Umm, the Donatists whom Augustine was ok with torturing? Umm, Pelagius is also a pretty well known Christian.
Perhaps this is my ignorance, but where do you see Augustine saying he's OK with torturing the Donatists? And, more the point of who opposed Augustine regarding infant baptism -- I'm fairly certain the Donatists were not arguing about infant baptism, but about whether the lapsed should be allowed back into the Church under any circumstances, and whether the ordinations and baptisms performed by such lapsed (now restored) were valid or not.
Also, you keep talking about torturing and murdering, but I'm having trouble locating the evidence for that? Who did this? Give me names and dates: primary sources, not just urban legends and vague references to the Inquisition. (Which was all I could find when studying this in the past.)
As for Pelagius -- on what basis should I care what he had to say on the matter, since anything he said about it would have been driven by his doctrines regarding human nature, free will, and salvation?
I've already acknowledged, I think, your point that infant baptism was not practiced by
every Christian family without fail. It still isn't, frankly, although it is much more the norm now. My point isn't that it was a 100% thing, but that the practice itself was more than just tolerated; it was actually received from the Apostles as a perfectly valid practice, and not only NOT contradictory to their teaching (and thus, by definition, not contradictory to the Scriptures, either), but just as effective and valid and true, because the nature of baptism is and was understood in the Orthodox way, and not the Baptist way, as more than just a symbolic action or step of obedience, but as actually operative.
There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. If you argue that people not part of the Church, you are arguing that they are not Christian.
On this we agree. I was being polite, perhaps to the point of fault, and recognizing that the definition of Christian might be being used in the general sense of "claims the name of Christ in a sincere way", rather than as a commentary on someone's "true status" or even on their ecclesial status.
Sorry, but when you argue that people are not part of the Church as oppose to not a part of your special little club, you are arguing about what constitutes a Christian or not. You, the op, put it in the thread.
Hm. Well I guess when you put it that way. My bad. The point (and I say this
as the OP) of the thread was not to argue about that, but to present to Hank the texts of the (Orthodox) Church surrounding Baptism and Theophany. That has turned into first a discussion about the nature of baptism in general (regenerative/operative vs. empty/"merely" symbolic), then after that about whether infant baptism is a valid and Scriptural practice or not. Frankly, that second question is predicated on one's approach to the first one, so I don't know why we are bothering to waste time on it, except insofar as maybe we think if we can firmly establish its (in)validity, then we can work backward from there to the first question.
I presented loads of Scripture with respect to the first question, but haven't really engaged all that much on the second beyond an appeal to the practice of the Church, largely unrecognized here -- or at best misunderstood as an appeal to a consensus of texts from the Fathers.
Now, in the time period that we are discussing, the Romans were still part of what was
then known as "the catholic Church", so whether they have fallen away (as the Orthodox claim) or not is irrelevant to the discussion. However, the particulars of schisms and heresies
at the time, as well as the fundamental nature of schism and heresy per se, are being understood differently among the participants here as well, and the differences on both levels really do inform both the baptismal regeneration question and the infant baptism question along with it after all. So even though I didn't intend for this thread to get into that, it appears that I don't have a choice in the matter because it's all linked.
When you mention the Church, you could just be meaning the Eastern Orthodox
Yes indeed. I'm not referring to some mystical, invisible body of "all believers" or whatever ecumenical claptrap is floating around these days. When I say "the Church", I mean what is now known as the Orthodox Church, taken as a whole. I
also mean what is meant by a "high church" understanding of the same phrase as found in Paul's Epistles (wherever he's not referring to a specific local assembly, I mean), the same as what Christ meant when He said, "I will build my church." Because I believe these are the same thing -- that the Orthodox Church
is that Church (and yes, that those outside the Orthodox Church are, specifically,
not). So I apologize where I haven't been clear about that.
To be clear again upon this further reflection -- I do not hold that you have to believe the Orthodox Church is
that Church to get to baptismal regeneration as a doctrine. But I do think that if you have the understanding of the Church on the abstract level that lines up with that, you will understand baptism accordingly (and infant baptism as well), and that this understanding will be "according to the Scriptures" in that exegetical milieu.
OR you will be absolutely against baptismal regeneration because you will believe that "that Church" was the "oppressed Church." There isn't really any middle ground, I don't think.
)
