Un raspuns dat unui protestant pe forumul american CARM (trebuie tradus):
The Power in Baptism
Protestantul:
You miss the point.
Any form of baptism that promotes baptism to anyone without their understanding of to Whom into what they habe been baptized is dangerous. It is presumptuous to rely on some later "confirmation." You compared cirumcision with baptism. Circumcision was a sign. Isn't water baptism better utilized as a sign when it is done publicly for someone who can stand before a public and boldly proclaim the Christ to Whom they have committed their lives? I've seen you make plenty of posts elsewhere which are critical of ceremony for the sake of ceremony. That is what infant baptism is. (And this should not be confused with baby dedication which is a common smoke screen.) There's too much opportunity for someone to have been baptized as an infant and their going on about their later lives thinking that they've been saved by this baptism as a child. You couldn't convince me in a thousand years that this is a good practice. We all have to make a choice sometime in our lives who we are going to serve. A baby is not in that position.
No proponents of adult only baptism in this thread have responded to the Jordan Bajis article so far. Really this is not a dialog if you don't read it and reply. I could bring up his same points and enter this discussion that way seeing that the article was ignored. But instead I will add other thoughts that stem from my theological understanding.
Ortodoxul:
Many correctly hold that baptism, and in fact all of the sacraments, is/are an outward reflection of an inward reality. That fact doesn't take away from the power of the sacrament. It adds to it.
When baptism, or any other sacrament for that matter, is reduced to the notion of a public statement, where is the power?
The power is Christ himself. If it were not for Christ we would have no access to salvation. The question then arises whether we may have the power of Christ imposed on us against our will.
The intuitive response to this question is clearly no. However, in man, when he is born again, (and here I mean men, women and children), there are two wills, not one. The first is the will of the flesh. The second is the will of the spirit.
Ever since the day that Christ became man the human race was changed into a royal priesthood. He came to us while we were yet sinners. And we did not choose him. He chose us. (John 15:16). He chose to become human. Therefore humanity was changed, whether we choose to believe it or not.
Man also was made in the divine image, made to be sons of God. It is natural, not unnatural, to choose God, except for the poison and destruction of sin. God breathed into the man. As such there is something very special about man's spirit. He is a living spirit, born of God's breath by nature, yet a creation, made even of the dust of the earth. But that is our nature - to be made in the divine image. It is not the other way around - that we are made in the image of the world or of dust.
It is the intention of the evil one, satan, to convince us that we belong only to this world, and to declare that God is a liar. And for those whose ego he can entice into pride he also will persuade us that we can be gods like him and enjoy fruit in an afterlife that is according to another gospel besides Christ.
It stands to reason then that infants, since they do not yet have the power to discern things intellectually so as to be caught up in the tricks and snares of the devil, are unable to choose either for or against the power of God. In fact, the power of God is already imposed on them as humans made in His image.
Therefore once we are old enough to question God, if we choose not to believe the Gospel, we can reject it, being confused by satan and the lusts of our flesh. But this does not take away from the power of the sacrament of the cross, which is already given to all mankind - imposed on us all for the simple reason that it is God's will and it is true history. God lives. We don't choose that. Man has been raised from the dead. We can't change that. It is imposed. And so also is the tender mercy of God imposed rather than chosen.
Those who reject paedobaptism thus have it backwards. The age of accountability, as they call it, is one in which man is tempted and becomes capable of rejecting God's free gift. The acceptance of the gift is already given by Christ in the one baptism we all share, Calvary.
There is only one baptism, one altar, and it is one with the passionate love of God in Christ who shares His Spirit. We can reject this love. But it is natural for us to accept what we were designed to become, not unnatural. Truly it is at war with the flesh now that the flesh has fallen. And so all mankind is in conflict and suffers from toil and travail. This also was imposed on us, not chosen. It was imposed by another historical event, the fall of the first Adam. And it clearly increases with age, as the age of human wisdom manages to bring on increasingly cunning deceptions to the proud and arrogant, as satan entices us with human and demonic wisdom. With infants and small children this is not so. They are usually very simple people wanting only love and life's basic necessities, having limited ability to communicate.
All mankind has suffered from corruption since Adam's fall. It was imposed. But it was not natural. It was quite contrary to our nature as beings made in God's image to be anything other than incorruptible and immortal, according to the good will of God, which also is imposed rather than chosen.
What then is baptism? Is it an outward sign of an inward reality alone? What reality? When an adult chooses God does he somehow have the power in himself to be saved? What causes him to choose God? Himself? But Calvin was very clear about that that it was only those who were foreordained, predestined. And this probably is why the Presbyterians also practice paedobaptism. They may be entrenched in an Augustinian mindset, however Arminian the Westminster Confession may be, but they at least understand that it is God who chooses us, not us who choose Him.
With Presbyterians, Orthodox are thus accused of Arminianism, even though that is anachronistic, because we also declare that men have free will and are able to choose to be saved. But it is in the foreordaining and predestining, it is in the power of God to choose us first, that we stand by what the apsotles apparently practiced - paedobaptism.
A quote from Justin with respect to choosing to be baptised and contrasting this with the Old Covenant practice of circumcision, which was imposed, is addressed to adults who can hear and understand. They have power to reject the Gospel once satan deceives them. A Jew does not have the power to become uncircumcised.
What is the distinction? The heart of the individual can accept or reject the free gift of grace so as to choose to be either circumcised or uncircumcised.
It is evident then that by the Gospel itself, which has been imposed on humanity that circumcision of the heart is given by nature. This one baptism is a sacrament for us all in power and we cannot undo it any more than a Jew can uncircumcise himself. However, every Jew has the power to uncircumcise his heart and become a son of satan. And this is, in fact, exactly what Jesus accused some of them of who rejected Him.
But he did not say this of any children. As to children he said specifically not to prevent them from coming to Him. Why? Because Jesus speaks to the heart and not just the mind. As their Creator He speaks to the make up of the human being and creates in them a new heart, removing demonic strongholds and washing sins away, healing diseases both physical, psychological, social and spiritual. He earnestly desires that they should be all that they can be in Him. He thus chooses them, not them Him. He blesses them. His will is good.
So He blesses the children. What is a blessing? Is it without power? Is it a prayer? Does the prayer of the righteous avail anything? What of the prayers of Jesus? When He blesses them what do you suppose happens? Is He wasting His time? Of course not.
We can then understand baptism as an outward expression of an inward reality and yet see in this inward reality the reality that God's will is that we become all that we were meant to be in Christ.
We also, when we not just dedicate, but baptize our children, look for answers to our prayers offered in faith, understanding that God chooses us, not we Him, at least not until we reject Him. There is therefore no more opportune time to baptize than when a person is an infant, lest they quickly be tempted by satan to reject the gift that their heart is naturally designed to receive without a complaint.
There is much else I feel like saying but I will not repeat what Jordan Bajis said with respect to this. His book Common Ground is a very good introduction to Orthodoxy. But I will emphasize one point he made. He asks at what point paedo-baptism was introduced into the church if it had not always been a practice? Who introduced it?
Try to place yourself into the first and second century world and envision it. Jesus comes and has some disciples. Many are saved at Pentecost, Jews mostly. Then some gentiles convert to the Way and at Antioch they are start to be called Christians. Many households are baptized and the Gospel spreads throughout the world.
OK. Now you've got Christianity everywhere. So then several controversies arise. Right? Some take literally that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Others get very upset about that idea, calling it idolotrous to think such a thing. A big schizm results. Right?
No. That didn't happen. Why? Because nobody introduced the idea. It was given everywhere. For it to have been otherwise would have required a very great cover up. Nowhere in our history books do we find a shred of evidence taht there was a controversy about it.
The same holds true for infant baptism. If this was an innovation, rather than the original practice, where did the innovation originate? Where is the controversy over it? Where is the schizm? What Christian stood up and said "no way."
None. Why? Because it wasn't an innovation. It had been the tradition they had first received. And they didn't want to change it.
The Roman Catholic Church has been accused of a lot of things. And they are guilty as charged when it comes to revising history and burning books they disliked, and forgeing documents through the centuries. It's nasty stuff. But they did not control the historical record entirely. That would not have been possible because the Gospel spread to every part of the world, even parts over which they had no influence or authority. What's more, there was no such thing as the RCC until the papacy arose many centuries later. The original episcopacy had common authority. All had to be in agreement about theology and practice.
When we consider the dynamic of the tradition of bishops meeting together to settle points of controversy what the historical record shows it that there were some disputes about how to treat those who had rejected Christ after being baptized. There were disputes about what laws to impose on the gentiles. There were disputes about whether people who were baptized by heretics needed to be (re)baptized. Documents pertaining to these disputes were preserved.
But there is no document showing any dispute pertaining to infant baptism. The practice was never questioned. If then someone singles out one phrase from Justin as a proof text of early practice they are not taking in the corpus of anteNicene literature but working from wishful proof-texts to support their opinions. It just doesn't work that way. That is the way the revisionists do it. The Gospel remains the same.
That point made, how can it be that the Gospel should point to paedobaptism? Is baptism not the washing away of sin? Absolutely. But it is also an entrance and a sharing with the baptism of Christ's death and resurrection. Can anyone comprehend such a thing? Such comprehension, if it is to ever exist, must be born from above. When then would be the age of accountability? Never. But quite the contrary, the will of God is not to wait to be asked by man for the gift, but to grant the gift because of the good Mercy that is according to the Divine Nature, and in man's power to choose evil instead of good, to grant by that same mercy the ability to reject what has been given - freedom being a part of the divine image in all mankind, even in our fallen state.
The washing is thus accomplished in Christ on the cross. This is given. The rejection of that washing takes place in the adult who learns how to sin. But the same effectiveness of the cross applies both to the washing of the faults of Adam as to the subsequent sins of the baptized. As a result, he is restored as one prodigal son to his father should he choose such restoration rather than wasting his inheritance, getting nothing good thereby beyond the immediate gratification given in this world without the father. He already has his reward. But the inheritance is certainly still given even if it is spent unwisely. Such is paedobaptism.
And this is the inheritance of heaven. We can choose to reject it by exhausting it now, following after the enticements of this world and listening to satan. But the inheritance is given. We are born into it. It is the Father's good will.
And that is the Gospel. So let's express this inward reality outwardly by baptizing not only those adults, who in their limited human wisdom are able to grasp but a portion of the glory of God, if at all, but also those infants and children, who by their stature are the least of these. And in this way the Lord's promise becomes true, that the least becomes the greatest. And we also can appreciate that we must be as children to enter the kingdom of heaven.
"Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all." (Mark 10:15; Luke 18:17)
From this we should come to know as adults what a struggle being a Christian is. It is like the rich man who wishes to enter into heaven. The world and a world full of demons and lies fills our mind. Angels of light confuse us and actively seek to destroy us using the fertility of our adult minds and the jadedness of our wicked hearts to bring about every sort of perversity. What infant suffers such temptation and seduction? What infant is capable of such evil? Jesus challenged us that we should be like them. Not that they should be like us.
This truly ought to suffice so I will add no more.