An acquaintance of mine wrote an article defending credobaptism (anti-paedobaptism) from early church history. Have at it.

Baptism in History, Part 1 | SharperIron

He seems to ignore some other passages (e.g., Tertullian) that would show the practice was clearly in place by the second century. And there are other Early Church Fathers who are obviously paedobaptist (Augustine, the Cappadocians). I know he qualifies it by saying "the very early church," but he also does not interact with the NT at all. Perhaps those things will be addressed, though, in future articles.

Also, it is helpful to notice (as you do, Charlie, in the OP), that the issue is not credobaptism, but anti-paedobaptism. Showing that the Early Church practiced credobaptism is not the issue -- we are all credobaptists in that respect (i.e., paedobaptists also baptize adult converts).

Tim,

Where is this quote by Tertullian?

---------- Post added at 12:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:35 PM ----------

Could you be talking about this paragraph? IMHO, it doesn't support infant baptism but rather appears against it

But they whose office it is, know that baptism is not rashly to be administered. "Give to every one who beggeth thee," has a reference of its own, appertaining especially to almsgiving. On the contrary, this precept is rather to be looked at carefully: "Give not the holy thing to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine; " and, "Lay not hands easily on any; share not other men's sins." If Philip so "easily" baptized the chamberlain, let us reflect that a manifest and conspicuous evidence that the Lord deemed him worthy had been interposed. The Spirit had enjoined Philip to proceed to that road: the eunuch himself, too, was not found idle, nor as one who was suddenly seized with an eager desire to be baptized; but, after going up to the temple for prayer's sake, being intently engaged on the divine Scripture, was thus suitably discovered'to whom God had, unasked, sent an apostle, which one, again, the Spirit bade adjoin himself to the chamberlain's chariot. The Scripture which he was reading falls in opportunely with his faith: Philip, being requested, is taken to sit beside him; the Lord is pointed out; faith lingers not; water needs no waiting for; the work is completed, and the apostle snatched away. "But Paul too was, in fact, 'speedily' baptized: "for Simon, his host, speedily recognized him to be "an appointed vessel of election." God's approbation sends sure premonitory tokens before it; every "petition " may both deceive and be deceived. 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 children. For why is it necessary if (baptism itself) is not so necessary 'that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, "Forbid them not to come unto me." Let them "come," then, while they are growing up; let them "come" while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the "remission of sins? "More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to "ask" for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given "to him that asketh." For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.

On Baptism - Tertullian

I've written a paper on this subject as well, though from the other perspective. Of course when arguing these sorts of things we cannot completely solve the issue. Everett Fergusson, who is an authority on this subject, would agree with your friend.

The thesis of my paper concerns the hermeneutic of reading the Fathers on this subject. Tertullian, in his argument against infant baptism, could have naturally argued the way your friend does. In De Baptismo he lists the requirements for baptism: fasting, renouncing the devil, even not bathing for a a specified time.

When Tertullian argues against infant baptism however, he does not cite these things (as many baptist historians have). Instead he argues that it is putting too much responsibility on infants and their sponsors and therefore shouldn't be practiced. Tertullian's argument should give pause to those who think those qualifications rule out infants.

If you apply this hermeneutic to the other fathers, let Hippolytus, like your friend cites, it makes me very skeptical of his conclusions. Instead having Tertullian's argument inform our hermeneutic, I believe this passage is strong support for a paedo position. At best, consulting the other sources we come out uncertain on whether or not infants are baptized or not. I think analysis of the early sources in light of Tertullian (Origen, Cyprian, Eusibius, etc) lends much more weight to a paedo position.

Marie, Brandon has pretty much already answered the question, but the quote from Tertullian is used to show that infant baptism is an established practice within the church by c. 200 A.D. If it were not, there would be no need to argue against it.

Brandon, is there any way we could see a copy of your paper?

Tim, if anyone would like a copy of the paper feel free to PM me with your email address and I will email them a copy!

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

Marie, Brandon has pretty much already answered the question, but the quote from Tertullian is used to show that infant baptism is an established practice within the church by c. 200 A.D. If it were not, there would be no need to argue against it.

Brandon, is there any way we could see a copy of your paper?

Tim, I agree! Although it doesn't mean that it was necessarily valid. I misread your post, I think...thought you were saying Tertullian argued for paedobaptism.

Agreed! And I would add that I think we would both agree that Tertullian's views on baptism were not valid on any count.

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

Marie, Brandon has pretty much already answered the question, but the quote from Tertullian is used to show that infant baptism is an established practice within the church by c. 200 A.D. If it were not, there would be no need to argue against it.

Dear Brother,

There are many things which great men in the church in every age have argued against that were never anywhere close to being "established practice." There is no reason to believe that infant Baptism was at that time any thing more than growing trend that Tertullian felt compelled to challenge. Much like the errors of today (NPP, FV, paedocommunion, etc.). None of these errors are "established practice" or even common place. But the trend they represent warrants stringent opposition on our parts.

And NO, I'm not comparing paedobaptism to the NPP or FV. I was using them only for the sake of illustration.

Originally Posted by C. M. Sheffield

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

Marie, Brandon has pretty much already answered the question, but the quote from Tertullian is used to show that infant baptism is an established practice within the church by c. 200 A.D. If it were not, there would be no need to argue against it.

Dear Brother,

There are many things which great men in the church in every age have argued against that were never anywhere close to being "established practice." There is no reason to believe that infant Baptism was at that time any thing more than growing trend that Tertullian felt compelled to challenge. Much like the errors of today (NPP, FV, paedocommunion, etc.). None of these errors are "established practice" or even common place. But the trend they represent warrants stringent opposition on our parts.

And NO, I'm not comparing paedobaptism to the NPP or FV. I was using them only for the sake of illustration.

Perhaps "established practice" is not the best use of terminology on my part; however, words and expression have context, and the context was established in my first post (#2 -- i.e., "the practice was clearly in place by the second century"). The mention of Tertullian merely shows that the practice existed as early as the second century, and it was disappointing that the article does not interact with this. The fact that other Early Church Fathers are also not mentioned on the subject (e.g., Cyprian) would seem to indicate a lack of thoroughness.

I didn't find any of that the least bit convincing.

To take just one example, his first piece of evidence is from Eusebius -- specifically, a story Eusebius relates that supposedly occurred almost 300 years before his time. If you've ever read Eusebius, you know he tells all sorts of fanciful tales. There is the one about Jesus writing a letter to King Agbar, for example, which letter is still "available, taken from the Record Office at Edessa", and which Eusebius reproduces for us. It's on p.31 in my little Penguin Classics edition, if you want to see what Jesus wrote.

The story about the apostle John that the author cites has all the marks of another fanciful morality tale. The "youngster" who is baptized falls into sin, becomes the leader of a band of brigands, "surpassing them all in violence, cruelty, and bloodthirstiness". When the the aged Apostle, "very old", hears of it, he jumps on a horse, gallops after him, and baptizing him "a second time with his tears", brings him to repentance. Right.

Even if we accept this apocryphal story as indicative of the views of the early church, however, it does nothing for the credo- position. The younster is also called a "young man", so he could easily have wandered into the church. The fact that he is entrusted to the Bishop's care, rather than the care of his family, suggests this. A young person like this would be baptized in a paedobaptist church in the same way -- on a profession of faith.

Read Brandon's paper. It's actually quite good and interacts with many more of the Early Church writings than does the blog article.

Originally Posted by C. M. Sheffield

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

Marie, Brandon has pretty much already answered the question, but the quote from Tertullian is used to show that infant baptism is an established practice within the church by c. 200 A.D. If it were not, there would be no need to argue against it.

Dear Brother,

There are many things which great men in the church in every age have argued against that were never anywhere close to being "established practice." There is no reason to believe that infant Baptism was at that time any thing more than growing trend that Tertullian felt compelled to challenge. Much like the errors of today (NPP, FV, paedocommunion, etc.). None of these errors are "established practice" or even common place. But the trend they represent warrants stringent opposition on our parts.

And NO, I'm not comparing paedobaptism to the NPP or FV. I was using them only for the sake of illustration.

Rev. Sheffield,

You do raise a valid point. I think we can agree that this issue cannot be established based upon the historical arguments alone

I do think that you overstate your case though that, "There is no reason to believe that infants baptism was at that time any thing more than (a) growing trend that Tertullian felt compelled to challenge"

I try to demonstrate this in my paper, but if Tertullian was reacting to a practice he deemed as a development, he would have certainly raised this issue in his treatise (as he did with other things, such as the wearing of royal wreaths). The fact that he does not, along with other corroborating evidence, indicates that Tertullian did not see it as a growing trend. Instead, he appears against to argue against it as an established practice.

Originally Posted by Brandon1

Rev. Sheffield,

You do raise a valid point. I think we can agree that this issue cannot be established based upon the historical arguments alone

I do think that you overstate your case though that, "There is no reason to believe that infants baptism was at that time any thing more than (a) growing trend that Tertullian felt compelled to challenge"

I try to demonstrate this in my paper, but if Tertullian was reacting to a practice he deemed as a development, he would have certainly raised this issue in his treatise (as he did with other things, such as the wearing of royal wreaths). The fact that he does not, along with other corroborating evidence, indicates that Tertullian did not see it as a growing trend. Instead, he appears against to argue against it as an established practice.

Perhaps I should have said, "There is no reason to believe that infant Baptism was [necessarily] any thing more than growing trend. It may have been more, it may have been less - we are only left to speculate. I don't think the issue can be pushed any further beyond that point. While you may be correct in assuming that if it were a growing trend, Tertullian would have raised this issue in his treatise - we have no way of knowing - its just speculation. It says nothing conclusively about the status of paedobaptism at that time.

This is just part 1 so perhaps he will hit some of these issues and questions yall brought up. In fact perhaps it will be helpful to him if he sees this thread... I'll put a link to it on the comments for him.

Originally Posted by jason d

This is just part 1 so perhaps he will hit some of these issues and questions yall brought up. In fact perhaps it will be helpful to him if he sees this thread... I'll put a link to it on the comments for him.

Jason, you are probably correct here. It all has to do with his dating (i.e., where he draws his lines between periods). After re-reading the introduction, it seems that he will probably deal with folks like Tertullian and Cyprian in part 2.

Originally Posted by Brandon1

When Tertullian argues against infant baptism however, he does not cite these things (as many baptist historians have). Instead he argues that it is putting too much responsibility on infants and their sponsors and therefore shouldn't be practiced. Tertullian's argument should give pause to those who think those qualifications rule out infants.

If you apply this hermeneutic to the other fathers, let Hippolytus, like your friend cites, it makes me very skeptical of his conclusions. Instead having Tertullian's argument inform our hermeneutic, I believe this passage is strong support for a paedo position. At best, consulting the other sources we come out uncertain on whether or not infants are baptized or not. I think analysis of the early sources in light of Tertullian (Origen, Cyprian, Eusibius, etc) lends much more weight to a paedo position.

We do see some form of Paedobaptism conducted by the time of Tertullian. One thing however should be recognized and that is the form of Paedobaptism that is mentioned by Tertullian is not the same view of baptism by the Reformed today that practice Paedobaptism.

And one should be careful methodologically of early sources like Origen, Cyprian, and Eusebius, because they are technically after Tertullian’s mention and comment of it by a generation in the case of the first two ( at least about twenty to thirty years for Origen and at least thirty to fifty years for Cyprian). Eusebius was even later And much can change or be corrupted in one or two generations as can be observed with the regenerative view of baptism towards the forgiveness of sins and the observed baptismal requirements as seen in the Didache and many more things as seen in history; including views regarding relics in the patristic church by the mid to late fourth century.

Brandon I tried pming you about your paper, but my message would not send because it said your box was full. I will try again to give you my email later so i can read your work.

Originally Posted by C. M. Sheffield

Dear Brother,

There are many things which great men in the church in every age have argued against that were never anywhere close to being "established practice." There is no reason to believe that infant Baptism was at that time any thing more than growing trend that Tertullian felt compelled to challenge. Much like the errors of today (NPP, FV, paedocommunion, etc.). None of these errors are "established practice" or even common place. But the trend they represent warrants stringent opposition on our parts.

And NO, I'm not comparing paedobaptism to the NPP or FV. I was using them only for the sake of illustration.

On Point!
If you don't mind I'm going to quote you : )