Replies

Tradition is the life of the Church. It is its collective memory. It involves more than the Bible. It represents habits of worship practic ed by the earliest Christians.

But habits of worship can become distorted or even mythical. How else to account for the corruption of Reformation era indulgences? Or the veneration of saints who in modern times have been admitted to be myths and not real persons at all. How else to explain the married clergy of Rome to the celibate clergy of Rome in a later era? Don't you think these cause more harm to the faith and the cause of Christ than any benefit anyone ever received? I do.

There is a tendency to 'improve' worship until it is no longer recognizable and becomes mere ritualistic repetition or even blasphemous, reducing the spiritual life of the church to a mere series of actions and not a sign of inner spiritual life. Such practices can also leave the flock as easy prey for the wolves who will always come to devour the sheep.

The temptation toward novelty is one that should be resisted. When we look at the descriptions of the worship and ordinances of the early church (baptism of believers and communion), we should compare our practice to that and not attempt to add to that which scripture prescribes. God is generous but sober churchmen must keep a firm hand on innovation. Baptists trust that scripture is sufficient and that the early church was not deprived of knowledge and instruction by Christ and the apostles.

Baptism was likened to the covenant with God and therefore compared to Jewish circumcision.

The Presbyterians believe something similar to this, known as covenantalism. They believe it establishes Christians as members of a New Covenant, replacing entirely the Jews of the Old Covenant. I disagree with this and retain a certain skepticism of theology that is based on archetypes, much as I described earlier in the matter of Mary being a new Eve. For instance, we baptize both men and women, not only male children. And no man was ever a Jew unless he was circumcized but we know the thief on the cross was saved though there is no indication he was baptized and, likewise, we can surmise that many thousands have undoubtedly repented their sins prior to death but never received the ordinance of baptism due to lack of opportunity. We have no reason to doubt that their faith and reliance upon Christ alone failed to secure their eternity because they may have died suddenly in battle or from other causes. Nevertheless, baptism and communion are expected as normal events in Christian life. Baptism to seal you to your fellow-believers and take a first step in being Christ-like because even our Savior was baptized and also as the first outward sign and testimony that we have placed our confidence in Him and laid claim to the promises of scripture. If we are His children, then we can obey His simple command to believe and be baptized.

It is fine to know and be familiar with the early church. But in scripture when people under the conviction of the Holy Spirit asked Jesus and His disciples, "What must we do to be saved?" the answer was uniformly "Repent and be baptized" or "Believe and be baptized". Not "be baptized and then maybe someday you'll believe or be saved". How insecure that sounds by comparison. What, precisely, is there in the scriptural descriptions that is insufficient or unsatisfying? What is there to keep us from that same simple obedience and observance?

It is easy to see that one would want to establsh a convenant with God at the earliest possible moment.

Infants want their mother's bosom, soft voices, to be clean and comfortable and secure and well-fed. We Baptists will dunk 'em if they ever start crawling out of their cribs and confessing Christ as Savior. So far, no takers. I do recall a preacher baptizing a few children who were as young as four or five. Eyebrows were raised slightly among the older members but not a word was spoken against it in the church because Christ did say "Suffer the children". So the church kept quiet and obeyed His command even if some might have doubted whether those children understood God's plan of salvation fully enough at such a tender age.

Baptists do allow and encourage parents to bring their infants in dedication before the church, to declare their intent to raise them Christian and to ask the church to help them in that. It accomplishes the same purpose but does not confuse a family's or church's dedication to a child with his baptism as a believer, with his opportunity to confess Christ and lay his claim to the promises of scripture exactly as all those described in scripture in the early church did.

God bestows His grace on all mankind, on the pious and impious, on the righteous and the unrighteous.

This is the notion of general grace which the Arminians favor. It is problematic. If that grace were sufficient to actually save all mankind, then we would have universal salvation. But it doesn't, judging by the wickedness and disbelief we see in the world. So a little sprinkling of grace is insufficient unless you then further posit that this general grace just barely makes it possible for people who are good enough or smart enough to take advantage of it. It still requires God to 'play favorites'. But if God's overriding intent is to save all men, then He would dispense enough grace that all should be saved. And yet, obviously He does not. Something is more important to God than universal salvation: the exercise of faith. And it is this exercise of faith that is the object of God's interest in Man; it is in the exercise of faith that we equal or perhaps even exceed His angels in His favor. To the Calvinist, God quickens our spirits by grace to rouse us from spiritual death and give us the second birth in the Spirit. This is why scripture emphasizes that all God's children are 'born again'. They are born of their mothers into the flesh but, to be Christian, they must be born of the Spirit in Christ. At that time, they are eager for baptism and take their first step toward becoming a Christian. After baptism, they can then participate in communion. In all of scripture, the pattern is clear. Persons receive the gospel or are convicted by preaching or teaching, they grasp that message and they want to be saved. They repent (as much as they are able) and are baptized as soon as possible thus becoming eligible for communion in their church.

Given that you believe in pedobaptism, one does wonder why you do not also practice pedocommunion? You could put some grape juice or sacramental wine in the tiny infant's bottle. Why then would you deny the tyke the opportunity if you truly and adamantly believe that the baptist of infants is of spiritual effect? Why deny the Christian infant his communion?

All we do is petition the Holy Spirit to accept the soul of the infant.

This is interesting. Apparently, you do not share the RC view here. They seem to teach that baptism frees the infant from the bonds of original sin so that it is possible for him to be saved. At that point, the explanations get somewhat garbled, however many Jesuits are assigned the task of explanation. However, let us assume that two equally godly couples each have a baby, one on Saturday and one on Sunday. On the following Sunday, the Saturday baby is baptized. The Sunday baby is not because it is only the seventh day after birth. That afternoon, both babies suddenly die. So, is the Saturday baby going to go to heaven and the Sunday baby end up in hell or limbo because of the circumstances or actions of their parents? If there is no difference in their destination, then infant baptism can be of no effect.

To quote the misquotings of St. Paul, God forbid. It can be readily seen that this would make God capricious and unjust. And there is no hint of such a character blemish in our God in scripture. He is ever-loving and merciful toward us. But it is to exactly these kinds of situations that these traditions of the church, found nowhere in scripture, will lead us. And to support them, we will require ever more elaborate explanations and hair-splitting because we will not accept the simple truth. The eternal fate of infants is in God's hands, not in ours. We care for the body and the mind but the soul can only be claimed by Him. We cannot offer Him the soul of another because we possess no soul but our own. And even our own soul is a dead soul until God quickens our spirt with His grace. Again, it is all of God and none of our own doing. And that which we cannot do for ourselves we surely cannot do for others, even for infants.

For Baptists, we practice a simple faith because in all of scripture, we see only the practice of a simple faith by persons who were called from spiritual death to eternal life by God and at His will.

Now, we Baptists do have traditions of sorts ourselves despite not being as ancient as other churches. Just try to tell us that our potluck dinners aren't necessary and may not be entirely biblical. Then you'll see some indignant Baptists. You could probably talk them out of bible study more easily. I'm more than half-serious about this. So every church has traditions that they cling to. But only the promises of scripture are certain.

I flagged the most active recent posters since I didn't want to miss a chance to offend everyone equally. FWIW, ftD is a Baptist like myself but more knowledgable. However, I am Calvinistic in theology and he is Arminian though I think he prefers to label his theology as 'Right' and mine as 'Wrong'. We Calvinists though do not suggest that our opponents are heretics, merely mistaken about the scope of God's sovereignty in our salvation. We are both advocates for the soundness and reliability of the KJV as is Dr. E., a Presbyterian who is also Calvinist but may be a known baby-splasher as she has several sons, no doubt fine young men. I was curious if the rest of you are Orthodox or if some are Catholic.

It still requires God to 'play favorites'

"I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him." Peter's words according to Acts 10:34-35 (ESV)

He is generous to the righteous and unrighteous.

But if God's overriding intent is to save all men, then He would dispense enough grace that all should be saved

His intent is to save — because He loves us. Ours is to accept His grace. Love does not compel.

Given that you believe in pedobaptism, one does wonder why you do not also practice pedocommunion?

But we do! If you ever go to an Orthodox Church you will witness it first hand.

Apparently, you do not share the RC view here. They seem to teach that baptism frees the infant from the bonds of original sin so that it is possible for him to be saved

The Orhodox do not share St. Augustine's notion of the original sin. Baptism is a covenant with Christ through the Holy Spirit, and not of our doing. We ask the Holy Spirit to have mercy on us and adopt us into Christ. It does not require our "understanding" or "age of reason." That's why what you call sacraments are called "mysteries" in Greek. Hence, no understanding is required. God is not held hostage by our intellectual ability to "comprehend" His grace.

But habits of worship can become distorted or even mythical. How else to account for the corruption of Reformation era indulgences? Or the veneration of saints who in modern times have been admitted to be myths and not real persons at all. How else to explain the married clergy of Rome to the celibate clergy of Rome in a later era?

Habits of worship are recorded and are required to be in harmony with Scrioptures. If you read the Liturgy of St. Basil or St. James, the oldest ones known, it is only a longer version of our weekly John Chrystostomos' Divine Liturgy, which is 1,600 years old.

There is a tendency to 'improve' worship until it is no longer recognizable and becomes mere ritualistic repetition or even blasphemous, reducing the spiritual life of the church to a mere series of actions and not a sign of inner spiritual life

Orthodoxy does not display any such phenomenon. I know for a fact that my ancestors 1,100 years went to church on Sunday and sang the same liturgy we sing today. I can read the Church Slavonic text used at that time because our liturgical language (as far as the prayers are concerned) is still in Church Slavonic, and is identical to that used by Russians, Ukrainians, Bulgarians and Carpatho-Slovak Christians. I would say that makes it very recognizable indeed.

The problem is that you only know western Christianity, and are tagging their stereotypes on us. We never felt that we could improve on that which the Apostles knew and taught.

As for the western indulgences (which we don't have, never had and never will have), human corruption is evident in all that we do, including the church. Thus, you have corrupt ministers as we have corrupt clergy. The Church is made of sinners, not saints. :)