Texts of the Eastern Orthodox Church relevant to Baptism

[Dave G]

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.

Walter,
History does not dictate my understanding of God's word...
God does.

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?

...and in my opinion, that is why many "Baptists" have given their lives for what they believe and teach.

Ask those who believe that some work of men results in a man gaining salvation, and you will invariably get differing results.
But ask those who believe that God alone saves men, and that their actions are the result of His grace, mercy and Spirit working within them, and you will get one, resounding result:

Baptism is but one of many things that we do that reflect who we are, and signifies Who we believe and trust in, and Whose death, burial and resurrection we are remembering by performing the immersion of our own bodies in water, as God the Father, through His Spirit, immerses our bodies and spirits in the water of His word.

Baptists and some other evangelicals (but certainly not all) avoid the 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.

We avoid it because we don't recognize the authority of men to determine our beliefs about Scripture.
To me, both are decorative...
"Accepting Christ as Saviour" is a man-made act.
God "accepting me" is a God-made act.

Salvation by grace through faith....not by it ( Ephesians 2:8-10 ).

 

[Dave G]

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.

We don't work on "writings"...we work on Scripture alone.
That's why you will find no writings that have survived, because we don't put any authority on such things, so we don't cherish anything but God's word.

Historical evidence has been built up over centuries by men who think they have it all figured out...
They don't.

The process of becoming born again is not by man's will ( John 1:13 ) and not by any work of righteousness that we as men, can do ( Titus 3:5-6 ).
The Lord completely bypasses man's efforts to gain eternal life, by bestowing it on whom He will, not on whom we will ( Romans 9:16 ).

In addition, not all "Baptists" are the same.

What's more, many who hold to what I believe don't even consider themselves "Baptists", as a denominational name...they consider themselves children of the living God, who baptize those who have believed in water...not infants who have never confessed Christ as Saviour or shown remorse for their sins.

'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)'

The "Trail of Blood" isn't something I happen to agree with...but to say that God's children, "Baptist" or otherwise, have not been killed since Cain slew Abel, is to deny Scripture ( Psalms 44:22, Romans 8:36, Hebrews 11:4, 1 John 3:12 ), from where I'm sitting.

Simply put, many of us that you call, "Baptists" have suffered for centuries for believing what we do, and we will suffer still more persecution and even death for claiming to trust in one thing:

Jesus Christ and His finished work on the cross for us.
We love Him because He first loved us ( 1 John 4:19 ).

All of grace, and none of works.
That's why it's so amazing.

 

[Dave G]

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.

The Scripture does not say as many as choose to be led by the Spirit...it says as many as are led by the Spirit ( Romans 8:14 ).
His Spirit leads, His children follow.

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)

If you're going to quote Augustine, you may wish to read Augustine ( not that I place any authority in his writings, or even take my understanding from them ).
Even he confessed that salvation is not a choice men make...

" God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world…to the adoption of children, not because we were going to be of ourselves holy and immaculate, but…that we might be so…. He did this according to the good pleasure of His will, so that nobody might glory concerning his own will, but about God’s will towards himself. He did this according to the riches of His grace…which He purposed in His beloved Son, in whom we have obtained a share…to the purpose, not ours, but His…that He worketh in us to will also. Moreover, He worketh according to the counsel of His will, that we may be to the praise of His glory…for which purpose He called us…[with] that special calling of the elect."

...but a choice that God makes ( Acts of the Apostles 13:48, Romans 8:29-30, 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14, John 6:29, John 6:37-40, John 17:2, Ephesians 1:4-10, Psalms 65:4 ).

Do you "see" the Son?
Then praise God for your ability to "see".

 

[Steve Allen]

"'spiritual' water"...

How does the body become spiritual? By the indwelling action of and transfiguration by the Holy Spirit.

How does water become spiritual?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Walter]

The Scripture does not say as many as choose to be led by the Spirit...it says as many as ARE led by the Spirit ( Romans 8:14 ).
His Spirit leads, His children follow.



If you're going to quote Augustine, you may wish to read Augustine ( not that I place any authority in his writings, or even take my understanding from them ).
Even he confessed that salvation is not a choice men make...

" God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world…to the adoption of children, not because we were going to be of ourselves holy and immaculate, but…that we might be so…. He did this according to the good pleasure of His will, so that nobody might glory concerning his own will, but about God’s will towards himself. He did this according to the riches of His grace…which He purposed in His beloved Son, in whom we have obtained a share…to the purpose, not ours, but His…that He worketh in us to will also. Moreover, He worketh according to the counsel of His will, that we may be to the praise of His glory…for which purpose He called us…[with] that special calling of the elect."

...but a choice God makes ( Acts of the Apostles 13:48, Romans 8:29-30, 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14, John 6:29, John 6:37-40, John 17:2, Ephesians 1:4-10, Psalms 65:4 ).

Do you "see" the Son?
Then praise God for your ability to "see".

So you don't think I have read Augustine? I graduated from a Baptist college many years ago. Patristics was completely ignored. I graduated with a bible major and learned squat about the Early Church past the book of Acts. What I learned about the writings of the Early Church Fathers I learned on my own and eventually became a Catholic when I realized that the Early Church looked NOTHING like a Baptist church today but was Catholic in faith. BTW, I don't appreciate someone falsely accusing me of something. Obviously I am stepping on toes,

 

[Adonia]

I graduated with a bible major and learned squat about the Early Church past the book of Acts.

I have heard this before from other people who were ministers in non-orthodox faith traditions but now of the Latin Rite.

 

[Adonia]

If you're going to quote Augustine, you may wish to read Augustine ( not that I place any authority in his writings, or even take my understanding from them ).

How about all the other Early Church Fathers, do they get short shrift from you also? Once they are read one can see that they were all Catholic in their core belief's.

 

[MartyF]

Do you have any documentation of this?

What a rude and dismissive thing to say. I gave you the documentation for it. However, if there is something more that you needed, you need to be specific.

Either way, I thought baptism is only a symbol for those who have made a decision to accept Christ as Savior and Lord?

I'm not sure where this question came from or what it is referring to. Are you questioning yourself in the here and now? Or are you asking about the past? What time periods are you asking about?

Why bother to Baptize an infant?

I don't understand if these questions are personal question to myself which is a little off topic or if you are asking it of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th century Christians?

Plus, why no outrage expressed by the 'bible-believing Baptists' in response to those baptizing infants and children?

Once again. Your question makes little sense. 'bible-believing Baptists'? Who are you talking about? What time are you talking about. If you're talking about 5th or earlier centuries, I gave a name of a Christian who adamantly opposed infant baptisms. There are others. Did you need help in how to do a web search for them?

These people were doing something commonly practiced long before the 'evil Catholic Church' was 'invented'.

I don't know where this Catholic hate you're mentioning is coming from. My post did not push Catholic hate.

 

[Walter]

What a rude and dismissive thing to say. I gave you the documentation for it. However, if there is something more that you needed, you need to be specific.



I'm not sure where this question came from or what it is referring to. Are you questioning yourself in the here and now? Or are you asking about the past? What time periods are you asking about?



I don't understand if these questions are personal question to myself which is a little off topic or if you are asking it of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th century Christians?



Once again. Your question makes little sense. 'bible-believing Baptists'? Who are you talking about? What time are you talking about. If you're talking about 5th or earlier centuries, I gave a name of a Christian who adamantly opposed infant baptisms. There are others. Did you need help in how to do a web search for them?



I don't know where this Catholic hate you're mentioning is coming from. My post did not push Catholic hate.

Rude and dismissive? No, I asked for documentation to your claim that the tombstone references to baptism were a actually 'Baptism of the Dead'. You simply inferred that this is what all those tombstone inscriptions meant, I am simply asking that you show historical proof. Got it? I already know it doesn't exist.

The question here is: 'Why would it be important to baptize an infant or a child before the age of accountability if baptism is just a symbol?' If you can't follow the reasoning of my posts then please ignore them. You don't have to respond. BTW, I never accused you of 'Catholic Hate'. Just because I mention that there are people who perceive the Catholic Church as evil doesn't mean I am referring to you.

I have been posting on this board for many years as you can see and you are the first to tell me I don't make any sense.
You have only been on this board for a few months, maybe you spend some time reading some of the countless anti-Catholic threads that have been created and you will find that their are folks on the board that have gone on the record to say the Catholic Church is evil.

 

[Adonia]

History does not dictate my understanding of God's word...
God does.

Historical writings can help us understand God's word. Surely you accept the writings of John Smyth (the first Baptist) as you seek to understand the Lord and His plan for us?

 

[Walter]

I have heard this before from other people who were ministers in non-orthodox faith traditions but now of the Latin Rite.

I had never studied any of the early church fathers, but after coming to this board as a Baptist (years ago) and read the posts of the Catholics who were posting here I got started reading about the early church fathers. St. Augustine, St.Ignatius. St.Poylcarp. etc. The writings of these Saints are amazing!!!

I didn’t go back and ask any of my profs at California Baptist University if they had ever studied the writings of St. Augustine, but it made me want to know where in history do Baptists ministers begin their studies? As you know, many of the Early church Fathers were direct students/followers of the Apostles, but as you can see, because their writings are Catholic to the core those writings are largely ignored. 'We just focus on scripture!'. Or they will sometimes point to some of the ECF writings and show where the particular writer was in error.

As you can see, they truly believe that all the 'baptistic' writings in the Early Church were destroyed and they usually accuse the Catholic Church of doing so, even though apparently the Church failed to destroy the writings of so many other heretical groups:

Trinitarian/Christological heretical writings survived as did writings about Adoptionism, Apollinarism, Arabici, Arianism, Collyridianism, Docetism, Luciferians, Macedonians or Pneumatomachians, Melchisedechians, Monarchianism, Monophysitism or Eutychianism, Monothelitism,
Nestorianism, Patripassianism, Psilanthropism, Sabellianism, Tritheism

The Gnostic writings survived but not one single baptistic writing survived. They can only point to the New Testament and say: 'Our interpretation of scripture is what True Believers hold to'.

 

[Adonia]

As you can see, they truly believe that all the 'baptistic' writings in the Early Church were destroyed and they usually accuse the Catholic Church of doing so,

Oh yes, that's another thing I heard about. As for the ECF's, don't feel bad for missing them earlier in your life either. I am a "cradle catholic" and didn't know much about their writings until a few years ago and I am 62!

Sure I had heard about the popular ones like St. John Chrysostom and St. Augustine, but most of the others no. Those writings really opened my eyes about the early years of the emerging Christian faith and how they saw things and I am grateful I started reading them.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

"'spiritual' water"...

How does the body become spiritual? By the indwelling action of and transfiguration by the Holy Spirit.

How does water become spiritual?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

So look at it in another way....what was Jesus and John the Baptist trying to do in the wilderness at the Jordan River? And then what is the significance of water? Was it a symbol....was it spiritual? What were the customs of the day and how did the people of the day live their lives? Why did a person come to John to be dunked in the first place? In short, what was the motivation of the people and what was Johns motivation? And why was Jesus there to participate in it?

Work it through.... the people were essentially downtrodden with the government at their backs so to travel there was an undertaking. To cooperate with a wild man that the government was watching closely was significant right? And what was John doing... giving them what? And what was John using as the main ingredient...water! And what was waters significance.... clean and free perhaps?

So what was John doing that the people of the day embraced and eventually got him killed?

 

[Adonia]

And what was waters significance.... clean and free perhaps?

Good question.

 

[MartyF]

Rude and dismissive? No, I asked for documentation to your claim that the tombstone references to baptism were a actually 'Baptism of the Dead'.

I would take take your word that rudeness and dismissiveness was not your intention.

You simply inferred that this is what all those tombstone inscriptions meant, I am simply asking that you show historical proof. Got it? I already know it doesn't exist.

But then you followed with this.

“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....”

The inscriptions themselves give hints to the baptism of the dead. "Here rest Achillia, a newly baptized infant, she was one year and five months old, died February 23rd . . . ." First, infant baptism as done now, is usually done within the first couple of months - not the second year. In fact, most definitions of infant don't include children in the second year. It is quite reasonable to conclude that "newly baptized" refers to either a baptism just before or after death. And baptism of the dead is recorded by Paul. In addition to this I'm just taking the word of your quoted passage.

This all depends on the accuracy of your book. The book you quote is highly suspect since it claims that radio carbon dating got it right within 4 years. Radio carbon dating is simply not that accurate. The tree rings radio carbon dating is based on is +/- 50 years, so claiming +/- 4 years accuracy for something 2000 years ago is simply silly. So, I'm taking the word of this book that these translations were actually accurate.

You're interpreting cryptic passages left on tombstone in a way a way that you want. You might consider reading Hotel of Mysteries by David Macaulay. Claiming absolute knowledge of what a cryptic message on a tomb may have meant or what traditions it may support is silly.

Writings are generally a better guide as to what happened in the past.

Tertullian opposed infant baptism and compared it to pagan practices. So by third century, although infant or young child baptism was occurring, it was not completely accepted by all. Pelagius was the last gasp of formal and organized effort to oppose infant baptism. Although adult baptism was still practiced in many parts of the Christian world afterwards, very few were willing to die for the cause. Murder and torture has rarely been a problem for those who support infant baptism. While those who support adult baptism are more likely to follow Jesus's and Paul's example and let you do your thing.

The question here is: 'Why would it be important to baptize an infant or a child before the age of accountability if baptism is just a symbol?' If you can't follow the reasoning of my posts then please ignore them. You don't have to respond. BTW, I never accused you of 'Catholic Hate'. Just because I mention that there are people who perceive the Catholic Church as evil doesn't mean I am referring to you.

There were some, even in Paul's time, who believed baptizing by proxy would save the souls of those who had died. Paul did not oppose this practice, he didn't fully support it either. Paul didn't place as big an emphasis on baptism as Peter did. In a couple places, Paul alluded to baptism being similar to circumcision. Jesus's opinion on how well circumcision saves is well recorded.

Form what I can understand, the grief of the loss of a child can be tremendous. From reading the writings of Pliny the Younger, I can easily see that the grief was the same in Ancient Rome as well. So when a parent asked the local Christian elder what could be done and how would the child join on resurrection day, I'm sure that baptism was a perfect accommodation. As in Paul's day I'm sure this was done on the dead first, but since infant mortality was so common, I'm also certain that parents started to want their children baptized right away. And yes, the parents believed that this baptism would save their child, just like the Corinthians believed that baptism of the dead would save their loved ones.

Is there any ironclad proof of this - no. I am interpreting the evidence provided in the way I think is best. Just because others can scream louder than me doesn't make someone else's point of view any better. But there is ironclad evidence that the theology behind infant baptism didn't cement until not a St. Augustine in the 5th century. He was the turning point where those who opposed infant baptism were tortured and/or killed.

Should Paul have come down harder on the Corinthians and their baptism of the dead? I believe it is clear that Paul allowed this as an accommodation. But he had bigger fish to fry like a man who was sleeping with his step-mother.

The way you wrote your post did imply Catholic hate in my opinion, but I'm glad this is not the case.

I have been posting on this board for many years as you can see and you are the first to tell me I don't make any sense.
You have only been on this board for a few months, maybe you spend some time reading some of the countless anti-Catholic threads that have been created and you will find that their are folks on the board that have gone on the record to say the Catholic Church is evil.

I have found that people on this forum tend to parse their own words while twisting the words of others just like not a St. Augustine did. In fact, I find this to be a horrible habit of most so-called Christian-type forums. So I will not apologize for trying to get you to elaborate on what you meant. If you accuse me or imply accusations against me, I will always consider it right to respond and defend myself.

You seem to claim Catholics as a persecuted group and you then seem to tie this with the doctrine of infant baptism. This seems quite strange because in truth Baptists and a few other smaller denominations and independent churches stand alone in the belief of adult baptism. Most Protestants stand with the Catholics with infant baptism, so claiming to be a special persecuted group in discussing baptism is simply silly and balderdash.

I can't find a single instance where those who believed in adult baptism tortured or murdered anyone who believed in infant baptism. Yet, I can find innumerable examples where the opposite has occurred.

 

[Steve Allen]

[W]hat w[ere] Jesus and John the Baptist trying to do in the wilderness at the Jordan River? And then what is the significance of water? Was it a symbol....was it spiritual?

Good question! Very key.

There is a fundamental difference between what John was doing there, and what Jesus was doing there, as evidenced by John's own confusion about the matter: "I have need to be baptized of you, and you come to me?"

John was baptizing with a baptism of repentance only, and not with the the baptism of Christ, i.e. with Holy Spirit. He was preparing the people to receive Christ: "Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God."

By the uniformity of the method and the ubiquity of water, the people were made equal to one another before Him: "Every valley [that is, the humility of the poor and needy] shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill [that is, the pride of the rich and abundant] shall be made low." (This is the part, I think, that you are angling at with your question about the price and availability of water. There is more than just that, but it is definitely part of the weave.)

By obedient repentance, the people were made morally pure as well: "and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain."

Thus the people were prepared and made worthy to receive the LORD in the revelation of His glory: "And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it."

And what do we (Orthodox) sing?

When Thou, O Lord, wast baptized in the Jordan, the worship of the Trinity was made manifest, for the voice of the Father bore witness unto Thee, calling Thee His beloved Son, and the Spirit in the likeness of a dove confirmed the truth of His word. O Christ our God, Who hast appeared and enlightened the world, glory to Thee!

So the work of John on the people was to prepare the way for the Lord Himself. Then the Lord Himself came and walked this highway that John had prepared, not in order to receive repentance Himself, but to sanctify the waters and reveal Himself in them, crushing the heads of the dragons in the waters, and make them the means of unification with Himself by the Holy Spirit.

Now, how is it that "all flesh shall see it together", when the baptism of the Lord was a local event, with whoever happened to be there at that time witnessing it?

Because the baptism of the Lord is the beginning and fountain of the Church's baptism, to which all are commanded by the Gospel command to enter, and "this Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations." So they were commanded,

Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

And what is the beginning of the Gospel?

The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God: ... John did baptize in the wilderness, and .... Jesus came .. and was baptized of John in the Jordan.

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men ... For we ourselves also were [sinners]. But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

(See my posts above for the inheritance aspect...I'm focused on the appearance and blessing of Jordan here, in answer to your question.)

And so the Church prays together, when preparing the waters for baptism:

That this water may be sanctified with the power, and effectual operation, and indwelling of the Holy Spirit...

That there may be sent down into it the grace of redemption, the blessing of Jordan...

That there may come upon this water the purifying operation of the super-substantial Trinity...

That we may be illumined by the light of understanding and piety, by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit...

That this water may prove effectual unto the averting of every snare of enemies, both visible and invisible...

That he who is baptized therein may be made worthy of the Kingdom incorruptible...

For him who is now come unto holy Baptism, and for his salvation...

That he may prove himself to be a child of the Light, and an heir of eternal good things...

That he may be a member and partaker of the death and resurrection of Christ our God...

That he may preserve his baptismal garment and the earnest of the Spirit pure and undefiled unto the dread Day of Christ our God...

That this water may be to him a laver of regeneration, unto the remission of sins, and a garment of incorruption...

Then the priest completes the prayer as follows:

Great art Thou, O Lord, and marvelous are Thy works, and there is no word which is sufficient to hymn Thy wonders. For Thou, of Thine own good will, hast brought into being all things which before were not, and by Thy might, Thou upholdest creation, and by Thy providence Thou orderest the world.

For Thou, who art God inexpressible and everlasting, didst descend upon earth, and didst take on the semblance of a servant, and wast made in the likeness of man. For, because of the tender compassion of Thy mercy, O Master, Thou couldst not endure to behold mankind oppressed by the Devil; but Thou didst come, and didst save us.

We confess Thy grace. We proclaim Thy mercy. We conceal not thy gracious acts. Thou hast delivered the generations of our mortal nature. By Thy birth Thou didst sanctify the Virgin’s womb. All creation magnifieth Thee, who hast manifested Thyself. For Thou, O our God, hath revealed Thyself upon earth, and dwelt among men. Thou didst hallow the streams of Jordan, sending down upon them from heaven Thy Holy Spirit, and didst crush the heads of dragons who lurked there. Wherefore, O King who lovest mankind, come Thou now and sanctify this water by the indwelling of Thy Holy Spirit. And grant unto it the grace of redemption, the blessing of Jordan. Make it the fountain of incorruption, the gift of sanctification, the remission of sins, the remedy of infirmities, the final destruction of demons, unassailable by hostile powers, filled with Angelic might; that those who would ensnare Thy creature will flee far from it. For we have called upon Thy Name, O Lord, and it is wonderful and glorious, and terrible unto adversaries.

Let all adverse powers be crushed beneath the sign of the image of Thy Cross. [here he makes the sign of the cross in the water, repeating this last bit three times, the Church answering, "Amen!" each time]

When the person goes into the water, he is immersed (we don't sprinkle or pour except in extreme circumstances where immersion is not an option for some reason and death is imminent) three times (we do just about everything three times -- symbolizing the Trinity, and also, in this case, the three-day burial), each time accompanied with the prayer, "The servant of God [name] is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

He is then given a new, white robe, and told, "The servant of God, [name], is clothed with the garment of righteousness, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit", to which he responds with the prayer (the Church singing with/for him): "Vouchsafe unto me a robe of light, O Thou who clothest Thyself with light as with a garment: Christ our God, plenteous in mercy."

Likewise in the Feast of Theophany (the baptism of the Lord), we sing:

Ye faithful, let us praise the greatness of God’s dispensation toward us. For, becoming man on account of our transgressions, he who alone is clean and undefiled was cleansed in Jordan that we might be made clean, sanctifying us and the waters and breaking the heads of the dragons in the water. Let us then draw water in gladness, O brethren; for upon those who draw with faith, the grace of the Spirit is invisibly bestowed by Christ, the God and Savior of our souls.

And also,

The Trinity was made manifest in the Jordan. For, supreme in Godhead, the Father proclaimed, saying, “He Who is here baptized is My beloved Son,” and the Spirit rested upon His Equal in Godhead, whom the peoples bless and exalt above all forever.

So one question is: Does the Lord answer the prayers of the Church or not?

 

[Steve Allen]

Now one might ask, "Why, if baptism is part and parcel of the Gospel, does Paul say, 'Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel'?"

This is an easy answer: Paul wasn't the only one on the team, and frankly even he admits he did some baptizing. His main duty was the preaching. Others did the baptizing of those who believed the word preached.

His main concern in mentioning that was not to make a dichotomy between baptism and the Gospel, but rather that they not think the team was baptizing in the name of Paul who was preaching. "I thank God I baptized none of you...lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name."

There is a delicious pun there, too, in chapter 3 of that letter, where he says that he planted (that is, preached), and Apollos watered. I take this to be a linguistic indication that Apollos did the baptizing. Yes, I'm aware of the agricultural metaphor there -- thus the deliciousness of the double entendre. And the agricultural metaphor is apt as well, since it is likewise a symbol of death and resurrection:

Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.

There is a also a linguistic tie-back there in the word "watered" (epotisen -- literally "made to drink") to the promise of the Lord:

Behold, I will do a new thing; now it shall spring forth; shall ye not know it? I will even make a way in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert. ... to give drink [LXX potisai -- same word] to my people, my chosen. This people have I formed for myself; they shall shew forth my praise.

And where was the Lord baptized, but in the wilderness, in the desert?

And so He fulfilled (that is, made full) all righteousness -- those who come to the waters for salvation are clothed in His righteousness and made to drink into that same Spirit that descended upon Him there in the likeness of a dove.

For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink [epotisthemen -- same root!] into one Spirit.

Of course, Paul knew this quite well, since he first heard this from Ananias:

Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

 

[Steve Allen]

most definitions of infant don't include children in the second year

The (Orthodox, anyway) Church's definition does. See here and this hymn from the Feast of the Holy Innocents:

When the King was born in Bethlehem, the Magi came from the East.
Having been led by a star from on High, they brought Him gifts.
But in exceeding wrath, Herod harvested the infants as sorrowing wheat;
The rule of his kingdom has come to an end.

And from the Synaxarion reading for that feast (pulled from here):

Then Herod was wroth and sent men to slay all the infants of Bethlehem and the parts round about, from two years old and under, thinking that with them he would also certainly slay the King Who had been born.

-----

Tertullian opposed infant baptism and compared it to pagan practices. So by third century, although infant or young child baptism was occurring, it was not completely accepted by all.

Tertullian started out Orthodox, then got caught up in the Montanist heresy, whereupon he began to oppose infant baptism. (I hope I don't need to explain why Montanus was a heretic?)

You have it exactly backward: It's not that "although it was occurring, it was not completely accepted by all". Rather, it was completely accepted by the Church, and whenever someone left the Church they sometimes began to oppose it (depending on the heresy they left to join).

 

[Dave G]

So you don't think I have read Augustine?

That wasn't the point I was trying to make.

I was trying to lead you into reading the quote I posted below yours, from Augustine.
Instead of simply quoting one thing he said, I was trying to get you to consider other things he said.

However, let's throw Augustine's writings out with the trash...I don't put any stock in his, much less my own.

I graduated from a Baptist college many years ago. Patristics was completely ignored. I graduated with a bible major and learned squat about the Early Church past the book of Acts.

With respect, I have no use for "bible colleges", and I've often had to ask myself why they exist.
It then occurred to me that they exist because there are so many different understandings of Scripture, and that every "sect" feels the need to teach the Bible their way.
Ultimately, many seem to have trouble going to the Bible alone for their understanding of it.

As for the early church past the book of Acts, I happen to believe that that is where the visible writings of it stop.
Scripture alone is all we, as believers need...anything past that stands the probability of being corrupt in its authority and insights.
The writings of the "early church fathers" are the writings of men, not the inspired writings of God.

What I learned about the writings of the Early Church Fathers I learned on my own and eventually became a Catholic when I realized that the Early Church looked NOTHING like a Baptist church today but was Catholic in faith. ,

What is written by the early church "fathers" I tend to completely ignore, because where they agree with Scripture I agree with, and where they don't, I don't.
To me, it's "nice to know", but ultimately is still man's take on the Bible.
I don't trust any of the early so-called "church fathers" to be accurate, because they all differ when I put them under the microscope.

As I see it, the early church in Acts and the epistles is not modeled all that well by the vast majority of denominations...and those that do include "Baptists" who meet in homes and other buildings that are not patterned after the way the Catholic Church does things.

There is / are no "altar", "pews", "baptistry", "priest(s)", "Monstrance", statues, "choir", "cardinals", "archbishops", "pope", "altar boys", "tithes", incense, "ministerial garb", "clergy", images or "veneration" described anywhere in the epistles to the churches, and in the Gentile churches in the book of Acts.
Neither is there an indication that the Hebrew believers had any involvement with the above, past continuing to go to synagogue and worship at the Temple ( which was destroyed in 70 A.D. ).

With respect, they are fabrications of men ( or borrowed from Old Testament practice ) that have been introduced into the visible churches over the past 2,000 years and have become tradition.

BTW, I don't appreciate someone falsely accusing me of something. Obviously I am stepping on toes,

I think you're reading something into my post...
I'm not offended at you, and I'm definitely not accusing you of anything.
Again, the reason I directed you to read another quote by Augustine, was to consider what even he said about God choosing men, instead of men choosing God.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I look at the situation at the time to formulate questions I asked. Most of the people of the day, I believe we all agree were working poor. The rulers of the day were Romans and the church of the day... I mean the Sanhedrin, the high priests, the Scribes, the Tax Collectors blah blah blah. Every time you try to do something you get hit with a tax, a surcharge, a fee, The Hand is in your pocket (quite like living in present day New Jersey). Now here comes this nutty wild guy out there at the river making it free to come to God (without collecting a fee). Heck Free!?! What the heck’s going on? That’s not the way it works.... the way you get to God is through the temple priests who lead you through it.... fee of course. Just like you pay your fees for your wive going to a Mikva (ritual bath) every menstruated cycle & the fee you pay for your sons circumsisions and other rituals.... and then let’s not forget the temple tax ! Oye Vey .

Where does this wild man, shabbily dressed and eating locusts guy get poff preparing people for the Lord (our job) and doing it for free? That’s our job!?!

What then does water represent to the people? I see it as a free medium to the Lord... more to the point, John was in a sense is saying, you don’t need those temple crooks to get to god.... God is free as water in the river. No wonder they cut Johns head off.

And what did Jesus do? Why he went into the water and agreed with the whole thing. Oh oh, a man to be watched

I personally see this baptism thing as free access to God and since Jesus backed it and participated in it, I follow his lead.