Are there any denominations that don't believe everything from the Bible?

[JohnB445]

Or who don't believe it's the word of God, or the perfect word of God.

I believe everything in the Bible, and that it is the perfect word of God, and that Jesus really did resurrect from the dead. That Noah really did build a ark and there was a flood, and that giants have existed, and the snake in the garden was actually talking to Adam and Eve. I also believe that Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt and parted the Red Sea to allow them to cross. All these things really happened.

And when the book of Revelation says that there will be these scorpion creatures that will sting people, and when the Bible says they will have human like faces I believe it.

I was having a discussion with a non-denomination Christian, and he said those scorpion like creatures are probably just human made tanks, and that humans are the ones driving it, his explanation was that this was their way of describing a tank to people back then because they would have no idea if we just said a machine with tracks, and a long cannon in the front, so the people who wrote the Bible just said scorpion creatures that will sting people.

But this makes absolutely no sense what he just told me, what tank on this earth has a stinger and a face that looks human?

 

[The Liturgist]

Or who don't believe it's the word of God, or the perfect word of God.

I believe everything in the Bible, and that it is the perfect word of God, and that Jesus really did resurrect from the dead. That Noah really did build a ark and there was a flood, and that giants have existed, and the snake in the garden was actually talking to Adam and Eve. I also believe that Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt and parted the Red Sea to allow them to cross. All these things really happened.

And when the book of Revelation says that there will be these scorpion creatures that will sting people, and when the Bible says they will have human like faces I believe it.

I was having a discussion with a non-denomination Christian, and he said those scorpion like creatures are probably just human made tanks, and that humans are the ones driving it, his explanation was that this was their way of describing a tank to people back then because they would have no idea if we just said a machine with tracks, and a long cannon in the front, so the people who wrote the Bible just said scorpion creatures that will sting people.

But this makes absolutely no sense what he just told me, what tank on this earth has a stinger and a face that looks human?

While not all members of the forum will agree with your specific interpretation of the Bible, for example, of Revelation, everyone posting in the Christian Only forums on Christian Forums is required to believe in Christ in a manner consistent with the CF Statement of Faith: which represents the ecumenical consensus of the different Christians who are on this site and excludes those who actively promote non-Christian or counterfeit-Christian cults like the Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormons (LDS, FLDS, “Communities of Christ”), Christian Science, Unitarianism, the “New Church”, neo-Gnostic sects, and other people whose beliefs are not widely recognized as Christian. This has proven a good thing, since people from those cults tended to be extremely unfriendly and mean-spirited and aggressive in promoting their strange doctrines and false gospels, and the Holy Apostle Paul says we are to drive false teachers, who Jesus Christ calls “Wolves in sheep’s Clothing” from the church in Galatians 1:8-9, and while this website is not the Church or a church, it consists of members of the Christian churches, and so we collectively are well served by not fellowshipping with such people.

CF Statement of Faith​

We believe in (Romans 10:8-10; 1John 4:15)
ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6:4, Ephesians 4:6)
the Father (Matthew 6:9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6:3)
Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1:1)
and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1:15-16)
And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11:17)
the Son of God, (Mathew 14:33; 16:16)
the Only-Begotten, (John 1:18; 3:16)
Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1:2)
Light of Light; (Psalm 27:1; John 8:12; Matthew 17:2,5)
True God of True God; (John 17:1-5)
Begotten, not made; (John 1:18)
of one essence with the Father (John 10:30)
by whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1:1-2)
Who for us men and for our salvation (1Timothy 2:4-5)
came down from Heaven, (John 6:33,35)
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, (Luke 1:35)
and became man. (John 1:14)
And was crucified for us (Mark 15:25; 1Cointhians 15:3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 19:6)
and suffered, (Mark 8:31)
and was buried. (Luke 23:53; 1Corinthians 15:4)
And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures. (Luke 24:1 1Corinthians 15:4)
And ascended into Heaven, (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:10)
and sits at the right hand of the Father. (Mark 16:19; Acts 7:55)
And He shall come again with glory (Matthew 24:27)
to judge the living and the dead; (Acts 10:42; 2Timothy 4:1)
whose Kingdom shall have no end. (2 Peter 1:11)
And in the Holy Spirit, (John 14:26)
the Lord, (Acts 5:3-4)
the Giver of Life, (Genesis 1:2)
Who proceeds from the Father; (John 15:26)
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; (Matthew 3:16-17)
Who spoke through the prophets. (1 Samuel 19:20 ; Ezekiel 11:5,13) In one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (1 Peter 2:5,9)
catholic*, (Mark 16:15)
and apostolic Church. (Acts 2:42; Ephesians 2:19-22)
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins**. (Ephesians 4:5; Acts 2:38)
I look for the resurrection of the dead, (John 11:24; 1Corinthians 15:12-49; Hebrews 6:2; Revelation 20:5)
and the life of the world to come. (Mark 10:29-30)
AMEN. (Psalm 106:48)

Notes​

* The word "catholic" (literally, "complete," "universal," or "according to the whole") refers to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ and not necessarily or exclusively to any particular visible denomination, institution, or doctrine.

** May be interpreted as baptism is a matter of obedience and not a requirement for salvation or as a regenerating ordinance.

Faith groups and individuals that deny the full, eternal deity of Jesus Christ or His incarnation whereby He, as God, took on human flesh (becoming fully God and fully man in one person), are considered non-Christians at CF. Posts that deny the full, eternal deity of Jesus Christ or His incarnation are considered non-Christian theology and are not allowed in "Christians Only" forums. Discussions in all "Christians Only" forums must be in alignment with Trinitarian beliefs.

Challenging Paul's position as an Apostle of Jesus Christ who (although not one of the original twelve) was sent forth by Christ after his conversion [Acts 9:15-16], or arguing against the inclusion of Paul's writings in the New Testament canon, is not allowed in any "Christians Only" forums (including the Controversial Christian Theology forum). You may disagree on the interpretation and application of his writings, but not their place as canon or Paul as an inspired author of Scripture.

Unorthodox Christian theology may only be discussed in the Controversial Christian Theology forum. These unorthodox topics do not directly oppose the Nicene Creed, but are not considered to be orthodox on CF. These unorthodox topics may not contradict the Nicene Creed. Non-Trinitarianism may only be discussed in the Outreach category forums. Gnosticism may not be discussed in any CF forums. The Controversial Christian Theology forum is open to Christian members only (faith groups list). Unorthodox Christian theological topics include (but are not limited to):

• Annihilationism
• Full Preterism
• Open Theism
• Universalism

Thus, all members posting in the Christian forums are required to believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, since its in the Nicene Creed:

And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11:17)
the Son of God, (Mathew 14:33; 16:16)
the Only-Begotten, (John 1:18; 3:16)
Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1:2)
Light of Light; (Psalm 27:1; John 8:12; Matthew 17:2,5)
True God of True God; (John 17:1-5)
Begotten, not made; (John 1:18)
of one essence with the Father (John 10:30)
by whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1:1-2)
Who for us men and for our salvation (1Timothy 2:4-5)
came down from Heaven, (John 6:33,35)
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, (Luke 1:35)
and became man. (John 1:14)
And was crucified for us (Mark 15:25; 1Cointhians 15:3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 19:6)
and suffered, (Mark 8:31)
and was buried. (Luke 23:53; 1Corinthians 15:4)
And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures. (Luke 24:1 1Corinthians 15:4)
And ascended into Heaven, (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:10)
and sits at the right hand of the Father. (Mark 16:19; Acts 7:55)
And He shall come again with glory (Matthew 24:27)
to judge the living and the dead; (Acts 10:42; 2Timothy 4:1)
whose Kingdom shall have no end. (2 Peter 1:11)

However, not all members have the same understanding of what it means that Sacred Scripture is inspired, or what books constitute inspired Scripture, or whether the phrase “Word of God” refers to Sacred Scripture exclusively, directly, indirectly, or at all, since the Gospel of John in Chapter 1, verses 1-18 very clearly uses the phrase to refer to our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of the Father, who became incarnate for our salvation as described in the Nicene Creed (although I have encountered a few members who think it is referring to the Bible, but they have not explained how the Bible could become incarnate for our Salvation or do the other things that Jesus Christ did that are referred to in John 1:1-18).

However most members, myself included, believe the Bible is inspired the Word of God in so far as it describes the Incarnate Word of God, Jesus Christ, who is Himself fully God and fully Man, without change, confusion, separation or division between His deity and the human nature He put on in the Incarnation, and it would be an error to call it “the word of the Word” or “the Word of Jesus” since this would be kind of crypto-Arian, insofar as Jesus Christ is fully God, along with our Heavenly Father, who is unseen except in that Christ Him reveals for us according to the Gospel of John, and also the Holy Spirit, the three persons of the Holy Trinity, ever one God, Holy and Undivided.

This is generally the view (with some variations) of traditional Christians and the majority of Christian denominations, for example, Lutherans, Anglicans, Congregationalists, Methodists*, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, Moravian, and Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East, but among some non-denominational churches, since their pastors do not always have the same theological education that one receives in a Seminary or Bible College or that one is otherwise required to demonstrate a knowledge of in order to be ordained a pastor in the major denominations (which also requires things other than knowledge of Christian theology, doctrine and the Bible, in that it requires knowledge of homiletics (preaching), pastoral care (caring for the religious and spiritual needs of members of the Church who are sick or dying or in various forms of distress), liturgical praticum (how to actually do a proper Sunday worship service, baptism, wedding or funeral, particularly in the more traditional denominations like Lutherans, Anglicans, Orthodox, Catholics, etc, which regularly celebrate Holy Communion and use ancient prayers dating back to the very early church and the Bible, and lastly formation - basically, discerning or developing the character and understanding of ethics and morality required to lead a congregation and inspire faith.

* The United Methodist Church does not believe the Bible is itself the inspired word of God in the sense I described but rather that it contains the inspired word of God, which I believe is a fairly common view among some of the more liberal denominations; I object to this liberal approach, since as I see it, Jesus Christ as the Incarnate Word of God reveals to us God the Father, and the Bible, as a verbal icon of Christ that consists of prophecies of His Incarnation and the need for our salvation from sin in the Old Testament, and in the New Testament describes His Incarnation, how he was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and was born of her, and then engaged in His ministry, recruiting the Apostles, healing the sick, driving out demons, clarifying the nature of the Law and providing for our salvation, and then His passion on the cross and resurrection and ascension to Heaven, and a history of the Acts of the Apostles, and a clear exposition of the Gospel in the Epistles of the Holy Apostles John, Peter, Paul, Jude and James, and finally contains in the Revelation received by the Holy Apostle John and in the Gospels and elsewhere a clear prophecy of the return of our Lord, which you refer to.

 

[seeking.IAM]

It is above my pay grade to speak for denominations, but as for me I enjoy the beauty of the forest even if there are some imperfect trees.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Or who don't believe it's the word of God, or the perfect word of God.

I believe everything in the Bible, and that it is the perfect word of God, and that Jesus really did resurrect from the dead. That Noah really did build a ark and there was a flood, and that giants have existed, and the snake in the garden was actually talking to Adam and Eve. I also believe that Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt and parted the Red Sea to allow them to cross. All these things really happened.

And when the book of Revelation says that there will be these scorpion creatures that will sting people, and when the Bible says they will have human like faces I believe it.

I was having a discussion with a non-denomination Christian, and he said those scorpion like creatures are probably just human made tanks, and that humans are the ones driving it, his explanation was that this was their way of describing a tank to people back then because they would have no idea if we just said a machine with tracks, and a long cannon in the front, so the people who wrote the Bible just said scorpion creatures that will sting people.

But this makes absolutely no sense what he just told me, what tank on this earth has a stinger and a face that looks human?

I believe Scripture is the inerrent Word God.

We are not inerrent, however. Our first mistake is thinking we are.

 

[jas3]

As far as the title is concerned, lots of denominations are very selective in their reading of Scripture. Getting into the details on that is probably a recipe for a locked thread, though.

 

[BobRyan]

Or who don't believe it's the word of God, or the perfect word of God.

I believe everything in the Bible, and that it is the perfect word of God, and that Jesus really did resurrect from the dead. That Noah really did build a ark and there was a flood, and that giants have existed, and the snake in the garden was actually talking to Adam and Eve. I also believe that Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt and parted the Red Sea to allow them to cross. All these things really happened.

agreed

And when the book of Revelation says that there will be these scorpion creatures that will sting people, and when the Bible says they will have human like faces I believe it.

that is symbolism -- but if you reject symbolic elements in apocalyptic literature then these problems show up
Rev 5 - Christ is a lamb animal standing with a cut --

4 Then I began to weep greatly because no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it. 5 And one of the elders *said to me, “Stop weeping; behold, the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has overcome so as to be able to open the scroll and its seven seals.”​

​

6 And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slaughtered, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. 7 And He came and took the scroll out of the right hand of Him who sat on the throne. 8 When He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each one holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9 And they *sang a new song, saying,​

​

“Worthy are You to take the scroll and to break its seals; for You were slaughtered, and You purchased people for God with Your blood from every tribe, language, people, and nation.​

And you would have to reject Rev 17 - telling us that the symbol of "seas" and "waters is many nations, tongues and peoples"

Rev 17:1 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and spoke with me, saying, “Come here, I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute who sits on many waters,
15 And he *said to me, “The waters which you saw where the prostitute sits are peoples and multitudes, and nations and languages.

And you would reject the interpretation given in Rev 17 that the horns in Rev 17 are kings/governments/nations. And so you would have literal horns fighting an animal - a lamb.

12 The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but they receive authority as kings with the beast for one hour. 13 These have one purpose, and they give their power and authority to the beast.​

14 These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them because He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful.”​

I was having a discussion with a non-denomination Christian, and he said those scorpion like creatures are probably just human made tanks, and that humans are the ones driving it, his explanation was that this was their way of describing a tank to people back then because they would have no idea if we just said a machine with tracks, and a long cannon in the front, so the people who wrote the Bible just said scorpion creatures that will sting people.

But this makes absolutely no sense what he just told me, what tank on this earth has a stinger and a face that looks human?

I agree that some interpretations of symbols - don't work

 

[okay]

Or who don't believe it's the word of God, or the perfect word of God.

I believe everything in the Bible, and that it is the perfect word of God, and that Jesus really did resurrect from the dead. That Noah really did build a ark and there was a flood, and that giants have existed, and the snake in the garden was actually talking to Adam and Eve. I also believe that Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt and parted the Red Sea to allow them to cross. All these things really happened.

An interesting question, for sure. I haven't looked at many denominational statements about the bible, but would be surprised to learn of denominations with an official view that has the phrase "we don't believe" associated with the bible. Of course, I have been surprised many times in my life!

In any case, I believe that the nature and interpretation of scripture are two of many areas where faithful, thoughtful Christians can disagree. I am also convinced that there are many healthy expressions of the Christian faith that span the spectrum of views of scripture.

I would just like to point out that people can "believe the bible" without thinking that everything is meant to be read literally, or that all narratives are meant to be interpreted as 100% historically accurate accounts of events. I am no expert, but it seems that some (certainly not all) of the tensions between Christians with regard to scripture may simply come down to a different opinion on what genre we are reading, and of course different genres can be interpreted different ways. Psalms is an example where everyone agrees the genre is poetry and that it includes poetic imagery that isn't always literal (but we still may disagree on interpretations); Genesis is an obvious example of a book where we don't all even agree on the genre so of course various interpretations can be quite different.

 

[RileyG]

@The Liturgist Communities of Christ are indeed Trinitarian, and a "descendant" of LDS, but as far as I know they don't have an official creed. I think they can drink coffee, alcohol, watch various movies etc. I actually know a few personally, and one of their ministers doesn't have any theological training AFAIK.

 

[The Liturgist]

@The Liturgist Communities of Christ are indeed Trinitarian, and a "descendant" of LDS, but as far as I know they don't have an official creed. I think they can drink coffee, alcohol, watch various movies etc. I actually know a few personally, and one of their ministers doesn't have any theological training AFAIK.

Doctrinally, Communities of Christ are basically liberal Mormons. They are not Trinitarian in the Nicene sense.

You might be confusing the Churches of Christ, which are not related to Mormonism, whose ministers usually lack seminary training (although some have it), which are part of the Stone/Campbell Movement (like the mainline Christian Church/Disciples of Christ), and which are Trinitarian and have a capella singing only, with the Communities of Christ, which are basically a more liberal version of the LDS.

 

[RileyG]

Doctrinally, Communities of Christ are basically liberal Mormons. They are not Trinitarian in the Nicene sense.

You might be confusing the Churches of Christ, which are not related to Mormonism, whose ministers usually lack seminary training (although some have it), which are part of the Stone/Campbell Movement (like the mainline Christian Church/Disciples of Christ), and which are Trinitarian and have a capella singing only, with the Communities of Christ, which are basically a more liberal version of the LDS.

Thank you

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Yes. Take for instance....Credobaptists and the Scriptural understanding of HOUSEHOLD BAPTISMS. Credobaptists make a hermenuetical rule out of thin air and state: There can be no infants in these households unless specifically stated in the text of Scripture. Where in Scripture does it state this? It doesn't. This is just a rhetorical slight-of-hand argument to EXPLAIN AWAY paedobaptism. This is the very best example I can come up with of isogesis Credobaptists engage in.

A proper understanding of how to get meaning out of Scripture: A word derives its meaning from its context. Credobaptists circumvent this definition by stating...before you even open a Bible to read it...there are certain rules to follow....one of which is anytime the word "household" is used in Scripture it must mean adults unless specifically stated in Scripture otherwise. A horrid way of interpreting the Bible. This methodology of the interpretation of Scripture must be resisted and called out everywhere. If not confronted...this is a win-win argument for the Credobaptists...just make up hermenuetical rules to advance your point of view in order to EXPLAIN AWAY....paedobaptism.

 

[David Lamb]

Yes. Take for instance....Credobaptists and the Scriptural understanding of HOUSEHOLD BAPTISMS. Credobaptists make a hermenuetical rule out of thin air and state: There can be no infants in these households unless specifically stated in the text of Scripture. Where in Scripture does it state this? It doesn't. This is just a rhetorical slight-of-hand argument to EXPLAIN AWAY paedobaptism. This is the very best example I can come up with of isogesis Credobaptists engage in.

A proper understanding of how to get meaning out of Scripture: A word derives its meaning from its context. Credobaptists circumvent this definition by stating...before you even open a Bible to read it...there are certain rules to follow....one of which is anytime the word "household" is used in Scripture it must mean adults unless specifically stated in Scripture otherwise. A horrid way of interpreting the Bible. This methodology of the interpretation of Scripture must be resisted and called out everywhere. If not confronted...this is a win-win argument for the Credobaptists...just make up hermenuetical rules to advance your point of view in order to EXPLAIN AWAY....paedobaptism.

Well, I am a credobaptist, and I don't say, "There can be no infants in these households unless specifically stated in the text of Scripture." Rather, I say that there are plenty of instances, some including households, where it is stated that those who were baptised already believed. For example, the Philippian jailer and his household:

“And he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household." Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed [their] stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.” (Ac 16:30-34 NKJV)

As far as I am aware, there is no biblical reference to an unbeliever being baptised.

 

[The Liturgist]

Well, I am a credobaptist, and I don't say, "There can be no infants in these households unless specifically stated in the text of Scripture." Rather, I say that there are plenty of instances, some including households, where it is stated that those who were baptised already believed. For example, the Philippian jailer and his household:

“And he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household." Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed [their] stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.” (Ac 16:30-34 NKJV)

As far as I am aware, there is no biblical reference to an unbeliever being baptised.

It is implied that infants were baptized in the case of entire households being baptized. Also, the Patristic perspective, which relates to the Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran perspective is that baptism can provide salvific faith to infants owing to its noetic function.

And of course we have the statement of Christ our True God to “suffer the little ones to come to me.” There are two ways by which one can come to Christ: the Holy and Life-giving mysteries of Baptism and, once baptized, partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ our God in the Eucharist.

For this reason I object not only to Baptist churches but also to Roman Catholic churches and others which do not allow those below a certain age to receive the Eucharist. In Orthodoxy everyone partakes of the Eucharist. The only sacraments we have which are not available to people of all ages and conditions are those requiring qualification, such as Holy Matrimony and Holy Orders, and that requiring the faculty for mens rea, that is to say, voluntary sin, for which we have Reconciliation.

I have seen some Baptists make the argument that infants do not require baptism because they are incapable of voluntary sin, and ironically I have seen this argument from some Reformed Baptists or Particular Baptists who regard the Orthodox as “semi-Pelagian” despite the fact that we have always rejected Pelagius.

Infants, because of ancestral sin, require salvation through Christ, and the way to provide that with the greatest assurance of safety is through reception by Baptism and Chrismation, followed by frequent partaking of the Eucharist.

Also, all Orthodox baptisms, and I think those of most other liturgical churches, include an exorcism, which has the effect of protecting children from demonic possession and removing anything already present - we know from the New Testament that the demons did not spare children from possession and other forms of abuse.

Also if one has left the faith, we can chrismate them a second time, when they return to the Church, but we never repeat Baptism. This practice is useful in the case of people who engaged in ill-advise dalliance with various pagan and occult religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Voudon, Spiritism, et cetera; basically anything outside Christianity.

 

[David Lamb]

It is implied that infants were baptized in the case of entire households being baptized. Also, the Patristic perspective, which relates to the Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran perspective is that baptism can provide salvific faith to infants owing to its noetic function.

And of course we have the statement of Christ our True God to “suffer the little ones to come to me.” There are two ways by which one can come to Christ: the Holy and Life-giving mysteries of Baptism and, once baptized, partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ our God in the Eucharist.

For this reason I object not only to Baptist churches but also to Roman Catholic churches and others which do not allow those below a certain age to receive the Eucharist. In Orthodoxy everyone partakes of the Eucharist. The only sacraments we have which are not available to people of all ages and conditions are those requiring qualification, such as Holy Matrimony and Holy Orders, and that requiring the faculty for mens rea, that is to say, voluntary sin, for which we have Reconciliation.

I have never come across a Baptist church which gives an age requirement for baptism or the Lord's Supper. Also, contrary to popular opinion, Baptists believe in believers' baptism, not adult baptism.

I have seen some Baptists make the argument that infants do not require baptism because they are incapable of voluntary sin, and ironically I have seen this argument from some Reformed Baptists or Particular Baptists who regard the Orthodox as “semi-Pelagian” despite the fact that we have always rejected Pelagius.

I'm a Reformed Baptist, but I haven't come across that belief.

Infants, because of ancestral sin, require salvation through Christ, and the way to provide that with the greatest assurance of safety is through reception by Baptism and Chrismation, followed by frequent partaking of the Eucharist.

Also, all Orthodox baptisms, and I think those of most other liturgical churches, include an exorcism, which has the effect of protecting children from demonic possession and removing anything already present - we know from the New Testament that the demons did not spare children from possession and other forms of abuse.

Also if one has left the faith, we can chrismate them a second time, when they return to the Church, but we never repeat Baptism. This practice is useful in the case of people who engaged in ill-advise dalliance with various pagan and occult religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Voudon, Spiritism, et cetera; basically anything outside Christianity.

 

[The Liturgist]

Yes. Take for instance....Credobaptists and the Scriptural understanding of HOUSEHOLD BAPTISMS. Credobaptists make a hermenuetical rule out of thin air and state: There can be no infants in these households unless specifically stated in the text of Scripture. Where in Scripture does it state this? It doesn't. This is just a rhetorical slight-of-hand argument to EXPLAIN AWAY paedobaptism. This is the very best example I can come up with of isogesis Credobaptists engage in.

A proper understanding of how to get meaning out of Scripture: A word derives its meaning from its context. Credobaptists circumvent this definition by stating...before you even open a Bible to read it...there are certain rules to follow....one of which is anytime the word "household" is used in Scripture it must mean adults unless specifically stated in Scripture otherwise. A horrid way of interpreting the Bible. This methodology of the interpretation of Scripture must be resisted and called out everywhere. If not confronted...this is a win-win argument for the Credobaptists...just make up hermenuetical rules to advance your point of view in order to EXPLAIN AWAY....paedobaptism.

Indeed. Also, contrary to the claims of the Landmark Baptists, we have zero evidence of any early Christians who practiced baptism that did not baptize infants. We do have a record of a heresy called the Hemerobaptists, who would baptize at least weekly, and who might be the ancestors of the modern-day Mandaeans, who venerate St. John the Baptist but blaspheme Christ our True God as a false prophet. But their false baptism is applied to those of all ages.

Prior to the 16th century Anabaptists, who Maritn Luther was strongly opposed to, the idea of credobaptism simply did not exist within Christianity. Yet i have seen people without any supporting evidence claim that the Waldensians were credobaptists, and even more strangely, Landmark Baptists and SDAs claim that known heretical sects, where we have their writings, which indicate they believed in a complex of docetism, emanationism, dualism, and salvation by secret knowledge, such as the Paulicians, Albigensians, Cathars, Bogomils, and other early sects where we have their beliefs cleary established.

For example, I recall seeing the claim made that the Donatists believed in infant baptism, which is obviously incorrect for anyone who has read the objections to donatism from the early church fathers, which do not even mention baptism, but rather object to their idea that the efficacy of the sacraments depends on the personal sanctity of the officiating clergy.

In the case of the Paulicians, we have fragments of their doctrinal exposition, The Book of Keys, which includes various polemics against the Orthodox (by which they were referring either to the Eastern Orthodox or the Armenian Apostolic Church, which is Oriental Orthodox - the Paulicians mainly lived in Armenia, but in Armenia they would have been in immediate proximity to the Georgian Orthodox and Russian Orthodox, who are Eastern Orthodox, and they were also present in Bulgaria and Romania, where some ethnic Paulicians still live; the last Paulicians were converted to Orthodoxy (I believe by the Armenian Apostolic Church, but it might have been the Russians) in the 19th century.

The criticisms they make of Orthodox doctrine along with explicit statements about their doctrine make it clear that they believe in the docetic-emanationist-dualist-secret knowledge soteriology pattern common to so many ancient sects (some people call this “Gnostic Christianity” but this is problematic since their doctrines aren’t Christian, and furthermore some Early Church Fathers such as St. Epiphanios of Cyprus use that word to refer to a specific sect that was particularly horrific and I believe its against the rules to even mention the particular horrors of that sect, and I would not do so anyway because of their frightful nature. It is believed that the only surviving sects that believe in this complex of doctrines are the aforementioned Mandaeans, and possibly the Yazidis and the Yarsanis.

On a happier note as we do this I am watching a baptism of yet more converts into the Orthodox Church, to a parish in San Francisco, no less! We’ve been having a record influx of converts lately in Eastern Orthodoxy and Coptic Orthodoxy, which is the most convert-friendly Orthodox church in America in terms of the availability of English language services, et cetera. I’ve heard a few other traditional liturgical churches are also happily seeing an increase in members - has your LCMS parish been getting an increase lately? The local LCMS parish near me packs a full house every Sunday.

 

[The Liturgist]

I have never come across a Baptist church which gives an age requirement for baptism or the Lord's Supper. Also, contrary to popular opinion, Baptists believe in believers' baptism, not adult baptism.

Indeed, but you don’t baptize children who you believe to be too young to articulate faith, correct?

We tend to baptize on the eighth day or sooner if there are health problems. Also in an emergency laity can baptize.

 

[The Liturgist]

I'm a Reformed Baptist, but I haven't come across that belief.

Well I would note that you are a member of a very well respected English church which is not known for engaging in unpleasant polemics against other Christians. Indeed I want to make it clear that I regard you as a Christian and as a brother. You might also be interested to know one of my English ancestors was one of the first of many Baptists to settle in what became the US due to persecution in England, in the 17th century, but fortunately some English baptists were able to avoid persecution, and the persecution by the C of E and the C of S of “dissenters” is not something I think can be justified. When it comes to Anglicanism, I mainly like the Anglo-Catholic movement, which was historically persecuted within Anglicanism, because they resumed the liturgical practices introduced by John Wesley such as weekly celebration of the Eucharist and a renewed focus on Patristics, and also focused on liturgical beauty, and also focused on helping the poor in deprived areas such as the South of London, where they operated alongside the Salvation Army. Frequently however Anglo Catholic priests were arrested for wearing a chasuble despite this actually being required by the Ornaments Rubric in the BCP - the Act of Conformity put them in an impossible position.*

At any rate, I greatly admire the traditional Baptists of England, like you, for professing traditional Christian moral and social values in a hostile environment. I also regard an American reformed baptist, Dr. Albert Mohler, as the foremost western moral theologian since the repose of Dr. James Kennedy and Pope John Paul II in 2007 and 2005 respectively. I disagree with him entirely on sacramental theology, but when it comes to his staunch opposition to abortion and sexual immorality, I don’t know of anyone who has done as much work as he has, particularly in terms of trying to preserve the traditional position of the Southern Baptist Convention (which appears to be yielding to secular pressure).

*In the Archdiocese of Sydney, which is extremely low church, but has a few high church parishes, chasubles are still banned, but the Anglo Catholics wisely wear a cope, which is a good choice, since the Eastern churches use chasubles which are similar or almost identical to the Western Cope (the Greek Orthodox phelonion, or chasuble, which St. Paul requested, along with Armenian and Maronite chasubles, are very much like Copes, and the Syriac Orthodox version of it, the Phayno, would appear to many Westerners to be a cope, some of whom might think that the priest’s stole, called a Hamnikho, which like the Coptic stole is a single piece of fabric draped over the neck, whereas the Byzantine and Maronite stoles worn by priests consist of one longer piece of fabric the two sides of which are buttoned and usually also sewn together, whereas in the West the correct way to wear a stole is not to drape it over the shoulders like a tippet, but to cross it in the center, and secure it with the cincture. The Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East actually buy Western copes and sometimes Syriac Orthodox phelonions off the shelf.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

All HOUSEHOLD BAPTISMS has their foundation in Acts 2:38-39:

“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. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”​

​

Here we see two categories of individuals being baptized: Adult who must repent and children who can't. The first administration of baptism in the NT allows HOUSEHOLD BAPTISMS. Credobaptists just ignore this passage of Scripture and certainly see no promises attached to baptism as Scripture CLEARLY state.

Credobaptists are definition deniers.

Baptists believe in believers' baptism, not adult baptism.

Not true...Baptists only believe in adult baptism. All adult baptisms should be called professors baptism. No person besides God can see faith in a person....no human can. All denominations practice adult baptism based on the candidates profession of faith. It is false to equate a profession of faith with belief for as the Psalmist states....“All mankind are liars” (Ps. 116:11). The visible church will always have hypocrites within their midst.

There is no such thing as believers baptism....only professor's baptism.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Infants, because of ancestral sin, require salvation through Christ, and the way to provide that with the greatest assurance of safety is through reception by Baptism and Chrismation, followed by frequent partaking of the Eucharist.

It is nearly impossible for Baptists to understand the theological term "The means of Grace" pertaining to baptism. They believe it is a human work....rather than work of God. They have a very difficult time understanding baptism is an instrument or vehicle by which the promises attached to baptism are delivered such as the "the forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit) Acts 2:38. If fact, I will go further....Baptists have a difficult time dealing with the concept of "promises" found in the NT, let alone all the all promises attached to baptism in the NT. How they can believe baptism contains no promises, is very hard for me to understand.

 

[The Liturgist]

It is nearly impossible for Baptists to understand the theological term "The means of Grace" pertaining to baptism. They believe it is a human work....rather than work of God. They have a very difficult time understanding baptism is an instrument or vehicle by which the promises attached to baptism are delivered such as the "the forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit) Acts 2:38. If fact, I will go further....Baptists have a difficult time dealing with the concept of "promises" found in the NT, let alone all the all promises attached to baptism in the NT. How they can believe baptism contains no promises, is very hard for me to understand.

This is a very insightful post which underlines why I don’t accept Baptist sacramental theology.