seem to matter to the those taking the Baptist position that nobody understood baptism in those early centuries of the Church the way that Baptist do now. Does it not bother anyone that there is overwhelming evidence that the Early Church believed in baptismal regeneration?

Baptists and some other evangelicals (but certainly not all) avoid what all the early Christians understood John 3:5 to mean and say that Christians misunderstood this from the earliest years right up to the Reformation. Instead of "water and the Spirit" being read as a unit (baptism), you guys want us to read independently: water (baptism) and the Holy Spirit (accepting Christ as Lord as Savior). Only the second is functional; the former is decorative—commanded by Christ but nevertheless not really doing anything to the recipient.

Again, look at Acts 2:38, where Peter says, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Look at the sequence: First comes repentance; then comes baptism (and what happens?) the forgiveness of sins—and then, as a consequence of that forgiveness and therefore of baptism, comes the gift (the grace) of the Holy Spirit. This verse makes sense only if it is understood as saying that baptism is not a mere symbol. If baptism were just an ordinance and not a sacrament, why would Peter bother to include it in his instruction? You only say, 'because for some reason Jesus commanded it and therefore we should do it'. AGAIN, this was the understanding of the Christians in the early centuries of the Church right up to the Reformation (although Luther realized the truth about baptism).

The head of the apostles is supported by Paul, who said to the Corinthians that "you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified" 1 Cor. 6:11. By washed he was not referring to the Corinthians’ bathing practices, because sanctification and justification are not dependent on hygienic practices. The verb meant that they had been baptized, and it was their baptism that brought them, for the first time, a state of sanctification and justification. Baptism changed them internally, spiritually, as it changes us.

Seriously, someone PLEASE address the fact that there are NO writings supporting 'baptism is symbolic only' position. Maybe Martin? At one time DHK told me that there is historical evidence (dating back to the early centuries of the Church) of the Baptist position but never presented it. Not to ramble on, but it seems if there were 'bible Baptists' in the first centuries of the Church there would be historical evidence of that. It seems that Baptists try to hitch there wagons to many groups that were clearly heretical and believe things that no Baptist would hold to.

I have posted Baptists historians that admit that the early groups that Baptists often give as evidence of that there were Christians of 'like faith and order' to what modern day Baptists believe and will post it again hoping someone will comment:

'Honest Baptists, such as James McGoldrick who was once himself a believer in Baptist successionism are conceding that this "trail of blood" view is, frankly, bogus. McGoldrick writes:

Extensive graduate study and independent investigation of church history has, however, convinced [the author] that the view he once held so dear has not been, and cannot be, verified. On the contrary, surviving primary documents render the successionist view untenable. . . . Although free church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when judged by standards now acknowledged as baptistic, not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church. Baptists arose in the 17th century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the reformers. (Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History [1994], 1–2)'

 

No, you misunderstand. The Church does teach that everyone is redeemed by Christ, but not that there is universal salvation. Christ redeemed us all, but we still have to choose salvation, through faith, otherwise we reject the salvation that is offered to us.

.
Jesus reconciled us with God which made it possible for us to be saved.

St. Augustine:

Since men are in this state of wrath through original sin–a condition made still graver and more pernicious as they compounded more and worse sins with it–a Mediator was required; that is to say, a Reconciler who by offering a unique sacrifice, of which all the sacrifices of the Law and the Prophets were shadows, should allay that wrath. Thus the apostle says, “For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, even more now being reconciled by his blood we shall be saved from wrath through him.”(68) However, when God is said to be wrathful, this does not signify any such perturbation in him as there is in the soul of a wrathful man. His verdict, which is always just, takes the name “wrath” as a term borrowed from the language of human feelings.

This, then, is the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord–that we are reconciled to God through the Mediator and receive the Holy Spirit so that we may be changed from enemies into sons, “for as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.”(69)

Jesus then opened the door. Salvation is a choice, for has many choose to be led by the Spirit, they are the sons of God and are deserving of salvation.