Texts of the Eastern Orthodox Church relevant to Baptism

Do you? Wow! So you get these tiny infants and get them to renounce Satan? And then you give them lighted tapers? Isn't that a wee bit dangerous? And then you give them communion bread when they're not even weaned? I don't think so.

If you stay here long enough, you will learn that almost no one reads links. You need to do the work yourself and express yourself in your own words.

Too bad the Apostles never say anything about these things. Cyril was writing 250-300 years after their time. But he follows the Apostles to a certain extent: he makes no mention of infants or 'godparents'

Correction: you are arguing from silence. You are saying that although Cyril never mentions infant baptism, because your denomination believes in it, he must have meant to mention it bit somehow forgot.

It is indeed a resounding witness, to you're denomination's errors and your own gullibility. You think that because your denomination is ancient, it must be correct. Let me remind you that deception is as old as Satan (John 8:44).
In fact, Cyril's (and other church fathers') errors led to the early Christians delaying baptism as long as possible. Monica, the mother of Augustine delayed his baptism on the grounds that she did not want him to lose the supposed grace of baptism through all the sins She (correctly) felt sure he would commit. Constantine was not baptized until he was on his deathbed, and the Emperor Valentinian II delayed it too long and was murdered before he could be baptized. Whereupon Ambrose of Milan invented the idea of 'baptismal desire' which, of course, is found neither in the Bible nor anywhere else up to this point.

The church fathers are full of contradictions and errors. The only place of safety is the Bible, the word of the living God.

and

There is no command in the Bible for infants to receive water baptism.

There is no instance in the Bible of infants being baptized.

There is no reference in the Bible to infants being baptized.

Water baptism in the Bible is constantly tied in with repentance, faith and discipleship (eg Matthew 3:6, 11; 28:19; Mark 16:16; John 4:1; Acts 2:41; 8:12, 13, 36-37; 16:14-15, 31-34; 1 Corinthians 1:16: compare with 16:15f; Ephesians 4:5).

 

Good grief, what is wrong with having "godparents"? It became a "tradition", just like Wednesday night meetings at church or "altar calls" or reciting the "Sinners Prayer". Everything was not written down in the Scriptures. The Apostles passed on into eternity and there was still plenty of things that needed to be said and decided as the Christian Church grew.

So help me here with these words from the Scriptures. Jesus at one point tells us to love our enemies and to turn the other cheek and the next thing you know He is advocating the carrying of swords. Contradiction or not?

"Do not keep the little ones from me" or some likewise words. "Whole households were baptized" the Scriptures also say. The leaders of the newly emerging Christian Church had real power and real authority given to them by Jesus Christ Himself.

They convened Synods and Councils to decide things, you know, things like fighting heresies that cropped up from time to time and which manuscripts floating around would be included in the Canon of Scripture. Jesus did not just write a book and that was that, no He created a real institutional Church here on earth led by men guided by the Holy Spirit.

There is nothing in the Bible that says "Scripture Alone". In fact, it says quite the opposite and despite your fantasy about this, the historical record reflects that truth.

 

Water Baptism was especially to Paul, that Outward sign to all that the Holy Spirit had already baptized one into the Body of Christ, and sealed them unto redemption in full at time of the Second coming!

 

Do you hold to a type of baptismal regeneration then in water baptism?

 

Have you bothered to read his posts? This is a ridiculous question.

 

I'm glad you admit that you have no authority for 'godparents. What is wrong with tradition? I'll let the Lord Jesus answer that.
These are His words, not mine.
"Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honours Me with their lips but their heart is far from Me And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men" (Mark 7:6-7).

Now I should say that I was 'christened' as a baby into the Church of England, and in my ignorance and unbelief, I had all three of my children similarly served; all with 'godfathers' and 'godmothers' none of whom were the least help either to me or to them. The result in my case was that I grew up with a totally unfounded supposition that I was somehow right with God, and for many years I was 'Gospel-proof' inasmuch as when people at University and elsewhere tried to witness to me I ignored them. I was already sorted out with God; what did I need their Gospel for? Yet I knew no more of Christ than my dog and was living, to my shame, no better.

No contradiction, but if you want to discuss the texts, start a new thread.

You are thinking perhaps of Mark 10:13-16. Read it. Do you notice the one thing that the Lord Jesus didn't do with these children? That's right: He blessed them, but He didn't baptize them, though it would have been the perfect opportunity. So we too may bring our infant children to Him and ask His blessing on them, whether we do this in prayer or by way of a blessing service in the church. But we don't baptize them; that comes when they can make a clear and credible profession of faith for themselves. We can do a thread on family baptisms if you like. Here I will only observe that the household of Stephanus (1 Corinthians 1:16 were old enough to 'devote themselves to the ministry of the saints' (1 Corinthians 16:15). My wife and I were baptized together as believers, and if my children had been a little older they might well have joined us.

I'm aware of the various synods. They are valuable precisely as far as their decisions were compatible with Scripture. Not all of them were iniversally approved. 'Pope' Leo called the Second Council of Ephesus the 'Robber Synod.'

I believe very firmly that there is. We have had discussions on the subject and my view remains the same. Paul's last words to Titus: 'Preach the word!.........For the time is coming when they will not endure sound doctrine.....and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables' (2 Timothy 4:2-4). Fables such as infant baptism and 'godparents.'

 

Water Baptism in the new Covenant never was intended to save a lost sinner, to wash away Original Sin, to regenerate etc!

 

y

No, I did not admit that. The authority that resides in the Church is sufficient. It's from the "bind and loose" doctrine that is most definitely in the Holy Scriptures. Do you even deny the "pastoral authority" of your Pastor? If he has no authority to proclaim what doctrine your particular congregation is to follow, you would have one person believing one thing and another something different - that's called anarchy.

Not everything that Jesus did was written down and since none of us were on the scene he could have at some point.

Is it possible that your firm belief has come about because of tradition? It was only from the 16th century on that this "Sola Scriptura" idea came to be popular amongst some of the new Christian sects - which could be described as a new "tradition". "Preach the word", Jesus said, as He entrusted the new leaders with authority. I am at a loss to find the command from Our Lord for them to just write a book and let everyone figure it out for themselves.

 

Yes or no?

 

If you bothered to actually read the thread and not just parrot your standard anti-Catholic blather, you would know that A: He is an Eastern Orthodox Catholic Christian and B: He 'holds to some from of baptismal regeneration.' Btw,Yeshua1, so does NT Wright, who you seem to claim you know so much about.

 

I know Wright does, as he holds water baptism as entry way into the community of faith....

 

Uh-huh, and sacraments, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, in Holy Orders (Apostolic Succession), etc.

 

Which begs the question, since he holds to non biblical theology, why do so many view Him as being the theologian for today?

 

So your son did not renounce Satan, but someone did so 'on his behalf.' Now where is that in the Bible? Where is that in Cyril? Where are lighted tapers in the Bible? Where does Cyril say that someone can carry them on someone's behalf? When you say, "we did it to my own son (and daughter)" you give yourself away. You are not obeying the Bible, you are not obeying Cyril (not that I care about that) but you are following the rituals of your denomination and you think they must be right because they are ancient. But the apostasy was there even in apostolic times; read Jude 4. The heretics were already coming into the churches back then, and the fruit is with us today. The only remedy is to get back to the Bible, and if a doctrine or a practice can't be found there, don't do it. I very much hope that your son will come one day to renounce Satan and trust in Christ for himself. That will be the day for him to be baptized.

Proverbs 30:5. 'Every word of the LORD is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you and you be found a liar.' To say that maybe some guy wrote something that no one knows about and therefore you should follow what there's no evidence for him teaching is just crazy. I think I'd as soon believe in the angel Moroni and become a Mormon.

Exactly right. I can't comment on what people may have said, but there's no evidence they did say.

But your denomination's rites don't contain everything Cyril said. It doesn't require catechumens publicly to renounce Satan etc. You get someone else to do it on their behalf. You can believe your church is the one true church if you like, just like the J.W.s do, but don't tell me that it is following Cyril, let alone the Bible which is what really matters, because it doesn't.

John 14:23. "if anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love Him, and we will come to him and make our home with him." Look, Steve; I'm not saying that all those who follow Eastern Orthodox churches are lost or anything like that, but you're saying that your denomination is the one pure church and I'm telling you that it isn't. It is claiming to following some guy from the 4th Century, and it's not even doing that properly. Get real with the Bible! 'But when they believed Philip as he preached the things of the kingdom of God, both men and women were baptized' (Acts 8:12). First they believed, then they were baptized. Men and women. No babies.

I don't agree. The delaying of baptism was a direct result of Cyril and others teaching that the rite of baptism forgave sins previous to it. How natural that people should draw the logical conclusion that one should delay baptism until the last possible moment. I'm sure Cyril didn't intend that, but it was the law of unintended consequences in action.

I think you've found the reference now.

Infant baptism is not in the Bible, Steve, and falling back on silly ad homs isn't going to put it there.

Well take note of them then. First there is repentance and faith, then there is baptism.



Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

 

Some, not others. I can give you a list of apostate popes in the 8th and 9th centuries, before the eastern churches split, if you like.

I've already given you some verses. 'This people honours Me with their lips; but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'

I spent a week in St. Petersburg, Russia, in 2012, which was the 200th anniversary of Napoleon's retreat from Moscow. I heard a great open-air rendition of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture, complete with cannons, but then the priests (and where are they in the NT?) brought out this old picture which no one had seen for 100 years and the people all queued up to look at the picture and bow to it. It was one of the saddest things I've seen. These people, who for years had been forbidden to worship Christ in spirit and in truth, now they have some sort of freedom to do so, worship a picture of some chap with a beard and suppose it is their Lord.

You are right that the word 'catechumen' implies someone who has been catechized, and does not therefore apply to an infant. Yet your denomination follows the ritual laid down by Cyril for adults and applies it to babies.

But it's a nonsense, and in your heart you must know it. I can't repent and believe for you, nor you for me. And nor can some chap repent and believe on behalf of a tiny baby.

Certainly the men who carried the paralytic must have had faith, but so must the paralytic himself. It's inconceivable that the men would have brought him against his will. 'They' applies to all of them.

Well you got the last bit right! To be sure, let the children come to Christ. He is no longer on the earth in human form, but that doesn't matter. Teach them, encourage them, pray with and for them, but don't baptize them, because Christ didn't.

Alas not!

Deuteronomy 29:29. 'The secret things belong to the LORD, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever......' John 20:30-31. 'And truly Jesus did many other signs.....which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe......' The Bible is sufficient, 'that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work' (2 Timothy 3:17). Paul's teachings are contained in his letters. Not everything is contained in, say, his letters to the Thessalonians, but he would have given to the Thessalonians verbally the teachings that we find in Romans and Corinthians

I very much hope that you will ponder on what I've written, but that isn't the main reason for writing. My reason is to bring forth the truth of the word of God. You have said that your denomination freely adds to that word and there's nothing I can do about that except to warn those who may be reading, and to pint you once more to Mark 7:6-8; Proverbs 30:5-6 and Revelation 22:18.

Alas, you follow neither Cyril, Christ or the Apostles; you follow the traditions of men.

And this is just silly! If you can add randomly to the word of God, why stop there? Where does it say in the Bible not to baptize cats and dogs?

Unfortunately you exchanged one error for another. Sins are not remitted by water baptism as Simon Magus could tell you.