A Meeting Place for Evangelicals, Reformed, and Orthodox Christians

Category: Baptism (Page 2 of 2)

Is the Protestant Church Fragmented? A Response to Pastor Doug Wilson (2 of 2)

 

In a 26 January 2013 canonwired podcast, Pastor Doug Wilson was asked about the fragmented state of Protestantism.  One frequent objection to Protestantism is the fact that it has over 20,000 denominations.  Pastor Wilson responded that if you look at the data in terms of tradition as opposed to independent polities, you will find Orthodoxy has 19 different traditions, Protestants have 21 different traditions (streams), and for Roman Catholics there are 16 different traditions.  This answer gives one the impression that Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox are all in the same boat.

However, Pastor Wilson is confusing apples with oranges.  His 21 Protestant groupings are based on theological differences among Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals etc.  His 19 Orthodox groupings are based mostly on national jurisdictions, e.g., Greek Orthodoxy, Russian Orthodoxy, Bulgarian Orthodoxy etc.  National Orthodox jurisdictions are of a very different nature from doctrinal differences between Protestant denominations.

In this blog posting I will sketch Protestantism’s theological divisions.  Then I will compare its doctrinal disarray against Orthodoxy’s theological unity.

 

Baptism and the Lord’s Supper

One of the first major divisions occurred over the Lord’s Supper.  In 1529 Luther and Zwingli met at the Marburg Colloquy seeking to come to a common understanding of Christ’s words: “This is my body.”  Luther held to the real presence, while Zwingli preferred a more symbolic understanding.  Unable to come to an agreement the two went their separate ways.  Calvin held to a position somewhere between the two.

This difference over the real presence in the Lord’s Supper continues to divide Protestants.  Many Evangelicals and Baptists will side with Zwingli, while the more traditional or high church Protestants will side with Luther (if properly nuanced).  The significance of the Marburg Colloquy is that deep divisions emerged so soon among the original Reformers despite their adherence to sola scriptura.  Theological division is not a later development but present from the start.

 

Baptism was another cause for division.  Lutherans and the Reformed Christians continued the practice of baptizing infants, while the Anabaptists rejected infant baptism insisting that only those old enough to understand the meaning of faith were to be baptized.  The Anabaptist movement began in 1523 in Zurich and spread to many parts of Europe.  The Baptists we know today can be traced to seventeenth century English Separatism.  Their refusal to recognize infant baptism or baptism by sprinkling divides the Baptists from more historic Protestants.  Some Protestants have experienced the pain of being excluded from Holy Communion at a Baptist church just because they had not been baptized by total immersion.  And those who wish to join a Baptist church will need to be rebaptized by total immersion.

Conclusion: The majority of Protestants reject Roman Catholicism’s seven sacraments for two sacraments: baptism and the Lord’s Supper.  The reducing of the number of sacraments to just two rather than promoting unity resulted in divisions among Protestants.

 

Church Government

Westminster Assembly

Westminster Assembly

Under Elizabeth I the Anglican Church and the Via Media (Middle Way) was established in the mid 1500s.  Via Media was a compromise between Roman Catholicism and the more radical Protestants influenced by Calvin’s Geneva.  The English Puritans objected to the retention of the episcopacy and its close ties with the monarchy.  Two novel forms of church government emerged from this: presbyterianism and congregationalism.  Presbyterians believe that the local congregation is to be governed by presbyters (elders) elected by the people of a congregation or by a group of congregations.  Congregationalists reject the notion of a state church.  Following the “gathered church” principle, they insist that the church should consist only of those who responded to the call of Christ and who covenanted with Christ and each other to live as Christ’s disciples.

 

The Holy Spirit and Religious Revivalism

Frontier Revival in early 1800s

Frontier Revival in early 1800s

There is within Protestantism, especially Puritanism, a strong emphasis on a personal experience of God’s grace.  The Halfway Covenant controversy that troubled the New England colonies in the mid 1600s was over whether those who professed faith in Christ and lived upright lives but had had no conversion experience were to be admitted into full church membership.  In the mid 1700s there emerged a movement of New England Congregational preachers who insisted on the possibility of an instantaneous or sudden conversion experience attended by emotional and mystical features known as “New Lights.”  These were resisted by those who believed that faith in Christ did not require a dramatic experience and that the baptism administered to infants was efficacious provided that it was accompanied by diligent catechesis. In the mid 1800s John Williamson Nevin in The Anxious Bench criticized the emotional approach to religious conversion being popularized by the frontier revivals.  From the frontier revivals of the 1800s we see the origins of the emphasis being “born again” prominent among many Evangelicals and Baptists today.

Similar to the emphasis on instantaneous conversion was the emphasis on instantaneous or entire sanctification.  The Holiness movement which emerged in the mid 1800s sought to preserve John Wesley’s teaching that through a powerful instantaneous and emotional experience, distinct from the initial conversion, one who became cleansed from inbred sin was enabled to live without conscious or deliberate sin.  This emphasis gave rise to the Holiness Churches, the Church of the Nazarene, and many other smaller groups.

A new religious movement emerged from this emphasis on the Holy Spirit, Pentecostalism.  This movement which emerged at the turn of the century emphasized speaking in tongues as the sign that one had received the Holy Spirit.  Pentecostalism has exerted a wide and powerful influence on twentieth century Protestantism.  What was initially considered a bizarre sect in time became accepted in many mainline churches through the charismatic renewal.  Its expressive form of worship laid the foundation for the contemporary worship services found in many congregations.

We find here three quite different approaches to Christian conversion and faith in Christ: (1) the more traditional churches that accept infant baptism and view faith as trusting in Christ, (2) those who insist that becoming a Christian requires having undergone a distinct conversion experience and that baptism is only valid for those who had such an experience, and (3) those who believe that having a born again experience while necessary is not sufficient and that one needed to have received the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the sign of speaking in tongues.  These differences are more than doctrinal.  They touch upon the issue of who was a genuine Christian and who was not.  These questions generated strong emotions on both sides often resulting in church splits and new church groups being formed.

 

Liberalism Versus Fundamentalism

With the rise of modern science and the Enlightenment, Western Christianity faced a new challenge, knowledge based on autonomous reason.  The historical critical method of studying the Bible and the quest for the historical Jesus caused many to question and rethink traditional doctrines.  Many Protestant theologians, pastors, and denominational leaders began to jettison traditional beliefs like the divine inspiration and authority of Scripture, the Virgin Birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, and even that of Jesus’ divinity!

This gave rise to theological liberalism, an attempt to forge a new theology compatible with the insights and findings of modern science.  Others resisted the attempt viewing naturalism as incompatible with the traditional Christian worldview.  This gave rise to conflicts between the theological conservatives that sought to hold on traditional doctrines and the theological liberals that sought to adapt theology to the new knowledge being generated by modern science.  In contrast to previous theological schisms that more or less remained within the confines of Christianity, theological liberalism resulted in many churches and denominations parting ways from the historic Christian Faith.

This is not to say that ‘conservative’ Protestantism resisted the temptation to syncretism.  The controversial ‘word of faith’, prosperity gospel, and holy laughter teachings, while immensely popular today have gone beyond the boundaries of historic Christianity.  The contemporary Christian music and the seeker friendly/church growth movement have taken much of Evangelical worship away from the historic pattern of Christian worship.  And ironically, in a post-modern reaction to the excesses of modern Evangelical worship the ancient-future movement surfaced in an attempt to reconnect with the ancient Christian tradition lost by modern Evangelicalism.

 

Protestantism and Orthodoxy Compared

In his attempt to describe Protestantism as consisting of 21 groupings or traditions, Pastor Doug Wilson glossed over the serious doctrinal divisions among Protestants.  This is where the contrast between Orthodoxy and Protestantism is most evident.

Core Doctrine – All of Orthodoxy share in the doctrines of the Trinity and Christology as defined by the Ecumenical Councils; Protestants, on the other hand, range anywhere from the classical Reformed and Lutherans who adhere to traditional Christology to the liberals who question or even reject the divinity of Christ or seek to redefine the Trinity using inclusive language – with more than a few denominations lying somewhere in between.

Worship – All of Orthodoxy carefully follow a select few ancient liturgies received from the historic Church; Protestantism has no common pattern or unity of worship.  Rather than rely on Tradition, they sought to create their own liturgies based on their reading of the Bible.  Protestant worship follows a broad spectrum from liturgical Anglican and Lutheran services, to sermon focused services characteristic of Evangelicals and Baptists, to the more emotionally expressive services among charismatics and Pentecostals.

Church Government – All of Orthodoxy agree that proper church government requires a bishop who is in apostolic succession; the vast majority Protestantism have no bishops in any historic sense.  Where the early Church only had one kind of polity: episcopal, Protestantism allows for all kinds: episcopal, presbyterian, and congregational.  In a disturbing development some of the Third Wave charismatic churches have claimed to have restored the office of the apostles!

Sacraments – All Orthodox share a common understanding of the historic sacraments.   They all affirm the real presence in the Eucharist.  There are different understandings about the need to baptize converts from Protestant and Roman Catholic churches.  Among Protestants there is no unity over infant baptism or the mode of baptism.  Neither is there a shared understanding about how often a church should observe the Lord’s Supper, the real presence, and who is authorized to celebrate the Lord’s Supper.

It has been claimed that Protestants do in fact enjoy Eucharistic unity.  But given the widespread belief that Holy Communion is just a symbol, intercommunion among Protestants has become all but disconnected from doctrinal orthodoxy and moral discipline.  In the glaring light of this fact, claims to Eucharistic unity among Protestants sound hollow to Orthodox Christians.

Conclusion: The sad fact is that Protestantism today has no unifying core beliefs, no shared pattern of worship, on top of its many denominations founded on these divisions.  From what I know of Pastor Wilson, he takes doctrine seriously.  However, he does his listeners a horrendous disservice by ignoring this scandalous reality.  What is compelling many Evangelicals to take a serious look at Orthodoxy is not merely the fractured state of Protestant theology and the widespread apostasy among liberal mainline denominations, but also the accelerating pace of doctrinal innovations among the younger generations of Evangelicals.

 

Protestantism’s Doctrinal Disarray

When I was a member of the liberal mainline United Church of Christ (UCC), a friend made a joke about the fact that if you walked into a room of 30 people at a UCC conference you would find 30 theologies in that room.  While intended to be humorous, the joke also underscored a very sad fact about the theological health of a denomination in decline.  Similar tensions have surfaced in the Episcopal Church and the Presbyterian Church (USA).

When I studied at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary the majority of the students there were conservative Evangelicals.  There was much common ground among us students but the sad fact was that there was no common worship life at Gordon-Conwell.  There was a chapel service but that was sparsely attended.  Once a month the students would meet with their fellow denomination members, but there was little interest in reconciling denominational differences during these meetings.

This is not to say that there are no differences among Orthodox Christians.  We differ over following the new church calendar versus the old church calendar of fast and feast days.  I have friends who attend an old calendar Russian Orthodox parish.  But while they celebrate Christmas two weeks later than the Greek Orthodox, I can receive Holy Communion if I were to visit that parish.   As far as multiple administrative jurisdictions in America, we all agree that it is contrary to canonical law.  I don’t know of any Orthodox bishop or priest who believe that multiple jurisdiction is God’s will.  Steps have been taken to prepare the way for another council.

The multiplicity of administrative jurisdictions has not destroyed or precluded the fundamental liturgical and Eucharistic unity among world Orthodoxy.  In Honolulu I attend the Greek Orthodox Church; on occasion I will visit the nearby ROCOR parish.  When I visit the mainland I usually attend an OCA or Antiochian Orthodox parish.  Also, we recently had an OCA priest who moved to Hawaii and was assigned to the local ROCOR parish and who would fill in for the Greek Orthodox priest when he went on vacation.  So those who point to the problem of multiple jurisdictions are overlooking the Eucharistic unity that we all share and our desire to live out our unity in Christ.

Schism can be healed.  When I became Orthodox in 1999, I was discouraged from visiting the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) parish.  This was because ROCOR saw the Moscow Patriarchate as collaborating with the Soviet regime and broke off ties with them. That schism was healed in 2006.   As far as the schism between Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox I remain cautiously optimistic.  Whenever I visit a nearby Coptic church I can sense of family resemblance that I do not have when I visit a Roman Catholic or Anglican parish.  One positive sign is that the Copts have been sending students to the Greek Orthodox Holy Cross Seminary.  Another positive sign of possible reconciliation is the fact Coptic Christians can receive the Eucharist at an Orthodox church when there is no Coptic church in the area.  This is an exception made on a case by case basis and requires the blessing of the bishop.

One could point to the various splinter Orthodox groups.  A Wikipedia article on Orthodoxy has three categories: (1) those in full communion, (2) traditionalist schisms, and (3) nationalist schisms.  The best way to deal with this complex situation is to ask: What do we mean by Orthodox unity?  Unity in Orthodoxy is organic and relational.  The Eucharistic unity that all Orthodox share in is not just in the body and blood of Christ, it is also a communion among Orthodox bishops around the world and goes back to the Apostles.  It is not enough for a church group to put the name “Orthodox” on its door; it must be in communion with the ancient patriarchates.  It is a sad and unfortunate fact that human nature being what it is has resulted in individuals and groups leaving the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.  But based on what the Nicene Creed teaches we believe that there has always been one Church, not two parts.  This view means that if one leaves the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, the Church remains intact but one has become outside the Church.  One way of locating this one holy catholic and apostolic Church is to see who is in communion with the ancient patriarchates.

There was a group of sincere Christians who called themselves the “Evangelical Orthodox Church.”  There is no patent, to my knowledge, on using the word “Orthodox.”  Similarly, there are many cults who call themselves “Christians.”  Yet as the Evangelical Orthodox grew in maturity and understanding, they learned that to be Orthodox in the historic sense meant entering into canonical communion with the historic Orthodox patriarchates.  So, they did.  (See chapter 10 “A Decade of Decision” and chapter 11 “Welcome Home!” in Peter Gillquists’ Becoming Orthodox.)

Inquirers will need to confront two questions: (1) Do I agree with the Nicene Creed’s “I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church?” and (2) Where do I find this one holy catholic and apostolic Church?  I don’t think they will find it in Protestantism.

 

Conclusion

When I entered into Orthodoxy I found a common faith and a common worship.    I close with two quotes: one from the second century church father, Irenaeus of Lyons, and another from a contemporary Orthodox blogger, Vincent Martini.  Irenaeus wrote:

Having received this preaching and this faith, as I have said, the Church, although scattered in the whole world, carefully preserves it, as if living in one house.  She believes these things [everywhere] alike, as if she had but one heart and one soul, and preaches them harmoniously, teaches them, and hands them down, as if she had but one mouth (Against Heresies 1.10.2, Richardson 1970:360).

Vincent Martini wrote:

An Orthodox Christian in America can travel to any Orthodox church in Greece, Russia, or Serbia, experiencing the same liturgy, prayer, and piety that they are accustomed to in their “home” church, while sharing full eucharistic fellowship with every single one of them. (“How Many Different Orthodox Churches Are There?”)

Despite the nearly two thousand years that separate Vincent Martini from Irenaeus of Lyons, we see the same Orthodox Faith.

When we compare Protestantism against Orthodoxy we will find that very little has changed with respect to Orthodoxy.  Orthodox unity is based on the stability of Holy Tradition.  All Orthodox share the same core doctrines, the same worship, and the same Eucharist — as did our Fathers in the centuries before us – and as will our grandchildren in the generations to come.  But Protestantism is not grounded in the stability of Holy Tradition but in the quest for a reformed church ever reforming.  This has resulted in constant change and flux from the time of Luther and Calvin till now.  Neither the most historic high church denominations nor its low church evangelical or charismatic counterparts will be able to guarantee that its grandchildren will worship or believe as they did.

Robert Arakaki

 

Is Infant Baptism Biblical?

 
Revised 3 March 2014
Orthodox Baptism

Orthodox Baptism

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Martin wrote:

I have a question. Baptists and Pentecostals say infant baptism is not biblical.  Do we find infant baptisms in the Bible? I heard someone say that this practice started around year 200. Where can I find the earliest teachings about infant baptism? When is the first time the early Fathers mentioned it? What does the Orthodox Church teach about this? How can a baby be “born again” with no personal faith before he/she has heard the Gospel being preached? Or what is the point of infant baptism? What difference is there between Catholic, Lutheran and Orthodox infant baptism?

 

My Response

You asked some very good questions about the rationale for infant baptism.  I will attempt to answer each of your questions below but before I do so I need to discuss the role of Scripture in the various Christian traditions.  But feel free to jump to Question 1.

For Protestants the Bible is the preeminent source of theology.  This arises from the doctrine of sola scriptura (Scripture alone).  But what does one do when Scripture is silent or the biblical text is not clear?  Protestants respond to this ambiguity in several ways: (1) some will argue that this makes the practice unbiblical and thus prohibited; (2) some will argue that this is a matter of liberty subject to personal opinion or conscience, and (3) some will attempt to rely on historical precedents to guide them.  This accounts for the wide array, even contradictory, positions Protestants hold on baptism, including infant baptism.

Orthodoxy base its doctrines and practice on Tradition (with a capital ‘T’), a combination of oral tradition and written tradition (II Thessalonians 2:15).  Orthodoxy also relies on Christ’s promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth (John 16:13).  Thus, with respect to the Orthodox approach to infant baptism we find an ancient practice widely accepted that in time was formally acknowledged by the Ecumenical Councils.

In contrast to Orthodoxy’s conciliar approach to church authority, Roman Catholicism holds to a monarchical understanding of church authority.  It views the Pope as having ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice.  Thus, on matters where Scripture is silent the Pope speaks.  This view stems from the understanding that the Pope is the successor to the Apostle Peter and thus has the ultimate authority to interpret Scripture and define Tradition.  This monarchical understanding of the Bishop of Rome arose in the Middle Ages.  Orthodoxy rejects this as a departure from the conciliar approach of the early Church.  While it has roots in the early Church, the Great Schism of 1054 resulted in the Church of Rome going its own way.  It began to adopt innovative teachings and practices that many found objectionable.  This resulted in the Protestant Reformation.  In order to counter the authority of the Pope, Luther and the other Reformers invoked the authority of Scripture.  This led to sola scriptura as a foundational principle for Protestantism.

With this new theological method of sola scriptura, Tradition — oral tradition, the church fathers, and Ecumenical Councils — took on a subordinate position to Scripture.  Orthodoxy rejects the Protestant subordination of Tradition to Scripture because it views written and oral tradition as two sides of the same coin, integral and inseparable to the other (II Thessalonians 2:15).  Understanding these differences will help you understand how I put together my answer to your questions.  In answering your questions I seek to show how Orthodoxy is at its core biblical in its doctrine and practice while also consistent with the early Church founded by the Apostles.

 

1. Do we find infant baptisms in the Bible?

A lot depends on the question we ask.  If you ask a question the wrong way, you are quite likely to get an incorrect answer.  If we take your question about infants as a starting point, we can extend it to adults, teenagers and elderly as well.  Just as there is no teaching in the Bible in support of infant baptism so likewise there is no teaching in the Bible in support of teenagers or of senior citizens being baptized.

A better way to frame the question is to ask: What does the Bible teach about covenant initiation?  We find throughout the Bible God establishing covenants (contracts) and people entering into a covenant relationship by means of a certain ritual act.  In Genesis 17 God invites Abram to enter into a covenant via circumcision.  What is the age span of those circumcised in Genesis 17?  Anywhere from a new born male child eight days old (Genesis 17:12), a teenage boy (Ishmael was 13 years old at the time; see Genesis 16:16), to a male senior citizen (Abraham was 99 years old at the time; see Genesis 17:1).

When we look at Peter’s Pentecost Sermon we find some interesting teaching about covenant initiation.  At the climax of the sermon Peter exhorts:

Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.  And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call. (Acts 2:38-39: NIV, emphasis added)

The phrase “you and your children” implies both the adult listeners and their offspring.  The Greek word for “offspring” (τεκνος, teknos) can include young children as well as those grownup.  If we look at the opening quotation from Joel in Acts 2:17 Peter is describing those receiving the Holy Spirit broadly, not restrictively.  Notice the language used: sons versus daughters, young men versus old men.  In Peter’s Pentecost sermon water baptism is closely linked to Spirit baptism.  The Orthodox Church maintains this linkage by administering Chrismation immediately following baptism.

Another element we need to take into consideration is the fact that the Bible teaches the salvation of families.  Luke in his account of the conversion of the Philippian jailer wrote:

At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized.  The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole family.  (Acts 16:33-34; NIV, emphasis added)

The phrase “his whole family” can be read to include little children and infants.  This emphasis on the family unit parallels the first Passover when the Israelites gathered in a home to celebrate a Passover meal (Exodus 12).  The blood of the sacrificed lamb was smeared over the door of the house, not on individuals.  This contrasts with the modern mindset that elevates the individual over the family, and which emphasizes individualized faith over believing together with others.

Baptism is the new circumcision.  Just as circumcision was the rite of initiation into the old covenant, so likewise baptism is the rite of initiation into the new covenant founded by Christ on the Cross.

In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.  (Colossians 2:11-12; NIV)

Orthodoxy does not view the sacrament of baptism as magic.  Rather, it understands baptism as making one part of God’s family.  It is the responsibility of the parents and godparents to make sure the baptized child learn about Christ and the Christian way of life.  In II Timothy 3:15 we learn that Timothy was exposed to the Old Testament at a very early age, from infancy.  As the child grows up he or she will begin to make their own decisions and develop a lively personal faith in Christ.  If there is “magic,” it is the powerful influence a loving and faith-filled environment at home and church will have on a child.  One of the biggest threats to this model of Orthodox discipleship is a mindless nominalism in which people do church things because it is part of their ethnic heritage and are not able to give a reasoned response to youths asking questions about the doctrines and practices of the Church.

 

2. Where can I find the earliest teachings about infant baptism?

The thing to keep in mind is that the early church allowed for infant baptism, it did not mandate the baptizing of infants.  It was a common practice among Christians and there was very little protests against it.  Infant baptism became the standard practice with the conversion of entire people groups.  When a ruler converted, he would be followed by his supporters and their entire families.  It is also important to keep in mind that given the high mortality rates at the time many parents would seek to baptize their child especially if death was imminent.

An overview of the early church’s attitude towards infant baptism can be found in Jaroslav Pelikan’s The Emergence of the Christian Tradition (100-600), (pp. 290-292).  The earliest mention of infant baptism was by Tertullian (c. 160-220) who voiced skepticism about the practice of baptizing infants.  The renowned Alexandrian theologian, Origen (185-254), admitted infant baptism to be part of the church tradition going back to the Apostles even as he struggled to articulate a clear rationale for the practice.  With the church father Cyprian (c. 200-258) we find infant baptism defended on the basis of original sin.  Of the three sources mentioned here only Cyprian is regarded as a church father.  J.N.D. Kelly in Early Christian Doctrines noted while the sacraments of baptism, chrismation, and the Eucharist were universally practiced in the early Church there was very little evidence of a systematic sacramental theology at the time of the fourth and fifth centuries (p. 422 ff.).  This points to the sacraments and Liturgy preceding theology in the early Church.

Dating infant baptism to AD 200 is based on a restrictive reading of the evidence.  The evidence is clear that the first mention of infant baptism took place circa 200 which means that its origin can be placed earlier than 200.  Given Origen’s testimony that infant baptism has apostolic roots and the absence of contrary evidence, we can assume that infant baptism dates back to the early days of the church, even the Apostles.  Given Christianity’s Jewish roots and the established practice of infant circumcision among Jews, it should be no big leap to infant baptism among Christians.

 

3. What does the Orthodox Church teach about this?

Orthodoxy accepts infant baptism as an ancient practice.  For Orthodoxy the Ecumenical Councils comprise an important authority for faith and practice.  We find in Canon 84 of the Quinisext Council (692) instructions on how to handle those who claimed to have been baptized as infants but unable to provide witnesses to support that claim—baptize them provisionally.  Van Espen in his commentary on Canon 13 of the Council of Nicea (325) noted “that after baptism and confirmation, the Eucharist was given even to infants.” The implicit acceptance of infant baptism by the major church councils points to infant baptism being a widely accepted practice among Christians.

From the standpoint of church history infant baptism was an ancient practice accepted by the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Oriental Orthodox churches.  It was even accepted by the mainstream Protestant churches: Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican.  But it was rejected by the radical Anabaptists then by the Baptists.  In time it became popular among many Protestants, especially Evangelicals and Pentecostals.  Thus, the strict credobaptist position which rejects paedobaptism is a doctrinal novelty that originated in the 1500s and marks a major departure from the historic Christian faith.

 

The Visitation Icon

The Visitation Icon

4. How can a baby be “born again” with no personal faith before he/she has heard the Gospel being preached? Or what is the point of infant baptism?

This question defines faith in Christ narrowly in terms of an intellectual acceptance of certain precepts on who God is (God is loving and just), what human nature is like (sinful and fallen), what Christ has done for us (died on the Cross for our sins), and the expected response (saying the “sinners prayer” to receive Christ into your heart).  This intellectual understanding of faith has resulted in certain branches of Protestants debating among themselves about the “age of accountability.”

Evangelicals have projected their subjective emotionalism into the phrase “born again.”  Being “born again” is not an emotional experience as it is a new life in Christ.  Once we were living life apart from Christ, but now we put our faith in Christ and come under his authority through baptism.  In Genesis 17 when Abram entered into a covenant with Yahweh via circumcision, he took on a new name “Abraham” signifying his new life as a follower of Yahweh.  Genesis 17 is about a change in relationship with God, it was not about Abram having an emotional “born again” experience.

 

"The baby leaped in her womb" (Luke 1:41)

“The baby leaped in her womb”      (Luke 1:41)

If we look at what the Bible has to say about the spiritual capacity of young children the answer might surprise us.  Luke reports that when the Virgin Mary entered into Elizabeth’s home and greeted her that the baby inside Elizabeth’s womb “leaped for joy.” (Luke 1:41, 44)  John the Baptist’s pre-natal response to the presence of the Incarnate Logos points to our desire for God in the primordial core of our being.  An infant may not have a fully developed intellect, but it possesses the ability to respond to love.  This is because the ability to love and respond in love is foundational to our humanity.  Faith as the ability to trust someone is critical to our being able to love another person.  That is why the betrayal of trust is so damaging to our being able to love another.  This relational approach to faith can be seen in Orthodoxy’s Holy Week services which mourn Judas’ betrayal of Christ.  This is something I did not learn as a Protestant.

But what is Jesus’ attitude about the spiritual capacity of children?  The incident of Jesus blessing the little children appears in all three synoptic Gospels.  Where Matthew and Mark used the general term for children παιδιον (paidion), Luke used the more precise term βρεφος (brephos) which can mean infant and new born, and even unborn children.

But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”  (Luke 18:16; NIV)

This incident contains a powerful lesson about the accessibility of the kingdom of God.  It is for those who have an open heart like little children.  It does not teach that the children should wait until they are old enough to understand before they can enter the kingdom of God.  The phrase “enter the kingdom of God” is a synonym for entering into a covenant relationship with Christ.  This phrase crops up in Jesus’ night conversation with Nicodemus (see John 3:5).  Read in the larger context of the entire chapter Nicodemus’ conversation with Jesus in the first half of John 3 dovetails with the second half which describes how Jesus’ baptism was superseding that of John the Baptist.  The message behind the need to be “born again” was not about an emotional spiritual experience but about a new life in Christ through the sacrament of baptism.

Our understanding of the spiritual capacity of children will be consequential for our understanding of their place in church.  Because the sermon is the focal point of many Protestant worship services, many infants are sent off to the child care ministry.  They are not expected to be in main worship service.  It is by and large assumed that the main worship service is for adult members.

 

http://orthodoxbahamas.com/?p=1808

Baby receiving Holy Communion

In Orthodoxy the general understanding is that children, even young infants, belong in the Liturgy.  They may not fully comprehend what is going on but they are in the presence of God.  Orthodoxy believes this exposure is important for their spiritual growth.  Furthermore, as a sign of their inclusion in the kingdom of God, children are given Holy Communion.  The practice in many Orthodox parishes is to let the children go up first to receive Communion followed by the grownups.  For me this stands in stark contrast to my Protestant experience where I would see parents go up to receive Communion while their children remained behind because they have not yet made a profession of faith.

 

Sacrament of Chrismation (receiving the Holy Spirit)

Sacrament of Chrismation (receiving the Holy Spirit)

5. What difference is there between Catholic, Lutheran and Orthodox infant baptism?

All three traditions baptize infants but the Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches tend to defer Confirmation and Communion until the child reaches a certain age.  The practice in Orthodoxy is to baptize infants about a month after they are born, and to give them the sacraments of Chrismation and Holy Communion in the same service as baptism.  This makes them full members of the Church.

Children Receiving Communion in Indonesia

Children Receiving Communion in Indonesia

It is a touching sight to see parents carrying babies up for Communion, followed by a line of toddlers and teenagers, then adults and seniors.  The demographics of a line for Orthodox Communion is something you won’t find in either Roman Catholic or Lutheran parishes  Orthodoxy is for people of all ages!

Robert Arakaki

 

 

Newer posts »