Infant Baptism

[Ryan1976]

I came across this article today on Infant Baptism. In a lot of these "Catholic" threads this issue is often thrown against the Roman Catholics. Sometimes it's not so much infant baptism but the full immersion issue. I am not aware if Roman Catholics fully immerse or not and if they do not, I am not sure if it relates to their Catechisms and would like, if any Roman Catholic cares to respond, to hear an explanation as to why they do not subscribe to full immersion (if the allegation is true).



For Eastern Orthodox the Didache is a primary source (it seems that this would also be true of Roman Catholics but I'm a little confused about the RCC positions on baptisms because of the varying allegations/rumors I've come across.)


Didache [Gr.,=teaching], early Christian work written in Greek, called also The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Dates for its composition suggested by scholars have ranged from AD 50 to AD 150. Discovered in 1875 by Bryennios, Greek Orthodox metropolitan of Nicomedia, it is an invaluable primary source for the primitive church. The first part is a collection of moral precepts, perhaps based on rabbinical teachings (there are many quotations from the Old Testament); the second portion gives directions for baptism and the Eucharist; the third contains directions for bishops and deacons. The Didache may be of composite authorship. A short work, it has been published in English translation in collections of patristic literature.

Read the Didache by clicking HERE.

Moving on to the Infant Baptism issue, the article is below. When I became a protestant I remember asking to be baptized and had asked what baptism was and how I should approach it. There were others being baptized as well. The ones that were being baptized were being instructed by many and each of these "teachers" had offered varied interpretations on what baptism was. One was that baptism is merely a ritel of joining the Christian community, a coming out party if you will. Another that it was a symbol for something that has already taken place when I asked Jesus, "into my heart" (a different can of worms). Infant baptism came up because some being baptized had children. They said that they do dedications for infants (free-Methodist) but not full immersion. However, it was discouraged because the consensus among these protestant teachers was that baptism was synonymous with one's cognitive ability to repent. An infant had nothing to gain other than getting wet.

Since then, my stance has changed in support of infant baptism. However, let it be known, if you are not aware already, there are protestant individuals and also denominations that support infant baptism.

Here's the article. I hope you read the entire article because it addresses not a few issues.

Infant Baptism

Jordan Bajis



"Should I be baptized again" Many renewed Orthodox Christians have asked themselves and others whether they should be baptized as adults. I readily understand why this question is asked, for I myself must admit that I did not always feel comfortable about the Orthodox Church baptizing infants. I asked myself several other questions as well: "How can an infant 'believe and be baptized'?" "Where in Scripture does it show an infant being baptized?" "Is not the baptizing of infants the reason why the contemporary Orthodox Church has a need for renewal and re-evangelization?"
These questions were so significant to me that I refused to actively support or encourage the practice of infant baptism until I was able to get some satisfactory answers. On one occasion I even rejected the honor of being the best man at a close friend's wedding unless he was willing to absolve me of the accompanying responsibility of being the baptismal sponsor for his first child. Only after he agreed to my request did I consent to become his best man.

Knowing that as a committed Christian I could not refrain indefinitely from making a decision on this matter, I embarked on an intensive study of Scripture and early Christian history. I resolved that I would not finish my study until I had settled the issue in my mind and in my heart. Surprisingly, the area was much more complex than I first envisioned it to be. I must admit at the outset it looked as though the argument for infant baptism was about as valid as the theory that the earth was cigar-shaped. However, I uncovered many facts that are usually unknown to the common layman and which I think will prove helpful for those who are now in a doctrinal dilemma similar to the one I was in previously. I can now say, after having looked into the arguments of some of the most respected scholars on this subject, that there is a very strong case for the baptism of infants of Christian parents.

Before I begin to share some of the things I discovered, I think it is important to note that, although I have dedicated months to the thorough study of this subject, I do not pretend to be a theologian, professor of Church history, or Greek scholar. I am not an expert on the subject; I am a student of the subject. It is also important to note, however, that the evidences and arguments I produce here are, in the main, not my own but rather a synthesis of research and conclusions distilled from several noteworthy scholars. It is not my purpose to be overly technical, to illustrate the minute peculiarity of each counter-argument's counter-argument, or to take the reader back to study the original documents in order to discuss grammatical controversies surrounding the texts. It is not that I consider these types of investigations unimportant, but I simply restrained myself from doing this because I do not think it is very profitable for the average layman. The scholars are much better qualified than I to define and explain these more exacting details, in any case.

Given this preface, let me get to the point of the article. How is it that I can now recognize infant baptism as a valid practice whereas before I was highly distrustful of it? I will record a number of reasons for this below in as straightforward and direct a way as I know. Some facts will require a bit of explanation, but many will consist of only a sentence or two. At the close of the list, I will offer some concluding thoughts and insights about infant baptism. I have categorized the evidence supporting the practice of infant baptism into three main sections: Scripture, History, and the Fathers of the Early Church. I recognize that each argument may not be able to stand on its own, but taken together they present a conclusive picture.


CLICK HERE FOR THE ARTICLE'S CONTINUATION...




May God bless you!

No offense brother, but what fruit, if any, will this produce? I vote we work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. That includes each parent's instructions to their children.

After reading the article I'm still unconvinced that baptism in water is meant for infants. I think the arguements in the article are an example of "the letter of the word kills". The first arguement uses Peter's sermon in Acts when he states," For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself ". The way I understand it and always have is that Peter is refereing to the the "children" as the next generation and so forth, hence the next line "and for all who are far off", not the little ones running around your ankles at the time. The rest of the aguements hold no value for me, but I wont say that they do not for anyone else. Everyopne has a right to bring their children up how they see fit and if they feel that baptising their infant is neccasary then I say let it be. If it is wrong then at least the baby gets a bath right?

I was baptised in the catholic church in 7th grade but I never had faith in Christ until the age of 26. I did not believe in God. Im now 27 and very proud to say my heart belongs to God and next week I will be baptised again. Ive been in prayer about this decision for a very long time and sought spiritual counceling over it. The Lord has definately led me to take this step and I gotta tell you, I have sooooooo much joy in my heart knowing that it's going to mean something to me this time! Its makes me want to shout it from the roof tops!

[Graybeard]

Derek, I support you because as far as I understand it, is that catholics baptism is carried out with the sprinkling of water over the forehead, I'm understanding Baptism to mean complete submersion under water. So therefore the way catholics baptize to me is..well...wrong!

Good Question Ryan.

Baptism in Catholicism is a three step process. You are baptized as an infant with oil and water. However, as many and hopefully all people know, you cannot dunk an infant in water. They don't exactly get the concept of hold your breath. So when a child is baptized in the Catholic religion they are assigned God parents. This means that the God parents promise to make sure the baby is raised properly in the way of the Lord. This is like an initiation. As the child grows he or she takes classes and does preparation for First Communion. This includes bible study, learning the scriptures, learning what is expected of a Christian in every day life and how to be a better person through God...as much as possible to a 7 year old of course. This step allows you to receive the blood and body of Christ at Mass. Catholics believe in transsubstantiation. You probably already know that means that they believe that the Host (bread wafer) and the Blood (wine) actually turns into the Body and Blood of Christ. The wafers and wine is locked away with normally only one or two people having the key.

The last step, is Confirmation. This is usually done around the age of 12 when the child knows the difference between right or wrong and can fully accept Jesus into their Hearts. This is when they become full members of the Church. This is when the child choses to enter the faith. This ceremony includes speaking out loud in front of the whole church, renouncing Satan and all in all promising to be a good Christian. This part is like a re-birthing ceremony because they are chosing, as adults, to be brought up in the Christian faith.

Sidenote, if you are baptized as an adult you can choose to be fully immersed in water. A friend of mine was baptized Catholic and she was dipped backwards in a little pool and fully immersed.

[Ryan1976]

Originally Posted by broken

No offense brother, but what fruit, if any, will this produce? I vote we work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. That includes each parent's instructions to their children.

No offense taken. I am glad that you replied.

Hm. To each his own? Has Christianity become a democracy? I don't know. I vote no (if it were possible). If we were all united (and not in some invisible way because we are invisibly divided as well) we wouldn't be divided, externally or internally. If we're united, even if just on this issue, we can still work out our own salvation with much fear and trembling.

Hebrews 6

1Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death,[d] and of faith in God, 2instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3And God permitting, we will do so.



The interesting thing about this verse is that baptism, including the baptism of infants, was never a contention or source of division until recently (with a few minor exceptions that have their roots in a misunderstanding).



The other thing of note is the Didache. If the Apostles truly did pass down the teachings about the things listed above and if those teachings included infant baptism, then we will have strayed. I offer this topic not as a wedge to drive fellow believers further apart but to bring them closer. What will we have lost, as believers, if we, across the board, unite, at least on one of these elementary teachings about Christ?


And therein lies the rub, these topics are not trivial issues separate in and of themselves but are, as Hebrews states: Teachings about Christ. They reflect Him.



They are vital for spiritual maturity and if we are united on those teachings and applications then the world will see Christ in us and not just another reflection of this broken and divided world.






John 17


Jesus Prays for All Believers

20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.


I'm not saying we should be legalistic or dogmatic here. It's not like if a parent should choose to deprive his/her child of baptism he/she should get the boot. But you're right. We can just keep on keeping on as we've been going on. And the baptists will continue to disagree with the Methodist and the Methodists will disagree with the Oneness folks and the Oneness against etc. In other words, there is a whole lot of bad fruit being stored up and those bad seeds seem to be multiplying at an even faster rate. We can allow it to continue on in the name of individualism or we can re-visit these issues that have splintered Christianity and actually come together. Agreeing to disagree is not ecumenism. It's a cease-fire masquerading as peace. A storm on the horizon.

50,000 denominations here we come....

In Love,
God bless

[Ryan1976]

If it is wrong then at least the baby gets a bath right?

LOL!!!

Better safe then sorry, eh?



It's pretty interesting that you want to get re-baptized. Did the first one not stick or is it just a chance to express yourself or???


God bless!

[Ryan1976]

Originally Posted by HollyC

Good Question Ryan.

Baptism in Catholicism is a three step process. You are baptized as an infant with oil and water. However, as many and hopefully all people know, you cannot dunk an infant in water. They don't exactly get the concept of hold your breath. So when a child is baptized in the Catholic religion they are assigned God parents. This means that the God parents promise to make sure the baby is raised properly in the way of the Lord. This is like an initiation. As the child grows he or she takes classes and does preparation for First Communion. This includes bible study, learning the scriptures, learning what is expected of a Christian in every day life and how to be a better person through God...as much as possible to a 7 year old of course. This step allows you to receive the blood and body of Christ at Mass. Catholics believe in transsubstantiation. You probably already know that means that they believe that the Host (bread wafer) and the Blood (wine) actually turns into the Body and Blood of Christ. The wafers and wine is locked away with normally only one or two people having the key.

The last step, is Confirmation. This is usually done around the age of 12 when the child knows the difference between right or wrong and can fully accept Jesus into their Hearts. This is when they become full members of the Church. This is when the child choses to enter the faith. This ceremony includes speaking out loud in front of the whole church, renouncing Satan and all in all promising to be a good Christian. This part is like a re-birthing ceremony because they are chosing, as adults, to be brought up in the Christian faith.

Sidenote, if you are baptized as an adult you can choose to be fully immersed in water. A friend of mine was baptized Catholic and she was dipped backwards in a little pool and fully immersed.

Oh, interesting. This is off topic but you don't receive communion until after Confirmation? And can a parent decide they want their baby to be fully immersed?

Orthodox have full immersion though if you read the Didache there are exceptions. So far, that I'm aware of, there haven't been any drowning victims.

HollyC, I designate you as official RC translator for those like me that wonder why it is the Roman Catholics do what they do and in the way that they do them.



God bless!

[dscherck]

I know that in the Byzantine Catholic rite we follow the example of our Orthodox brethren and the baby is baptized, chrismated, and partakes of the Eucharist.

I believe that in Catholic theology there are three types of baptisms recognized as valid, and three methods as well.

If I recall correctly, the three types of baptism are as follows:
Water baptism, where water is applied and the one doing the baptism says something to the effect of, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

Baptism by blood, where one is martyred for their faith in Jesus though they had not been baptized in water. The penitent thief on the cross is I believe the proto-example of this baptism.

And finally, there's baptism by desire. Where one desires to be baptized but passes away before that happens. It's assumed that if one had a sincere desire to follow the Lord and be baptized but died en route or before it happened, the Lord will show mercy and take that sincere desire into account.

Now the three methods are I believe, full immersion, sprinkling, and I think in extreme cases, one can just take a small droplet of water and make the sign of the Cross on the forehead of the one being baptized. All methods of course are done in the name of the Trinity.

Well I'm glad to take the honour but as with most people, my religion is still under construction. And they are allowed to take the communion after their First Communion. Before they have that they go to the front of the Chruch like everyone else with their arms crossed over their chest and the priest just blesses them. And yes they can choose to have their child fully immersed but most parents normally choose not to shock the heck out of their children until they are at least able to run away. Plus they normally have a christening gown on that the parents keep and worry that it would get ruined.

Personally I find it interesting to learn about the other religions and how they work.

Here is a thought though k?

In the Bible when John the Baptist and Jesus were baptizing people, most of the people were adults right? I don't remember if Jesus or John dunked a baby in water. My thought is that one of the reasons there is such a war with infant baptism and ana-baptism is that Jesus didn't baptize any infants that I remember so how can we deal with those who want their child baptized? The sprinkling of the holy water is a good alternative until the child becomes an adult and is able to make their own decision regarding their faith.

As with the other posts I agree. There is this war between Religions that is tearing everyone apart. How can we love our neighbour like we love ourself if we hate what our neighbour believes? Isn't that contradictory? I am the first person to say that I am not tyed to any one religion. I'm not Catholic or Protestant or Baptist or Any other religion. However, I am looking for a religion. Which was my reason for coming onto Christian Chat. I thought I would get on here and meet other Christians and DISCUSS...not ARGUE. I'm not suggesting that everyone gets along but can't we just tolerate? I know this is off topic but it had to come out. Infant baptism is just one of the examples. Good post though.

[Graybeard]

where do these methods come from? I mean, how did they come into being and is it scriptural?

[MahogonySnail]

I believe all infant baptised should be re-baptised when they come of age in water in full immersion (or close enough to it, eg pouring). Not that infant baptism has no benefit, but replacing the process of confirmation with full immersion baptism would be a nice biblical thing to do.

[jgrig2]

I am a solid evangelical presbyterian who believes in covenant theology thus I would say the Orthodox and Roman Catholic baptisms are valid baptisms even though they are not Biblical Churches in the New Testament sense for their abbandonment of justification by faith alone apart from the works of the Law. If you're beleif in credo baptism is just because ''we dont see it in the new testament'' then I would simply ask then why do you believe in the Trinity or the hypostatic union of Christ? Both are biblical but are based upon examination of many texts in context to develop a theology. We believe that Baptism is the New Testament's version of circumscision and thus it is based on covenant. Abraham received it AFTER FAITH and Issac (and jacob) before faith. It is about the entrance in to the VISIBLE people of God (doesn't mean their saved). The New testament follows this pattern for household and covenant baptism.

Originally Posted by Ryan1976

LOL!!!

Better safe then sorry, eh?



It's pretty interesting that you want to get re-baptized. Did the first one not stick or is it just a chance to express yourself or???


God bless!

Well it didnt stick because it didnt mean anything to me. My parents made me do it. And when I was of age to say, " screw all this church stuff" I did. But the Lord eventually found me and now I know what baptism is all about and I want to do it. Baptism is for us right? And if it doesnt mean anything to the person getting baptized then isnt it worthless? It definately wont be worthless this time around.

[pickles]

I was baptized as an infant , water poured over my head at that time. The question of wether this baptism is valid has come up in the past. In my heart before Jesus I have always accepted this as my baptism although I am no longer a practicing catholic for biblical reasons. When speaking to a pastor many years ago he said I was not baptised. When I asked myself why I would be baptised again the answer I always got was to please other people. In my heart , before Jesus to say I was not baptized would be a lie. I have to go forward with what I believe in Jesus although if he tells me to I will do it again to be obedient to him. I believe if in your heart before Our Lord Jesus you must answer this question, I also do believe in baptism in all and also baptised all my children myself as our church would not at that time. I can only imagine if I were in the time of John the baptist if I had an infant I know that I would bring that child to John to be baptised. How could I deny my child this gift. Jesus said suffer not the children to come to me. Im sure many may debate this but I have always held true to before Jesus in my heart for my answers. God bless, pickles

Originally Posted by pickles

I was baptized as an infant , water poured over my head at that time. The question of wether this baptism is valid has come up in the past. In my heart before Jesus I have always accepted this as my baptism although I am no longer a practicing catholic for biblical reasons. When speaking to a pastor many years ago he said I was not baptised. When I asked myself why I would be baptised again the answer I always got was to please other people. In my heart , before Jesus to say I was not baptized would be a lie. I have to go forward with what I believe in Jesus although if he tells me to I will do it again to be obedient to him. I believe if in your heart before Our Lord Jesus you must answer this question, I also do believe in baptism in all and also baptised all my children myself as our church would not at that time. I can only imagine if I were in the time of John the baptist if I had an infant I know that I would bring that child to John to be baptised. How could I deny my child this gift. Jesus said suffer not the children to come to me. Im sure many may debate this but I have always held true to before Jesus in my heart for my answers. God bless, pickles

I dont understand what gift your talking about. Are you saying water baptism does something other than just show you were baptised in the name of Jesus, or with the Holy Spirit?

[jgrig2]

Originally Posted by Derek

Well it didnt stick because it didnt mean anything to me. My parents made me do it. And when I was of age to say, " screw all this church stuff" I did. But the Lord eventually found me and now I know what baptism is all about and I want to do it. Baptism is for us right? And if it doesnt mean anything to the person getting baptized then isnt it worthless? It definately wont be worthless this time around.

Well, that just came accross somewhat arrogant and self-absorbed didn't it? Baptism is not principally about us, it is in a very real sense, but it is much more. It is about introducing you to the covenant community of God's people and the water symbolizes God's promise to save you through faith alone in Christ alone. At baptism the covenant people of God (the church) makes a vow before God to pray for you, to set a good example for you, to share the Gospel for you, etc... And if you abbandon the faith it shows that you have not been saved yet and when God saves you it is God mercifully remembering the conditional promises in given to you at baptism and saving you apart from your works! To say that there must be a profession of faith before baptism is not a picture of the Gospel but rather of legalism because God saves us apart from our good works and the baptizing of an infant is a beautiful picture of that grace that gives gives to us in conversion. God saving those whom cannot save themselves.

[Ryan1976]

Originally Posted by Graybeard

where do these methods come from? I mean, how did they come into being and is it scriptural?

You'd be hard pressed to find any practice in any church ever that doesn't consider their methods as being scriptural. Even the folks that drink poison and taunt vipers into biting them get their methods from scripturel and in a way are, "biblical/scriptural". In regards to how these things come into being you have to research. Sometimes there's a few guys sitting around who get a notion, start itching their ears and go off and start up some new snaggle-toothed way of expressing the faith, call it Christian and presto-change-o, fifty years later you have a new denomination (set of beliefs and way of doing things).

For Catholics both Orthodox and RCC, the methods are believed to have come from Tradition. That is to say that the Apostles transmitted these traditions to others who in turn preserved them and then passed them onto the next generation and so forth. This is where it gets interesting within Catholicism.

Orthodox are much more defensive and have, historically, been much more resistant to change in regards to what came before. The word Catholic means more accurately, according to the whole. That is to say it places a high value on a corporate body. We are called to have one mind, one belief, one Faith. For instance, if the Apostles taught A, B, C in regards to baptism then in Orthodoxy there is great care not to add or subtract to the model. So, if everyone holds the line as it was passed down, then the room for error dramatically decreases and you can pass down to your children what was passed down to those that knew the Apostles.

Titus 1:9
He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

Because Catholics in general don't subscribe to sola-scriptura the litmus for discerning between true and false doctrine is more dynamic. Tradition is revealed in the catholicity of its body. If today's Orthodox believe and do as did those Orthodox that came before them, all the way back to the Apostles then it is considered to be authoritative, provided* it jives with scripture. Now, here to we find a slippery slope because this is what lead to the Reformation. The Reformers were, generally speaking, right to reject many of the issues that they were protesting. We have to remember that the schism wherein Rome broke off from the Orthodox was just the end result of a tear that began around the 3rd and 4th centuries.

The reason for the friction between the two came often from the fact that most of Rome's doctrines were colored by Latin language, intertwining politics with the Church and then finally Papal supremacy and the fact that they took a 700 year old creed and wanted to edit/change it to include the filioque (you can wiki filioque if you don't know what it is).

Papal supremacy itself (from an Orthodox view) doesn't live up to the definition of Catholic. Though teachers, elders, overseers (Bishops) etc. are to be given double honor because of their responsibilities in regard to the body, two teachers, two elders, five Bishops were always equal to one another. No one Bishop was ever given power above the other. Rome was considered to be first among equals. Why Rome? Because Peter was Bishop in Rome. However, it's interesting that Peter was actually Bishop at Antioch (if I remember correctly) first! And later went to Rome. Pope means Bishop by the way...

So, suddenly, in Rome, you had an entirely different organism than in the East. Rome became expansive and the checks and balances that a humbler catholicity offers began to give sway to the world around her. No longer were they able to "hold the line" as it were. Instead of being defensive they became much more offensive. While Rome was conquering this and that and enjoying a Theocratic stronghold, the East was fighting against the muslims and losing badly...

Rome sees her theology as being progressive instead of being reflective. So they see the theologies that came out of the middle ages as being more enlightened than that of the early Church Fathers. They see the knowledge and wisdom of Vatican II as being more enlightened than that of the middle ages etc.

So by the time we get to the Reformers we find an entirely different group of Catholics than in the East. The first time we hear the word Catholic is from Ignatius (he studied under St. John, the beloved disciple of Jesus).

Just a few things that later showed up in Rome that were once foreign to her roots and that the East never subscribed to:

Purgatory, indulgences, the Pope, Immaculate Conception, stations of the Cross, Transubstantiation, the division of the ten commandments, teachings on deadly sins, different teachings and methods/beliefs about confession, certain councils and beliefs about councils in general, dating systems, certain feasts/holidays, Rome believes the sacraments to be effective based on the Priest who acts in the place of Christ, language stipulations on the bible, statues, celibate Priests, canon laws, ecclesiology, the orders of monks (Jesuits, Benedictines, Dominican etc.), doctrines on; Original Sin, grace, faith vs works, perfection, Mary, God, Jesus, etc.

The main difference between Orthodox and Rome: the Latin Church’s appeal to the authority of the Roman See and the Orthodox Church’s dependence on the authority of the wholeness of ecclesiastical tradition, the very Body of the Church.

So, whether or not all this stuff is scriptural is a valid question but so is asking whether or not all this stuff is in-line with Tradition (as it was handed down by the Apostles) or is it simply a tradition/teaching of man.

If your Protestant, don't think you can escape tradition either. There are just as many teachings of men/traditions in Protestantism. Do you have bits and pieces of Calvinist or Anabaptist or Wesleyan teachings and traditions? Are the Oneness folks and the Apostolic Pentecostals who baptize only in the name of Jesus in line with the Apostles teachings or have they, because of their lack of tradition, inserted their own interpretations of the scriptures in order create a new tradition, one that is, in their minds, supreme beyond that which came before them?

1 Corinthians 11:2
Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

Colossians 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

2 Thessalonians 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.





God bless!

[Lauren]

Originally Posted by Ryan1976

Orthodox are much more defensive and have, historically, been much more resistant to change in regards to what came before. The word Catholic means more accurately, according to the whole. That is to say it places a high value on a corporate body. We are called to have one mind, one belief, one Faith. For instance, if the Apostles taught A, B, C in regards to baptism then in Orthodoxy there is great care not to add or subtract to the model. So, if everyone holds the line as it was passed down, then the room for error dramatically decreases and you can pass down to your children what was passed down to those that knew the Apostles.

Ryan, I've found several of your posts interesting (in this and other threads), and I just wanted to thank you for some historical background.....interesting stuff.