Thread: Ancient-ness of our beliefs as a proof of their truth? And paedo/credo issues....

Hello;

Studying through paedo and credo debates, both sides try to show how baptismal architecture (the depth of baptismals), paintings (whether they showed people being sprinkled or immersed) or quotes by the early church fathers favor their view.

I am interested in hearing the historic evidence for both paedo and credo, but first....

How important is it for the paedos or credos to gain this historcial high ground anyway?

After all, chiliasm and baptismal regeneration were fixtures of the early church?

It seems that error crept in rather quickly. Therefore, even if paedos could prove that the early church practiced paedo-ism, what do we do about chiliam and baptismal regeneration then?

Is there a tradition of opposition to chiliasm and baptismal regeneration that is also early that we can appeal to?

Speaking as a baptist who is open to continual reevaluation, I will say that the historical argument is the most powerful one that I've encountered. I can say that in 35 years of studying this issue, no one has been able to convince me from scripture of the paedobaptist position. I've got an M.Div. from Westminster, I've read John Murray, I'm in a PCA church now and I've had long discussions with my (very intelligent and well-read) pastor, and I'm just not convinced. You can talk about household baptisms, continuity with circumcision, I've heard them all; I may not be able to convince you, but you won't be able to convince me either.

But there is one argument that has really made me stop and think, and I'm still thinking it through and haven't been able to dismiss it. It's not so much the presence of early evidence of infant baptism, but the lack of any early evidence of any opposition to the practice. The argument goes, if the practice of the apostles was to baptize believers only, then whenever the practice of infant baptism was introduced, one would expect some sort of outcry against this non-apostolic innovation. But what we see in history is no controversy over infant baptism at all until, I think, the Anabaptists.

It's an argument from silence, but for me as a baptist, it's one I can't dismiss lightly.

I don't mean for this to sound the way it will probably sound but, if what you say is true then infant baptism was pragmatic. I am not being argumentative, I agree with you. I went into the study of baptism with an open mind or maybe even a slant towards paedo but after reading through the bible and theology and putting the two together it seems like it is easier to prove believers only baptism from the bible.

In order to get an argument for paedo baptism one must go back to the OT and draw from what was done with circumcision and the fact that babies did not believe when circumcised so therefore when being baptized it is not necessary for the one being baptized to believe.

It seems like when explaining baptism and its use there is a major disconnect when it comes to the baptizing of infants and therefore the ground for grounds for it, unless one wants to be RCC, or possibly Lutheran and believe in baptismal regeneration, then one needs to derive their argument from circumcision.

However, when taking into account the biblical arguments for why someone is baptized the Lutherans and RCC are only being consistent with what the bible teaches.

The issue of how much water to use is so much an issue that it should not even be an issue.

The apostle John discipled Polycarp who discipled Irenaeus who was a writer. Irenaeus says Polycarp says John said they baptized babies.

Now some will argue that his terms were metaphorical because the "babies" were what he called new believers- we are born again as infants in Christ. But others will point out that taken at face value he says Polycarp claims that the apostles baptized babies.

I never read original Irenaeus myself. But there is a cyber link out there by Baptists about how all the early church fathers blew it because they baptized babies, and yeah, it started real early.

I asked my pastor once if I was the only paedo-credo in the world and he laughed and said most folks end up on one side or the other. I have no trouble with either but maybe I'm just real wierd Isn't there room for Romans 14 and ones conscience when it comes to this? Both sides appeal to scripture with good exegesis.

Attached is a PDF paper 16 pages of evidences of Infant Baptism from the Church Fathers,

has sources from the Patristic, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Tertullian, Origen, etc

But these are also very good titles on the same matter.

Jeremias, Joachim. Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries.

Jeremias, Joachim. The Origin of Infant Baptism.

Mark, it is not true that there was no opposition to infant baptism in the early church. Tertullian argues against it (De Baptisme 18).

"[Anti-paedobaptism] must have been frequent well into the fourth century, for the great church leaders, including those born to strong Christian parents (Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, John Chrysostom, Ephraem the Syrian, Jerome, Rufinus, Augustine), were not baptized until the end of their student days."

“Baptism,” Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd Edition (New York: Garland Publishing, 1997), 162.


My personal opinion is that early church history offers little in support of either the paedo- or credo- positions. Those who practiced paedobaptism did so to regenerate their children in case of early death, whereas baptism for professing believers was likewise viewed as granting regeneration and forgiveness of sins. With a massive error like baptismal regeneration, it seems silly to be entirely trusting of the Patristics on this point.

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

Mark, it is not true that there was no opposition to infant baptism in the early church. Tertullian argues against it (De Baptisme 18).

"[Anti-paedobaptism] must have been frequent well into the fourth century, for the great church leaders, including those born to strong Christian parents (Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, John Chrysostom, Ephraem the Syrian, Jerome, Rufinus, Augustine), were not baptized until the end of their student days."

“Baptism,” Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd Edition (New York: Garland Publishing, 1997), 162.


My personal opinion is that early church history offers little in support of either the paedo- or credo- positions. Those who practiced paedobaptism did so to regenerate their children in case of early death, whereas baptism for professing believers was likewise viewed as granting regeneration and forgiveness of sins. With a massive error like baptismal regeneration, it seems silly to be entirely trusting of the Patristics on this point.

Tertullian comments on delaying baptism within the common practice of baptizing infants:

"And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little childrem."
Tertullian,On Baptism,18(A.D. 200/206)

"But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day...And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism...we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons.."
Cyprian,To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2,6(A.D. 251)

"And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family."
Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition,21(c. A.D. 215)

"Therefore children are also baptized."
Origen,Homily on Luke,XIV(A.D. 233)

"For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too."
Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9(A.D. 244)


"Have you an infant child? Do not let sin get any opportunity, but let him be sanctified from his childhood; from his very tenderest age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Fearest thou the Seal on account of the weakness of nature?"
Gregory Nazianzen,Oration on Holy Baptism,40:17(A.D. 381)

"We do baptize infants, although they are not guilty of any sins."
Chrysostom,Ad Neophytos,(A.D. 388)


"Canon 2. Likewise it has been decided that whoever says that infants fresh from their mothers' wombs ought not to be baptized....let him be anathema."
Council of Carthage,Canon 2,(A.D. 418)


"And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision, which was received by God's earlier people, and before receiving which Abraham was justified, as Cornelius also was enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized."
Augustine, On Baptism against the Donatist,4:24:31(A.D. 400)

You can't completely establish a doctrine by its "ancient-ness" but you can use it to provide another argument for its correctness. The minute one tries to argue that we can trace a certain doctrine back to the 1st Century, all one has to do is point out the state of the Church of Galatia within years of Paul's departure. Those who want to assume the early Church was pristine in its doctrine and practice seem to gloss over the internal evidence of the Scriptures themselves.

That being said, from a historical standpoint, the Pelagian controversy almost ironclad proof that paedobaptism had always been practiced. Consider this information (from http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs7/bbbb/bbbb3.pdf):

In 417 A.D., Pelagius sent an Epistle to Innocent, Bishop of Rome. There, he alleged "that men slander him [Pelagius] -- as if he denied the sacrament of baptism to infants." Indeed, Pelagius then added that "he had never heard even an impious heretic say this...about infants." Pelagius next asked:87 "Who indeed is so unacquainted with Gospel lessons, as...to attempt to make such an affirmation?... Who is so impious, as to wish to exclude infants from the 'kingdom of heaven' [perhaps meaning the visible Church] -- by forbidding them to be baptized?"

Indeed, according to Augustine,88 the Pelagians were so surrounded or "beset both with the authority of God's Word and with the usage of the Church that was of old delivered to it, and has been since kept by it, in the baptizing of children -- that they dare not deny that infants are [to be]
baptized." For they say that 'infants do indeed answer truly, by the mouths of those that bring them, that they believe in the forgiveness of sins."

The Ultrapelagian Caelestius -- author of the books Definitions of Sinlessness; and Monastic Life; and Original Sin; and Statement of Faith; and Syllogisms -- was a tenacious and successful propagandist. In his own Prologue to his own Commentary on Jeremiah, Jerome called Caelestius "by origin of the Scotch [viz. the Irish] nation" -- one "having his belly filled...with Scotch porridge."

Augustine regarded Caelestius as bolder than the more subtle Pelagius. In his Confession, published at Rome, Caelestius stated: "I have always maintained that infants require baptism and ought to be baptized."

Indeed, as Augustine pointed out:89 "Caelestius here conceded baptism for infants.... This, accordingly, is the language which Caelestius used in the ecclesiastical process at Carthage: 'As touching the transmission of sin...many persons of acknowledged position in the Catholic Church deny it.... I have always maintained that infants require baptism, and ought to be baptized.'"

Indeed, if any heretical group had a vested interest in denying infant baptism it would be the Pelagians. Both Pelagius and Augustine were well versed in the history of the Church. How would it be possible for them to not know of any "heretic" in the past that had denied the baptism of infants? This was before the loss of some documents that we no longer have. I can't believe we know more about the early Church than Augustine did.

Originally Posted by Mark Hettler

The argument goes, if the practice of the apostles was to baptize believers only, then whenever the practice of infant baptism was introduced, one would expect some sort of outcry against this non-apostolic innovation. But what we see in history is no controversy over infant baptism at all until, I think, the Anabaptists.

It's an argument from silence, but for me as a baptist, it's one I can't dismiss lightly.

In my opinion, this doesn't hold much weight. There have been countless innovations introduced into churches, both ancient and modern, that were met with relative silence from the people.

As far as I know, there was no widespread bemoaning the installation of monarchical bishops in the early church. Yet, the practice was a thorough departure from the apostolic church structure.

Cesar, my comment was to show that there evidently were people who didn't baptize their infants, for whatever reason. Also, I've read all of Tertullian's De Baptisme, and he clearly states that he prefers baptism to occur only when a person has an understanding of it, and that delay is preferable. His comments show that he did not consider infant baptism to be handed down from the apostles, nor did he think his remarks were terribly controversial. Every indication shows that he did not think his conclusions were earth-shattering. So, posting a bunch of people who did support infant baptism is not to the point.

Rich, I wouldn't be so quick to assume a whole lot from the Pelagian controversy. The Fathers are extremely hyperbolic, both in their statements of the catholicity and apostolicity of doctrines. Almost every quirky practice in the ancient Church was defended by being "from the apostles." At the time that Augustine wrote, infant baptism had such a sway that Augustine could appeal to the popular sentiment.

Charlie,

I already acknowledged that it doesn't set the understanding of the practice in an indisputable light but do you suppose that Augustine and Pelagius were lying when they stated they had never heard of anyone in Church History that rejected the practice of infant baptism? I'm not talking about what it meant to them but what they knew had been the practice. This is the historical significance.

Originally Posted by Mark Hettler

But there is one argument that has really made me stop and think, and I'm still thinking it through and haven't been able to dismiss it. It's not so much the presence of early evidence of infant baptism, but the lack of any early evidence of any opposition to the practice. The argument goes, if the practice of the apostles was to baptize believers only, then whenever the practice of infant baptism was introduced, one would expect some sort of outcry against this non-apostolic innovation. But what we see in history is no controversy over infant baptism at all until, I think, the Anabaptists.

It's an argument from silence, but for me as a baptist, it's one I can't dismiss lightly.

Apart from Tertullian (160 - 215), bishop of Carthage, Africa, and as it is thoroughly demonstrated by Joachim Jeremias, there are no other substantial objections to Infant Baptism until the Anabaptists.

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

Cesar, my comment was to show that there evidently were people who didn't baptize their infants, for whatever reason. Also, I've read all of Tertullian's De Baptisme, and he clearly states that he prefers baptism to occur only when a person has an understanding of it, and that delay is preferable. His comments show that he did not consider infant baptism to be handed down from the apostles, nor did he think his remarks were terribly controversial. Every indication shows that he did not think his conclusions were earth-shattering. So, posting a bunch of people who did support infant baptism is not to the point..

Quite on the contrary, the quotes above are some of many more of the Patristic legacy.

Like Polycarp (69-155), a disciple of the Apostle John, who was baptized as an infant, the reason why he could claim "Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 9: 3)

These imo are substantial historical evidences that infant baptism was the common practice of the Early Church, and clearly stated as being in agreement with both the Apostolic practice and teaching.

As with Tertullian’s objection, while some suggest was only related to children of pagans that joined the church.

A more plausible reason was due to his view that sinfulness began at the "puberty, of the soul, "about the fourteenth year of life" and "it drives man out of the paradise of innocence" (Tertullian, De Anima 38:2).

So Tertullian oddly believed that children without baptism would be secure from condemnation until that age, which denied original sin and total depravity.

Let’s have in mind that Tertullian joined Montanism in 207, movement that amongst several heretical doctrines and practices, namely on Pneumatology, Montanism denied precisely the total corruption and sinfulness of human nature.

I would say it is rather Tertullian the one not to be taken into account.

Rich, all I'm saying is that the ancient evidence seems to be very inconclusive. After all, Tertullian is in print against the practice of infant baptism, though at the level of preference, not doctrinal conviction. Also, as I posted before, Ferguson has compiled a list of church Fathers who were baptized later in life, although born to strong Christian parents. Interestingly, his list includes mostly Eastern theologians.

Also, there is Augustine himself, whose mother chose not to baptize him as an infant b/c she was afraid he would apostatize at some point. In other words, she seems to be following the advice of Tertullian.

These tidbits of information, among others, lead me to believe that infant baptism was a common, though not universal, practice. It seems that in many cases the decision was left up to the parents, who were not officially required to decide either way.

Obviously, the Church from an early time embraced paedobaptism, but not equally in every time and in every place. As for Augustine and Pelagius, I am not going to say they were lying, but objective historical criticism is hard to come by in the early Church, and they do not seem very aware of what was going on in the Eastern portion of the Church, where the record of infant baptism is more spotty.


Now speaking to all, the original question was on the importance of this question. I maintain that it is very small. These Fathers did not know of a single "heretic" that denied baptismal regeneration, but if you and I are correct in our Protestantism, there ought to have been a whole lot of them in the first century. I think it is ridiculous to assume that people who didn't get the meaning and efficacy of baptism right should be treated as authorities on the proper subjects of baptism. After all, they got it straight from the apostles, right?

"Ancient-ness" can be a help in determining some things but certainly not conclusive. After all, even the RCC and the EOC point to "ancient-ness" to support their positions theologically as well.

Originally Posted by lynnie

The apostle John discipled Polycarp who discipled Irenaeus who was a writer. Irenaeus says Polycarp says John said they baptized babies.

Now some will argue that his terms were metaphorical because the "babies" were what he called new believers- we are born again as infants in Christ. But others will point out that taken at face value he says Polycarp claims that the apostles baptized babies.

It doesn't seem like the metaphorical stance holds water. It would be a no brainer for all of us (paedo and credo) to baptize a newly regenerated person. Making that statement (if it only meant new babes in Christ) would only get you the applause of crickets,the sound of women filing their nails, and the blow horn of the men's snoring. No one is mature when they are first regenerated. I doubt there were too many mature Christians who missed out on baptism. If there were those who missed out for some reason or another, then John's statement of baptizing babies (if the meaning was only babes in Christ) would be exclusive sounding to the mature Christian who did miss out. If the statement is valid, I personally would have to view it as a clarification statement instead.

Originally Posted by MrMerlin777

"Ancient-ness" can be a help in determining some things but certainly not conclusive. After all, even the RCC and the EOC point to "ancient-ness" to support their positions theologically as well.

I would suggest that to either accept the Church Fathers as undeniable proof or to dismiss them as of no use, is not a responsible method.

How many Scholars actually quote the Church Fathers, namely on Infant Baptism?

Making an off topic parentheses, I would like to recall how Calvin, being a man of the Bible, in a certain occasion refuted the RCC also by quoting the Church Fathers.

Not long after this the Roman Catholic priests of the nearby city of Lausanne were challenged to a public debate by the Reformers. Of 337 priests only 174 arrived and only 4 had any ability to defend their doctrine. Farel and Viret, a foremost Swiss Reformer of those times, were the spokesmen for the Bible. They took Calvin with them as an observer as he had no experience of these debates. The debate went on for several days. One priest in defence of transubstantiation started to quote from the Early Church Fathers. Farel and Viret were unable to handle this and looked to Calvin for help. Standing up, the latter proceeded to quote from memory passages from the Early Church Fathers, giving the exact source in each case. It was an amazing display of learning and had an electrifying effect on the assembly. The opposition was completely confounded. One priest was converted immediately. As a result of this astonishing performance not only did Lausanne turn Protestant but 200 priests renounced the Roman Catholic Church.

John Calvin and his Missionary Enterprise by Erroll Hulse

emphasis mine

I think the weight of church history in favor of the Paedo position must give the honest Baptist pause. It is one of their strongest arguments IMO.

Originally Posted by Mark Hettler

Speaking as a baptist who is open to continual reevaluation, I will say that the historical argument is the most powerful one that I've encountered. I can say that in 35 years of studying this issue, no one has been able to convince me from scripture of the paedobaptist position. I've got an M.Div. from Westminster, I've read John Murray, I'm in a PCA church now and I've had long discussions with my (very intelligent and well-read) pastor, and I'm just not convinced. You can talk about household baptisms, continuity with circumcision, I've heard them all; I may not be able to convince you, but you won't be able to convince me either.

But there is one argument that has really made me stop and think, and I'm still thinking it through and haven't been able to dismiss it. It's not so much the presence of early evidence of infant baptism, but the lack of any early evidence of any opposition to the practice. The argument goes, if the practice of the apostles was to baptize believers only, then whenever the practice of infant baptism was introduced, one would expect some sort of outcry against this non-apostolic innovation. But what we see in history is no controversy over infant baptism at all until, I think, the Anabaptists.

It's an argument from silence, but for me as a baptist, it's one I can't dismiss lightly.

Speaking ex hypothesi - If the apostles taught credo baptism to the early church as the norm, the paedo innovation would have originated within the Judean churches or the churches with Jewish members in the diaspora as Gentile converts had no reason from their Gentile backgrounds to infer the validity of infant baptism. Given the collapse of the Jewish state and community in 70 and 135, it's not surprising that records of church divsions in the Judean churches are not with us today. And the sub apostolic era, when the Jewish Christians became assimilated to the catholic tradition, we do not find anybody understanding covenant theology in the way it has been understood since, say Witsius. Certainly the earliest church father to clearly mention infants as the subjects of baptism shows a very different understanding of the theology behind the practice.

Tertullian, treatise on BAPTISM 18,4 (c. AD 200-206)

"According to circumstance and disposition and even age of the individual person, it may be better to delay Baptism; and especially so in the case of little children. Why, indeed, is it necessary -- if it be not a case of necessity -- that the sponsors to be thrust into danger, when they themselves may fail to fulfill their promises by reason of death, or when they may be disappointed by the growth of an evil disposition? Indeed the Lord says, 'Do not forbid them to come to me' [Matt 19:14; Luke 18:16].

"Let them come, then, while they grow up, while they learn, while they are taught to whom to come; let them become Christians when they will have been able to know Christ! Why does the innocent age hasten to the remission of sins? ...For no less cause should the unmarried also be deferred, in whom there is an aptness to temptation -- in virgins on account of their ripeness as also in the widowed on account of their freedom -- until they are married or are better strengthened for continence. Anyone who understands the seriousness of Baptism will fear its reception more than its deferral. Sound faith is secure of its salvation!"

The reason for T's oppostion? The North African church believed that if one sinned after baptism that salvation was lost. Why risk the eternal salvation of infants by baptizing them? Why should a sponsor risk making a promise that the sponsoree would not fulfill?

A paper by Kris Ryan posted by Discipulo above claims that Tertullian recognized the Apostolic order of the practice, but no citation from Tertullian is given to back the point.

This mistaken thelogy of the North African church proves one thing. Errors in the theology of Baptism go back very early.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

The reason for T's oppostion? The North African church believed that if one sinned after baptism that salvation was lost. Why risk the eternal salvation of infants by baptizing them? Why should a sponsor risk making a promise that the sponsoree would not fulfill?

This mistaken thelogy of the North African church proves one thing. Errors in the theology of Baptism go back very early.

Tim, thank you for further clarifying plausible reasons for Tertullian opposition on I.B.

But, in spite of Tertullian, the North African Church had Infant Baptism as the common practice

Cyprian, bishop of Carthage makes that clear, mentioning a council.

But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day...And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism...we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons.."
Cyprian,To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2,6(A.D. 251)

Tertullian opposition of I.B. very likely for the reasons mentioned, was only his isolated attempt to prevent I.B., but that he did not succeed is clear from further documents of the African Church Fathers.

Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, Council of Carthage, Cyril of Alexandria, Augustine, bishop of Hippo,

"Canon 2. Likewise it has been decided that whoever says that infants fresh from their mothers' wombs ought not to be baptized....let him be anathema."
Council of Carthage,Canon 2,(A.D. 418)

Believest thou this?...when a newborn child is brought forward to receive the anointing of initiation, or rather of consumation through holy baptism."
Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John,7(A.D. 428)

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

Now speaking to all, the original question was on the importance of this question. I maintain that it is very small. These Fathers did not know of a single "heretic" that denied baptismal regeneration, but if you and I are correct in our Protestantism, there ought to have been a whole lot of them in the first century. I think it is ridiculous to assume that people who didn't get the meaning and efficacy of baptism right should be treated as authorities on the proper subjects of baptism.

Charlie, I understand your doctrinal reservations on the Fathers, that are very relevant to the objective of the debate, to attest of Early Church Baptismal doctrine and practice.

But in fact you were the one who quoted Tertullian as an evidence of I.B. not being a universal practice.

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

Mark, it is not true that there was no opposition to infant baptism in the early church. Tertullian argues against it (De Baptisme 18).

Which I believe was important to acknowledge and understand, but methodologically is not correct to afterwards dismiss the Patristic altogether.

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

After all, they got it straight from the apostles, right?

Well, in fact, Origen claims precisely that.

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit." Origen Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248].

Originally Posted by KMK

I think the weight of church history in favor of the Paedo position must give the honest Baptist pause. It is one of their strongest arguments IMO.

I think the weight of church history must give all who are not chiliasts and who do not hold to baptismal regeneration pause.

Of course the problem with the paedobaptists on the PB trying to establish historicity of infant baptism is that covenantal infant baptism is a new innovation after 1600 years of church history.

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

Now speaking to all, the original question was on the importance of this question. I maintain that it is very small. These Fathers did not know of a single "heretic" that denied baptismal regeneration, but if you and I are correct in our Protestantism, there ought to have been a whole lot of them in the first century. I think it is ridiculous to assume that people who didn't get the meaning and efficacy of baptism right should be treated as authorities on the proper subjects of baptism. After all, they got it straight from the apostles, right?

Originally Posted by refbaptdude

Of course the problem with the paedobaptists on the PB trying to establish historicity of infant baptism is that covenantal infant baptism is a new innovation after 1600 years of church history.

You're both missing the point to the historical evidence provided.

Nobody has tried to present the understanding behind the baptism of infants as establishing the grounds for its practice.

The point is, is that if, historically, authorities on Church history in close proximity to the beginning of the NT Church can find nobody (that is to say not a single soul), so impious as denying the baptism of infants then whatever other corruption might have entered in regarding what it meant is beside the point.

A Reformed Baptist has the real problem here and not the Paedo Baptist. History is more significant at this point. If Baptism of Infants is to be denied for Apostolic reasons then nobody knows of any such person, only three centuries later, who ever denied the baptism of infants. Baptist history on this subject has to argue that the orthodox practice dies out immediately and no record or epistle ever exists on this subject.

By a process of spontaneous generation, the Church simply begins the baptism of infants without a single faithful soul who knows this is a corruption. The gates of Hell prevail decidedly and mute the orthodox teaching concerning the practice of baptism of infants until a millenia and a half later.

Does it bother me that the Church had an improper view of why they baptized their children? Certainly but it bothers me no less than poorly developed views of the Trinity and even that some believed that the Shepher of Hermas was canonical. The reason why certain forms survive, however, is because, even if people forget why they're doing something, forms are easy to remember. It seems to me that it'd be pretty hard to forget that the Church never baptizes the babies of believers one Sunday and then, suddenly, with no evidence of resistance, every Church is baptizing babies throughout the entire Christian world.

Rich,

Would you consider baptismal regeneration heresy?

Thanks,
Steve

Originally Posted by discipulo

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

The reason for T's oppostion? The North African church believed that if one sinned after baptism that salvation was lost. Why risk the eternal salvation of infants by baptizing them? Why should a sponsor risk making a promise that the sponsoree would not fulfill?

This mistaken thelogy of the North African church proves one thing. Errors in the theology of Baptism go back very early.

Tim, thank you for further clarifying plausible reasons for Tertullian opposition on I.B.

But, in spite of Tertullian, the North African Church had Infant Baptism as the common practice

Cyprian, bishop of Carthage makes that clear, mentioning a council.

But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day...And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism...we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons.."
Cyprian,To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2,6(A.D. 251)

That fifty year gap between Tertullian and Cyprian is more significant than you think. Churches fall into error and if the time gap is great enough a later doctrinal position does not necessarily prove that the same view was held earlier.
Since it only took the Galatians a few months if not a year or two to be on the verge of abandoning Justification by Faith Alone, and the preference for monarchial biships arose in the decade and a half between the Apostle John's death and the letters of Ignatius, one cannot establish anything about the acceptability of IB in 200 from Cyprians letter, even though that letter establishes the practice as the North African norm in 251.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

After all, they got it straight from the apostles, right?

Well, in fact, Origen claims precisely that.

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit." Origen Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248].

Origen was a younger contemporary of Tertullian and wrote his commentary at least 15 years if not more after Tertullian wrote on IB. I don't think we can trust him to have an inerrant knowldege of apostolic teaching given his development of the allegorical interpretation of Scripture, his heirarchical view of the Trinity and his misbelief in the prexistence of souls which must pass through successive stages of incarnation before reaching God.

The state of play is this. The earliest witness we have thinks he can recommend against IB. I find it hard to see how he could do that if he believed the practice was in any way Apostolic.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

The point is, is that if, historically, authorities on Church history in close proximity to the beginning of the NT Church can find nobody (that is to say not a single soul), so impious as denying the baptism of infants then whatever other corruption might have entered in regarding what it meant is beside the point.

A Reformed Baptist has the real problem here and not the Paedo Baptist. History is more significant at this point. If Baptism of Infants is to be denied for Apostolic reasons then nobody knows of any such person, only three centuries later, who ever denied the baptism of infants.

Your point would only be true if
i) we knew with certainty that IB was the practice of the apostolic church either from being clearly spelled out in Scripture or established by first centrury non-canonical documents. It is because we lack such evidence that the problem of whether IB was practiced in the Apostolic church even exists. And
ii) we had an exhaustive knowledge of all controversies within the sub-Apostolic church and we don't. We do not have record of every teaching of every elder in every church in the era.

Calling somebody "impious" for denying IB, when you lack the above data, is a begging of the question.

There is no doubt that Tertullian is one who opposees IB. Even though his language is couched moderately, he is recommending against it. And he falls within the first 3 centuries.

I'm of the view that the only sources that should be considered in the matter are those writing before 300. After that date IB was, so far as we know, universally regarded as apostolic. That leave us with Polycarp and Iranaeus, who do not speak directly to the question from whose writings we may derive no sure and certain view of the position they toook, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen and Cyprian. T is opposed, the others in favour. The extant writings reveal three things:
i) an oppositon to IB in the church at 200 (without either affirming or denying its norm), that ii) that IB was linked to a flawed understanding of baptism
iii) IB was broadly accepted as apostolic from about 220 on.

That is all we can draw from these documents with any certainty.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

. Baptist history on this subject has to argue that the orthodox practice dies out immediately and no record or epistle ever exists on this subject.

Not quite. We only need to show that the "apostolic practice of CB" could have died out somewhere between 100 and 201. Given the 15 years it took for Ignatius to forget the Apostolic practce of multiple "bishops" in favour of monarchial ones and the shorter time the Galatians took to arrive at the JBFA cliff edge, that's an easy point to make. And the acceptance of the hypothetically "novel" teaching of IB in the relatively short time between 200-250 would have been much helped by the support of contemporary equivalents of Murray (Origen) and Boice (Hippolytus).

Originally Posted by refbaptdude

Rich,

Would you consider baptismal regeneration heresy?

Thanks,
Steve

Steve,

Are you just asking random questions now?

If you want to know my views on baptismal regeneration, perhaps you can start a new thread as it it irrelevant to this one.

Originally Posted by Mark Hettler

Speaking as a baptist who is open to continual reevaluation, I will say that the historical argument is the most powerful one that I've encountered. I can say that in 35 years of studying this issue, no one has been able to convince me from scripture of the paedobaptist position. I've got an M.Div. from Westminster, I've read John Murray, I'm in a PCA church now and I've had long discussions with my (very intelligent and well-read) pastor, and I'm just not convinced. You can talk about household baptisms, continuity with circumcision, I've heard them all; I may not be able to convince you, but you won't be able to convince me either.

But there is one argument that has really made me stop and think, and I'm still thinking it through and haven't been able to dismiss it. It's not so much the presence of early evidence of infant baptism, but the lack of any early evidence of any opposition to the practice. The argument goes, if the practice of the apostles was to baptize believers only, then whenever the practice of infant baptism was introduced, one would expect some sort of outcry against this non-apostolic innovation. But what we see in history is no controversy over infant baptism at all until, I think, the Anabaptists.

It's an argument from silence, but for me as a baptist, it's one I can't dismiss lightly.

I appreciate your honesty.

Speaking of an argument from silence, I [used to] bring one up all the time that is related to the bolded portion of your above comment. In the Scriptures, why do we not find "outcry" or even a little peep of an objection to the New Covenant administration now EXCLUDING the children of God's people from the sign and seal of the covenant of grace? I mean, in the Scriptures we find objections and confusions within the Jewish community about other things related to this *transition* from Old to New--but to have their children now considered OUTSIDE of and SEPERATED from the covenanted people of God--the visible Church?! The Jewish mind at the time would only understand this to mean that their children have been cut off from God. This is the worst possible news anyone of them could have received. One would expect to read of something...anything that would indicate something like this.

Yet, nothing. Not a word. Not an objection. Not a question.

Rich,

If you believe that baptismal regeneration is heresy, then how is your statement below any less true fro you?

By a process of spontaneous generation, the Church simply begins the baptism of infants without a single faithful soul who knows this is a corruption. The gates of Hell prevail decidedly and mute the orthodox teaching concerning the practice of baptism of infants until a millenia and a half later.

Infant baptismal regeneration is the view held by the church in the earliest records.

I apologize that I was unclear in just asking a blanket question, my bad : (

In my opinion, this doesn't hold much weight. There have been countless innovations introduced into churches, both ancient and modern, that were met with relative silence from the people.

As far as I know, there was no widespread bemoaning the installation of monarchical bishops in the early church. Yet, the practice was a thorough departure from the apostolic church structure.

We saw this develop over time though. From the first century, we do not find congregations that existed without a bishop that had a local emphasis. There was a plurality of collegiate bishops (elders). It was not until churches started to be planted and spread out form the major cities when we find a Monarchial bishop take shape with men like Clement of Rome, and Ignatius of Antioch (100-200).

Many of the metropolitan churches recognized the authority of these bishops; however, they were still independent. Over time, as the churches multiplied, these bishops came to be known as primus pares (first among equals). This was entirely an honorary title and not indicative of any universal or regional authority.

During AD 200 – 250, the Monarchial bishop of the second century became the Diocesan Bishop of the third. This happened in Cyprian’s time when he was bishop of Carthage. The bishop was no longer chosen by a single congregation as it was in the second century, rather, by nomination of other clergy (especially Presbyters) and neighboring bishops.

A little

Originally Posted by refbaptdude

Rich,

If you believe that baptismal regeneration is heresy, then how is your statement below any less true fro you?

By a process of spontaneous generation, the Church simply begins the baptism of infants without a single faithful soul who knows this is a corruption. The gates of Hell prevail decidedly and mute the orthodox teaching concerning the practice of baptism of infants until a millenia and a half later.

Infant baptismal regeneration is the view held by the church in the earliest records.

I anticipated this question in my very first post.

Originally Posted by refbaptdude

Rich,

If you believe that baptismal regeneration is heresy, then how is your statement below any less true fro you?

By a process of spontaneous generation, the Church simply begins the baptism of infants without a single faithful soul who knows this is a corruption. The gates of Hell prevail decidedly and mute the orthodox teaching concerning the practice of baptism of infants until a millenia and a half later.

Infant baptismal regeneration is the view held by the church in the earliest records.

Point of clarification, please, when you say "baptismal regeneration is the view held by the church in the earliest records" does this mean you grant that infant baptism was universal at this time?

Originally Posted by mangum

Originally Posted by Mark Hettler

Speaking as a baptist who is open to continual reevaluation, I will say that the historical argument is the most powerful one that I've encountered. I can say that in 35 years of studying this issue, no one has been able to convince me from scripture of the paedobaptist position. I've got an M.Div. from Westminster, I've read John Murray, I'm in a PCA church now and I've had long discussions with my (very intelligent and well-read) pastor, and I'm just not convinced. You can talk about household baptisms, continuity with circumcision, I've heard them all; I may not be able to convince you, but you won't be able to convince me either.

But there is one argument that has really made me stop and think, and I'm still thinking it through and haven't been able to dismiss it. It's not so much the presence of early evidence of infant baptism, but the lack of any early evidence of any opposition to the practice. The argument goes, if the practice of the apostles was to baptize believers only, then whenever the practice of infant baptism was introduced, one would expect some sort of outcry against this non-apostolic innovation. But what we see in history is no controversy over infant baptism at all until, I think, the Anabaptists.

It's an argument from silence, but for me as a baptist, it's one I can't dismiss lightly.

I appreciate your honesty.

Speaking of an argument from silence, I [used to] bring one up all the time that is related to the bolded portion of your above comment. In the Scriptures, why do we not find "outcry" or even a little peep of an objection to the New Covenant administration now EXCLUDING the children of God's people from the sign and seal of the covenant of grace? I mean, in the Scriptures we find objections and confusions within the Jewish community about other things related to this *transition* from Old to New--but to have their children now considered OUTSIDE of and SEPERATED from the covenanted people of God--the visible Church?! The Jewish mind at the time would only understand this to mean that their children have been cut off from God. This is the worst possible news anyone of them could have received. One would expect to read of something...anything that would indicate something like this.

Yet, nothing. Not a word. Not an objection. Not a question.

The answer is that the Apostles would have taught the Jewish church that in the New Covenant the time to receive the covenant sign was after profession of faith. Since we do not have extant the complete writings of first century Jewish writings contra-Christianity nor the complete writings of the Judiaizers within the church, we simply don't know what was or wasn't said in reaction to such a teaching if in fact CB was taught.

The answer is that the Apostles would have taught the Jewish church that in the New Covenant the time to receive the covenant sign was after profession of faith.

Why didn't they just come out and say it? The household baptism verses mention it almost off handedly, as if it was assumed it was like the OT accounts of households getting circumcised. Otherwise it almost seems that those household verses were thrown in to confuse us.

It all comes back to the basic difference between the tiny portion of the church historically called Anabaptists and the rest, and that is the assumption of continuity.

Tim, you had the same position on the half sibling marriage thread. Going against both the OT and the almost unanimous teaching of the Church which has been that every jot and tittle of the law didn't need to be re-iterated in the NT for it to be valid.

Others have done the same defending Piper's opinion on divorce and re-marriage, which is that those Jews who heard Christ say "except" didn't automatically think of the law's detailed provision.

In all these cases the assumption is that there isn't continuity between the OT and NT, when it is so much more natural, when putting your feet in the other guy's shoes to assume that the authors understood the stories in the context of continuity.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Originally Posted by mangum

Originally Posted by Mark Hettler

Speaking as a baptist who is open to continual reevaluation, I will say that the historical argument is the most powerful one that I've encountered. I can say that in 35 years of studying this issue, no one has been able to convince me from scripture of the paedobaptist position. I've got an M.Div. from Westminster, I've read John Murray, I'm in a PCA church now and I've had long discussions with my (very intelligent and well-read) pastor, and I'm just not convinced. You can talk about household baptisms, continuity with circumcision, I've heard them all; I may not be able to convince you, but you won't be able to convince me either.

But there is one argument that has really made me stop and think, and I'm still thinking it through and haven't been able to dismiss it. It's not so much the presence of early evidence of infant baptism, but the lack of any early evidence of any opposition to the practice. The argument goes, if the practice of the apostles was to baptize believers only, then whenever the practice of infant baptism was introduced, one would expect some sort of outcry against this non-apostolic innovation. But what we see in history is no controversy over infant baptism at all until, I think, the Anabaptists.

It's an argument from silence, but for me as a baptist, it's one I can't dismiss lightly.

I appreciate your honesty.

Speaking of an argument from silence, I [used to] bring one up all the time that is related to the bolded portion of your above comment. In the Scriptures, why do we not find "outcry" or even a little peep of an objection to the New Covenant administration now EXCLUDING the children of God's people from the sign and seal of the covenant of grace? I mean, in the Scriptures we find objections and confusions within the Jewish community about other things related to this *transition* from Old to New--but to have their children now considered OUTSIDE of and SEPERATED from the covenanted people of God--the visible Church?! The Jewish mind at the time would only understand this to mean that their children have been cut off from God. This is the worst possible news anyone of them could have received. One would expect to read of something...anything that would indicate something like this.

Yet, nothing. Not a word. Not an objection. Not a question.

The answer is that the Apostles would have taught the Jewish church that in the New Covenant the time to receive the covenant sign was after profession of faith. Since we do not have extant the complete writings of first century Jewish writings contra-Christianity nor the complete writings of the Judiaizers within the church, we simply don't know what was or wasn't said in reaction to such a teaching if in fact CB was taught.

Thanks for the answer.

For the Apostles to directly use and quote the covenant language from the OT in their preaching and teaching, and considering we see no explanation, and consequently, no objections or confusion--this leads one to assume there is no issue for the Jews. I suppose, like you said, this could [only] be explained if that the Apostles taught the *Baptist* view of a change in the covenant community to the early Christians in other writings or sermons. But to have the Holy Spirit *only* preserve what we now have as a closed canon speaks volumes. To believe this is to believe God saw it fit to have no mention in the Scriptures of such a dramatic, radical shift from the Old to the New. Yet, things like eating or not eating blood, etc. merit significance to be inscripturated (I say this reverently).

Gentlemen,

Please remain on topic. The question is about historical theology. I'm certainly not averse to discussing the Biblical theology in other threads but if we devolve into a dispute over the texts then we'll move very far afield.

Perhaps I missed the answer to this question, so forgive me if that is so.


Why does the absolute lack of resistance to baptismal regeneration not present a "real problem" to evangelical theology, if the scant (but demonstrable) resistance to and spotty practice of infant baptism supposedly present a "real problem" to credobaptism?


Also, Rich, has it been shown to your satisfaction that Tertullian was in fact against infant baptism?

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

Also, Rich, has it been shown to your satisfaction that Tertullian was in fact against infant baptism?

It has been demonstrated that Tertullian suggested that infants should not be baptized but stating that something is not "preferable" is hardly the same thing as saying that it should not be done at all or that it has not been the universal practice of the Church. It's already established that a corruption of doctrine can occur and corrupt practice. Tertullian, however, cannot be brought to the rescue of any seeking to demonstrate there is any historical witness to the baptism of adult professors alone.

It is very clear why baptismal regeneration poses no issue here but you'll have to read more carefully because I'm not going to repeat myself. Also, I think it is a facile treatment of historical theology to "read into" everything a Church father says as having a full blown sense of baptismal regeneration. It's the same kind of carelessness that occurs with RC apologists who seek to state that the "Catholic Church has always believed X".

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

It is very clear why baptismal regeneration poses no issue here but you'll have to read more carefully because I'm not going to repeat myself. Also, I think it is a facile treatment of historical theology to "read into" everything a Church father says as having a full blown sense of baptismal regeneration. It's the same kind of carelessness that occurs with RC apologists who seek to state that the "Catholic Church has always believed X".

I re-read your posts, but I must have not understood your point. Baptismal regeneration seems to be an issue to me. I find it difficult to believe that the Fathers really had any idea what the apostles taught about the proper subjects of baptism, when they were completely wrong about the effect of baptism and extra-biblical in the elements of the ceremony itself.

Rich, I'm a bit stunned by your language. It is "facile" to assume that the early Fathers unanimously taught baptismal regeneration? I wrote a paper for GPTS on baptismal regeneration in the early church. I encountered literally dozens of unambiguous primary source quotations confirming baptismal regeneration in Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Augustine, and others. I found no dissenting opinion in the primary sources. Also, I found no contrary opinion in the secondary literature (though I was not exhaustive). If you know of a dissenting opinion, I would be grateful to learn of it.

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

It is very clear why baptismal regeneration poses no issue here but you'll have to read more carefully because I'm not going to repeat myself. Also, I think it is a facile treatment of historical theology to "read into" everything a Church father says as having a full blown sense of baptismal regeneration. It's the same kind of carelessness that occurs with RC apologists who seek to state that the "Catholic Church has always believed X".

I re-read your posts, but I must have not understood your point. Baptismal regeneration seems to be an issue to me. I find it difficult to believe that the Fathers really had any idea what the apostles taught about the proper subjects of baptism, when they were completely wrong about the effect of baptism and extra-biblical in the elements of the ceremony itself.

If you cannot see the difference then, as I stated, I'll leave it to those that can figure out what the difference is. As I stated, admitting that corruptions in doctrine can take place is not an issue. The fact that there is monolithic practice without dissent for a visible practice that any unsophisticated layperson would notice is much different than a change as to what the visible sign signifies. Just try introducing wine into a Southern Baptist Church and you'll see what I mean. I think Baptists must assume that people were so unsophisticated that there would be no historical uproar because the average man in the pew can't tell the difference between a baby and an adult. In fact, I suppose they're much smarter than current Southern Baptists who would go through the roof if an infant was baptized in their baptistry and heaven forbid that the baby is sprinkled! But Southern Baptists are much more sophisticated than those ancient folk who had smaller brains.

Rich, I'm a bit stunned by your language. It is "facile" to assume that the early Fathers unanimously taught baptismal regeneration? I wrote a paper for GPTS on baptismal regeneration in the early church. I encountered literally dozens of unambiguous primary source quotations confirming baptismal regeneration in Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Augustine, and others. I found no dissenting opinion in the primary sources. Also, I found no contrary opinion in the secondary literature (though I was not exhaustive). If you know of a dissenting opinion, I would be grateful to learn of it.

Your primary sources of those cited above used the same language and poured the same meaning into what occurs? Justin, Origen, and Augustine were monolithic in their theology on the subject of regeneration? All were "Augustinian"?

Rich, I'm not trying to try your patience. I'm exploring Pergamum's question. I think I finally understand what you're saying. You believe that it is easier for doctrine attached to a practice to shift than the practice itself. I think there is some validity to that. I'm sorry it took so long for me to catch on.

Regarding "baptismal regeneration," I understand the possibility of equivocation on the precise term "regeneration." Suffice to say, they unanimously attest that the forgiveness of sins, granting of eternal life, entrance into the kingdom of God, and reception of the Holy Spirit occur at baptism. (Actually, as the baptismal rites became more complex, more efficacy came to be ascribed to the post-baptismal christening and the laying on of hands.) I am not aware of any scholarship that disputes this conclusion.

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

Rich, I'm not trying to try your patience. I'm exploring Pergamum's question. I think I finally understand what you're saying. You believe that it is easier for doctrine attached to a practice to shift than the practice itself. I think there is some validity to that. I'm sorry it took so long for me to catch on.

I not only believe that but we can see play out historically. The Lord's Supper has been corrupted by something as simple as changing what is consumed to signify Christ's blood. One version is fermented while the other is not. From the moment that began to happen (for theological reasons), people began objecting to it. It did not simply change without a historical witness to the practice. Doctrinal shifts are much easier. Honestly, most men in the pew have no idea what the Lord's Supper represents so I could walk into almost any Southern Baptist Church and corrupt the doctrine regarding what it signifies and virtually nobody would notice. Introduce wine and suddenly everybody notices.

Regarding "baptismal regeneration," I understand the possibility of equivocation on the precise term "regeneration." Suffice to say, they unanimously attest that the forgiveness of sins, granting of eternal life, entrance into the kingdom of God, and reception of the Holy Spirit occur at baptism. (Actually, as the baptismal rites became more complex, more efficacy came to be ascribed to the post-baptismal christening and the laying on of hands.) I am not aware of any scholarship that disputes this conclusion.

No doubt. I think we need to be careful not to "read in" too much because even Calvin can be brought to speak toward the idea that baptism confers all these benefits but the Sacramental understanding is key to connecting spiritual reality to administration as well as the Sovereign work of the Spirit. Given the language of Scripture about baptism, it is understandable that this would be misunderstood. We even see this repeated slide within our own Reformed ranks - the Federal Vision being a recent example. Even some Baptist sects tie regeneration to the act of baptism given the close connection between the word and the way Paul applies it to the benefits of union with Christ.

What I think, then, is that folks had to wrestle with that and they used the best language they knew how. They didn't go the route of "de-Sacramentalizing" the sign, which is actually another hit against an ancient Zwinglian view of the sign, but instead were variously imprecise. The bottom line for me is that I've never met a person that holds to this and holds to an Augustinian type of election that doesn't get a bit "squishy" over this notion and I think Calvin represents the historical solution to respecting that the sign is not bare but that the Holy Spirit (vice the Church) confers those benefits.