Baptism and the 2 questions I have

Status
Not open for further replies.
The fact of the matter is that we have no evidence that the Church ever practiced anything other than infant baptism. "Scholars" have theories to account for the writings they find later on. A favorite is to say that "NT scholars" universally agree now that there's no evidence of a theology of infant baptism in the New Testament and then trace backward from Tertullian and his writings to assert that it must be the case. That's not scholarship but guesswork.

Rich, it would seem that the soundest and most scholarly method to use for investigating baptismal practice between apostolic times and Tertullian is to consider the actual writings from that period which addressed baptism in some explanatory terms. Arguably, the four sources that best fit this bill are:

(1) The Didache (c.75–110 AD) [the oldest surviving manual of early, post-apostolic church belief and practice (probably Syrian)]: "After rehearsing all these things [i.e. the preceding teachings], baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water. ...But before baptism let the baptizer fast, and the one baptized, and whoever else can; but you must order the baptized to fast one or two days before." (sec. 7)

(2) Epistle of Barnabas (c.90–120) ...“And there was a river flowing on the right, and from it arose beautiful trees; and whosoever shall eat of these shall live forever.” [Apparently taken from a loose paraphrase of Psalm 1:3–6.] This means that we go down into the water laden with sins and filth, and rise up from it bearing fruit in the heart, resting our fear and hope on Jesus in the Spirit." (11:10b–11)

(3) Shepherd of Hermas (c.135–155) [a popular devotional work—even deemed to be canonical in some early churches]: "And I said to him ‘I should like to continue my questions.’ ‘Speak on,’ said he. And I said to him, ‘I heard, sir, from some teachers that there is no other repentance than that which takes place, when we went down into the water and received remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘That was sound doctrine you heard; for that is really the case. For he who has received remission of his sins ought not to sin any more, but to live in purity.’"(4.3.1f)

(4) Justin Martyr (c.100–c.165): "I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we have been made new through Christ. ...As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting. They then are brought by us to where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we ourselves were regenerated. For in the name of God the Father, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing [Greek: loutron—a washing; a bath;] with water." (Apology, 1.61)

Notably, all of these sources plainly use terminology that is applicable to cognitive, responsive recipients of some age (e.g., fasting, hoping, repentance, pure living, informed belief, etc.). On the other hand, none of these writings mention anything about the baptism of persons who were for reasons of age (or any other circumstance) baptized under different theological or practical warrants. Something we do see in these writings are seeds of the rationale usually given by subsequent patristic writers for baptizing infants, namely its supposed connection to spiritual regeneration (although, notably, by “regeneration” Justin evidently meant something that occurs after a person has already “believed”).

Have you ever considered that there isn't a peep of complaint from any Patristics when infant baptism was supposedly introduced some time in the 2nd or 3rd Century according to these theories? Not a peep. These men fought against every aberrant theology of the time and we find no Church Father writing a single letter protesting the aberration of infant baptism as a widespread practice.

Everett Ferguson (Professor of Church History Emeritus at Abilene Christian University), a credobaptist who regardless is widely respected as one of the leading patristic scholars in the world, had a somewhat antithetical perspective with respect to Tertullian’s dialog about infant baptism:

"The first unambiguous reference [to infant baptism] is to be found in Tertullian, and he was opposed to the practice. Tertullian was not talking about a tendency or a hypothetical situation. The practice was present and had its defenders. On the other hand, Tertullian was enough of a traditionalist in his early career that it hardly seems likely that he would oppose a practice of long standing or general acceptance. He seems to be stating, as elsewhere in his treatise On Baptism (which has an anti-heretical thrust), the common position of the church. He does not sound like an innovator fighting an established custom. North Africa continued to be the place where infant baptism had its strongest support, and it may be that this was the region where it began." (Early Christians Speak, 58)

It should be remembered that Tertullian was actually the first ECF to write extensively on the subject of baptism. As such, I would argue that the more germane point is that the earliest treatise dedicated to the subject did in fact did oppose the baptism of infants.

Best regards,

Phil D.

---------- Post added at 09:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:00 PM ----------

Sorry about the formatting mixups in my previous post. I'm nor sure what I did wrong...:oops:
 
ertullian was enough of a traditionalist in his early career that it hardly seems likely that he would oppose a practice of long standing or general acceptance.

It should be remembered that Tertullian was actually the first ECF to write extensively on the subject of baptism. As such, I would argue that the more germane point is that the earliest treatise dedicated to the subject did in fact did oppose the baptism of infants.

Again, even the scholar admits the practice is longstanding and merely surmises it originated in Africa but there's no proof of this in any writings but it is built fundamentally on a pre-commitment that it must have been the case. Paedobaptist scholars do not concede this by examining the same evidence. A theology of the Scriptures is going to ultimately control how one "reads" the sketchy history and all we have when patristics speak plainly about it is that the baptism of infants was ubiquitous.

I also hardly consider Tertullian's objections to be of infant baptism in general but to the delay of baptism, period, as long as possible given what he poured into it. He can hardly be cited in support of a Biblical view of credo-baptism of any adherents on this board.

Regarding your other citations, each is in reference to catechumens who join the Church from the outside. They don't establish anything except that all expect a cognitive faith in adults who come into the Church.
 
Rich, it still remains a fact that infant baptism is not talked about or even indirectly alluded to by the ECFs prior to Tertullian, whereas "believers" baptism is. Thus any idea that the former practice existed during this period can only be conjectured. Maybe you'll be more amenable toward some comments made by the paedobaptist scholars Stander & Louw. First, they quote some of the strongest "evidences" of infant baptism prior to Tertullian that are generally forwarded by paodobaptist scholars, including:

Polycarp (c.70–c.160) [A reply given upon the suggestion that he repudiate Christ at his martyrdom] "For eighty six years have I been his servant, and he has done me no wrong, and how can I blaspheme my King who saved me?" (Martyrdom of Polycarp, 9.3)

Justin Martyr (c.100–c.165): "There are among us many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples from childhood, and who remain pure at the age of sixty and seventy years." (Apology, 1.15)

Polycrates (c.130–196) "I, your brother, who have lived 65 years in the Lord..." (Eusubius’ Church History, 5.24) {no kidding, despite there being no evidence of when this person either was born or died, J. Jeremias used this citation as convincing evidence of infant baptism}

"One of the most striking features of the arguments proposed by supporters of infant baptism, is that they are not content to accept that the inception of the baptism of infants may have occurred at some time and place in the history of the early church, but that they are usually very keen to find proof—even if it is only indirect—of a common practice right from the time of the New Testament onwards. Apart from a few, such as Kurt Aland, the general procedure is to argue for their theological position on the basis of possibilities, without weighing the complete data, in order to evaluate the actual state of affairs in the early church...The concern is primarily whether infant baptism did occur, not what facts are available on baptism.

"...At this stage one should observe that the examples quoted to substantiate instances of infant baptism [specifically including the three shown above] are all of a secondary nature in that they are remote possibilities, if indeed they are possibilities at all. This is surely not a scientific procedure for the investigation of a given situation. One should rather collect all real, that is explicit references to baptism and examine all the data. Only then can one consider such rather vague instances in the light of the entire picture. It is therefore clear that the authors were not concerned with investigating the data as such—they had a given conviction and were groping for 'proofs.'” (Baptism in the Early Church, 16f, 26)

Regardless if we do, and even will continue to disagree on these things, I pray that you will have a truly blessed Sabbath, my brother.

Phil D.

---------- Post added at 09:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:44 PM ----------

ertullian was enough of a traditionalist in his early career that it hardly seems likely that he would oppose a practice of long standing or general acceptance.

It should be remembered that Tertullian was actually the first ECF to write extensively on the subject of baptism. As such, I would argue that the more germane point is that the earliest treatise dedicated to the subject did in fact did oppose the baptism of infants.

Again, even the scholar admits the practice is longstanding...

One more thing I meant to mention, I think you must have misread Ferguson's statements. He says that infant baptism "was present and had its defenders", and "that it hardly seems likely that he [Tertullian] would oppose a practice of long standing or general acceptance".

Best regards,

Phil D.
 
As such, I would argue that the more germane point is that the earliest treatise dedicated to the subject did in fact did oppose the baptism of infants.

As well as the unmarried, in exactly the same paragraph. Why does this always get left out of the discussion?
 
Phil, do you happen to know why Stander and Louw wrote their volume on Baptism in the Early Church (essentially arguing for credobaptism); and why they remain paedos? Very curious ... thanks.
happy Sunday, everyone..
 
"One of the most striking features of the arguments proposed by supporters of infant baptism, is that they are not content to accept that the inception of the baptism of infants may have occurred at some time and place in the history of the early church, but that they are usually very keen to find proof—even if it is only indirect—of a common practice right from the time of the New Testament onwards. Apart from a few, such as Kurt Aland, the general procedure is to argue for their theological position on the basis of possibilities, without weighing the complete data, in order to evaluate the actual state of affairs in the early church...The concern is primarily whether infant baptism did occur, not what facts are available on baptism.

"...At this stage one should observe that the examples quoted to substantiate instances of infant baptism [specifically including the three shown above] are all of a secondary nature in that they are remote possibilities, if indeed they are possibilities at all. This is surely not a scientific procedure for the investigation of a given situation. One should rather collect all real, that is explicit references to baptism and examine all the data. Only then can one consider such rather vague instances in the light of the entire picture. It is therefore clear that the authors were not concerned with investigating the data as such—they had a given conviction and were groping for 'proofs.'” (Baptism in the Early Church, 16f, 26)

Phil: substitute the word "believer's baptism" into your first two quotes and you have the same problem that a scholar is "groping for proofs" for believer's only baptism by appealing to instructions for the baptism of new catechumens.

Furthermore, my point about Tertullian is that neither he nor any ECF opposes infant baptism on the basis that it is an innovation. Complete silence. There's no evidence that it's just "generally accepted" but is everywhere when the ECF's talk about it. Not only so, but when Augustine and Pelagius were involved in dispute, in an offhand comment Pelagius admitted that he had never heard of anyone so impious as to suggest that infants should not be baptized. Nobody? Was Pelagius really ignorant of Tertullian? Was the practice so unopposed that no document survived of such an objectionable innovation if believer's only baptism was once the norm and infant baptism unthinkable?

When many Churches switched from wine to grape juice in the 19th century articles abounded about this innovation. Nothing about infant baptism until the 16th century. I'm sorry but a handful of documents that address catechumen baptism and Tertullian's aberrant baptismal views do not an ECF position make.
 
Notably, all of these sources plainly use terminology that is applicable to cognitive, responsive recipients of some age (e.g., fasting, hoping, repentance, pure living, informed belief, etc.). On the other hand, none of these writings mention anything about the baptism of persons who were for reasons of age (or any other circumstance) baptized under different theological or practical warrants. Something we do see in these writings are seeds of the rationale usually given by subsequent patristic writers for baptizing infants, namely its supposed connection to spiritual regeneration (although, notably, by “regeneration” Justin evidently meant something that occurs after a person has already “believed”).

The apostolic fathers simply reflect New Testament requirements in the case of those who are coming for baptism from outside the visible church. That suffices to answer the affirmative part of your statement. The negative part of your statement is accounted for on the basis that there was a general lack of interest in the status of children in all segments of society at that time, so it is not surprising to see this reflected in the church's instruction concerning baptism. For affirmative evidence relative to the practice of the apostolic fathers we have the testimony of men who wrote less than a century later. Infant baptism was regarded by third century writers as a practice which had been continued since apostolic times in diverse geographical locations; and because there is no witness to the contrary there is no reason to suppose these writers needed to invent an apostolic origin in order to buttress its claims against opponents.
 
Notably, all of these sources plainly use terminology that is applicable to cognitive, responsive recipients of some age (e.g., fasting, hoping, repentance, pure living, informed belief, etc.). On the other hand, none of these writings mention anything about the baptism of persons who were for reasons of age (or any other circumstance) baptized under different theological or practical warrants. Something we do see in these writings are seeds of the rationale usually given by subsequent patristic writers for baptizing infants, namely its supposed connection to spiritual regeneration (although, notably, by “regeneration” Justin evidently meant something that occurs after a person has already “believed”).

The apostolic fathers simply reflect New Testament requirements in the case of those who are coming for baptism from outside the visible church. That suffices to answer the affirmative part of your statement. The negative part of your statement is accounted for on the basis that there was a general lack of interest in the status of children in all segments of society at that time, so it is not surprising to see this reflected in the church's instruction concerning baptism. For affirmative evidence relative to the practice of the apostolic fathers we have the testimony of men who wrote less than a century later. Infant baptism was regarded by third century writers as a practice which had been continued since apostolic times in diverse geographical locations; and because there is no witness to the contrary there is no reason to suppose these writers needed to invent an apostolic origin in order to buttress its claims against opponents.

Incidentally, that's the same argument that is used to defend the authors of the Gospels and Epistles. "Recent Scholarship" (a term loaded with all kinds of meaning) applies the same kind of redaction criticism to claim a development hypothesis or an attachment of names to the Gospels. Orthodox scholars use the same argument that the most proximate writers in the Early Church attribute Gospel writers to those we have and there is no evidence (save scholarly agenda) to challenge them. I would argue that those who challenge the ECF writers on the apostolic origins of infant baptism have to answer to an inconsistent criteria or agree with redaction critics who challenge the authorship of the Gospels.
 
I would argue that those who challenge the ECF writers on the apostolic origins of infant baptism have to answer to an inconsistent criteria or agree with redaction critics who challenge the authorship of the Gospels.

Rich, good point; it challenges us to have a consistent approach to the place and importance of the Christian tradition.
 
Furthermore, my point about Tertullian is that neither he nor any ECF opposes infant baptism on the basis that it is an innovation. Complete silence. There's no evidence that it's just "generally accepted" but is everywhere when the ECF's talk about it. Not only so, but when Augustine and Pelagius were involved in dispute, in an offhand comment Pelagius admitted that he had never heard of anyone so impious as to suggest that infants should not be baptized. Nobody? Was Pelagius really ignorant of Tertullian? Was the practice so unopposed that no document survived of such an objectionable innovation if believer's only baptism was once the norm and infant baptism unthinkable?

When many Churches switched from wine to grape juice in the 19th century articles abounded about this innovation. Nothing about infant baptism until the 16th century. I'm sorry but a handful of documents that address catechumen baptism and Tertullian's aberrant baptismal views do not an ECF position make.

But consider this: that Tertullian had the audacity to question the practice and suggest a delay in baptism indicates that infant baptism was perhaps not as sacrosanct a tradition as something like views concerning the Eucharist, or Trinitarian formula, or rule of faith. In other words, it seems that infant baptism did not carry the "rank" of other higher-order indisputable doctrines. To me, this suggests that the practice had not yet ossified as lex operandi.

---------- Post added at 07:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:36 PM ----------

Infant baptism was regarded by third century writers as a practice which had been continued since apostolic times in diverse geographical locations; and because there is no witness to the contrary there is no reason to suppose these writers needed to invent an apostolic origin in order to buttress its claims against opponents.

If credobaptism was the normal practice from earliest times, then it's not surprising that we don't have tracts arguing for it, only manuals on how it's done (didache). That there was a period when Churchmen took pause to infant baptism is indicative to me that the practice might not have its roots in the most grounded and authoritative tradition of the Church.

---------- Post added at 07:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:45 PM ----------

Incidentally, that's the same argument that is used to defend the authors of the Gospels and Epistles. "Recent Scholarship" (a term loaded with all kinds of meaning) applies the same kind of redaction criticism to claim a development hypothesis or an attachment of names to the Gospels. Orthodox scholars use the same argument that the most proximate writers in the Early Church attribute Gospel writers to those we have and there is no evidence (save scholarly agenda) to challenge them. I would argue that those who challenge the ECF writers on the apostolic origins of infant baptism have to answer to an inconsistent criteria or agree with redaction critics who challenge the authorship of the Gospels.
Rich, do you believe together with Church tradition that Matthew's gospel was the first?
 
Furthermore, my point about Tertullian is that neither he nor any ECF opposes infant baptism on the basis that it is an innovation. Complete silence. There's no evidence that it's just "generally accepted" but is everywhere when the ECF's talk about it. Not only so, but when Augustine and Pelagius were involved in dispute, in an offhand comment Pelagius admitted that he had never heard of anyone so impious as to suggest that infants should not be baptized. Nobody? Was Pelagius really ignorant of Tertullian? Was the practice so unopposed that no document survived of such an objectionable innovation if believer's only baptism was once the norm and infant baptism unthinkable?

When many Churches switched from wine to grape juice in the 19th century articles abounded about this innovation. Nothing about infant baptism until the 16th century. I'm sorry but a handful of documents that address catechumen baptism and Tertullian's aberrant baptismal views do not an ECF position make.

But consider this: that Tertullian had the audacity to question the practice and suggest a delay in baptism indicates that infant baptism was perhaps not as sacrosanct a tradition as something like views concerning the Eucharist, or Trinitarian formula, or rule of faith. In other words, it seems that infant baptism did not carry the "rank" of other higher-order indisputable doctrines.
What, you mean like the Trinity? One century later, many had the "audacity" to question the Trinity. Are you saying that's a low order doctrine?

I'm still amazed that any Reformed Baptist would appeal to Tertullian as an advocate for their position. The man became a Montanist for crying out loud. If that's not a willingness to abandon everything the Church stood for then I don't know what would constitute that in your mind.

Incidentally, that's the same argument that is used to defend the authors of the Gospels and Epistles. "Recent Scholarship" (a term loaded with all kinds of meaning) applies the same kind of redaction criticism to claim a development hypothesis or an attachment of names to the Gospels. Orthodox scholars use the same argument that the most proximate writers in the Early Church attribute Gospel writers to those we have and there is no evidence (save scholarly agenda) to challenge them. I would argue that those who challenge the ECF writers on the apostolic origins of infant baptism have to answer to an inconsistent criteria or agree with redaction critics who challenge the authorship of the Gospels.
Rich, do you believe together with Church tradition that Matthew's gospel was the first?

It's easy to be a scoffer In Suk.

Instead of merely scoffing, you might want to take some time to consider the nature of "scholarship" that thinks its in a position to question everything an early Church witness says about something by attributing motives or redaction to things as fundamental as the Gospels.

There's a difference between having a discerning eye with respect to the the ECF's and assuming an air of superiority that they we're in a better position to know facts such as who wrote the Gospels or assigning motives to them when they make certain historical claims.

I can accept that the ECF's may have had to work some things out better and were confused over some doctrines that were emerging as a consequence of the Scriptures but I don't need to assume that they lied through their teeth about historical facts to buttress their theology.
 
As such, I would argue that the more germane point is that the earliest treatise dedicated to the subject did in fact did oppose the baptism of infants.

As well as the unmarried, in exactly the same paragraph. Why does this always get left out of the discussion?

Tim, the reason I haven't involved this point in my discussion is because it is non sequitur to the specific historical issue I have been addressing with regard to Tertullian- i.e., what evidence there is for the actual practice of infant baptism during the time immediately after the apostolic age through the time of Tertullian, and what reasons various writers may have given for their position on that particular issue. If I had been asserting that we should look to Tertullian as a reliable source for determining our own broader baptismal beliefs, then it would certainly be relevant. But, just for the record, I am a firm supporter of sola Scriptura in matters like that!

---------- Post added at 08:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:01 AM ----------

Phil, do you happen to know why Stander and Louw wrote their volume on Baptism in the Early Church (essentially arguing for credobaptism); and why they remain paedos? Very curious ... thanks.
happy Sunday, everyone..

In Suk, I probably wouldn't characterize Stander and Louw's work as arguing for credobaptism. Rather, they were expressly reacting to what they perceived to be the sloppy and prejudicial treatment of the historical data regarding baptismal practice in the early church by many paedobaptist writers. In terms of why they believed that infant baptism didn't arise until the 4th or later, and yet remained paedobaptists, I don't know for sure. I do know that some other paedobaptist scholars who have had a similar take on the historical data as they did (Kurt Aland, for example), maintained that although the practice had arisen several centuries after Christ, the church was within its rights to instigate the practice at a later time - this even while ostensibly remaining a Protestant. I suspect, although it is only a deduced guess, that Stander and Louw may have thought similarly.
 
Furthermore, my point about Tertullian is that neither he nor any ECF opposes infant baptism on the basis that it is an innovation. Complete silence. There's no evidence that it's just "generally accepted" but is everywhere when the ECF's talk about it. Not only so, but when Augustine and Pelagius were involved in dispute, in an offhand comment Pelagius admitted that he had never heard of anyone so impious as to suggest that infants should not be baptized. Nobody? Was Pelagius really ignorant of Tertullian? Was the practice so unopposed that no document survived of such an objectionable innovation if believer's only baptism was once the norm and infant baptism unthinkable?

When many Churches switched from wine to grape juice in the 19th century articles abounded about this innovation. Nothing about infant baptism until the 16th century. I'm sorry but a handful of documents that address catechumen baptism and Tertullian's aberrant baptismal views do not an ECF position make.

But consider this: that Tertullian had the audacity to question the practice and suggest a delay in baptism indicates that infant baptism was perhaps not as sacrosanct a tradition as something like views concerning the Eucharist, or Trinitarian formula, or rule of faith. In other words, it seems that infant baptism did not carry the "rank" of other higher-order indisputable doctrines.
What, you mean like the Trinity? One century later, many had the "audacity" to question the Trinity. Are you saying that's a low order doctrine?
Did the orthodox ever question the Trinity, once it had been established? That would be a parallel question to ask.

I'm still amazed that any Reformed Baptist would appeal to Tertullian as an advocate for their position. The man became a Montanist for crying out loud. If that's not a willingness to abandon everything the Church stood for then I don't know what would constitute that in your mind.
ad hominem.
Incidentally, that's the same argument that is used to defend the authors of the Gospels and Epistles. "Recent Scholarship" (a term loaded with all kinds of meaning) applies the same kind of redaction criticism to claim a development hypothesis or an attachment of names to the Gospels. Orthodox scholars use the same argument that the most proximate writers in the Early Church attribute Gospel writers to those we have and there is no evidence (save scholarly agenda) to challenge them. I would argue that those who challenge the ECF writers on the apostolic origins of infant baptism have to answer to an inconsistent criteria or agree with redaction critics who challenge the authorship of the Gospels.
Rich, do you believe together with Church tradition that Matthew's gospel was the first?

It's easy to be a scoffer In Suk.

Instead of merely scoffing, you might want to take some time to consider the nature of "scholarship" that thinks its in a position to question everything an early Church witness says about something by attributing motives or redaction to things as fundamental as the Gospels.

There's a difference between having a discerning eye with respect to the the ECF's and assuming an air of superiority that they we're in a better position to know facts such as who wrote the Gospels or assigning motives to them when they make certain historical claims.

I can accept that the ECF's may have had to work some things out better and were confused over some doctrines that were emerging as a consequence of the Scriptures but I don't need to assume that they lied through their teeth about historical facts to buttress their theology.
I wasn't scoffing, Rich, but honestly wanted to know your (and perhaps the Reformed position) on this. Unfortunately, with text, we lose a lot of inflection - sorry about the miscommunication :) I think that total consistency with the ECFs on all points is neither possible nor safe. I personally believe in Markan priority because I find the evidence compelling over the tradition of the Church, although the ECF's input is valuable indeed, especially on matters of doctrine and practice.

To me, Tertullian wrote to suggest amendments to baptismal practice because he felt he could do so, without being trampled under foot as a heretic. I don't know of any outrage against his prescriptions, and there was a time when Christians applied it. Basil and others were not baptised as an infants. This is significant. Had it been a practice passed down from the apostles, we would expect an essentially unbroken and indisputable chain of practice, considering the emphasis in those days regarding Apostolic authority and Tradition. It's worth pondering over.
 
First, I need to better clarify something I expounded on earlier: Paedobaptist church historians like Stander, Louw and Aland believed that infant baptism had post-apostolic origins, that the first credible reference to it was by Tertullian (which shows it was present in North Africa by the late 2nd Century), and that it didn't come to be a normative, church-wide practice until the 4th century or later. Just for the sake of accuracy...

"One of the most striking features of the arguments proposed by supporters of infant baptism, is that they are not content to accept that the inception of the baptism of infants may have occurred at some time and place in the history of the early church, but that they are usually very keen to find proof—even if it is only indirect—of a common practice right from the time of the New Testament onwards. Apart from a few, such as Kurt Aland, the general procedure is to argue for their theological position on the basis of possibilities, without weighing the complete data, in order to evaluate the actual state of affairs in the early church...The concern is primarily whether infant baptism did occur, not what facts are available on baptism.

"...At this stage one should observe that the examples quoted to substantiate instances of infant baptism [specifically including the three shown above] are all of a secondary nature in that they are remote possibilities, if indeed they are possibilities at all. This is surely not a scientific procedure for the investigation of a given situation. One should rather collect all real, that is explicit references to baptism and examine all the data. Only then can one consider such rather vague instances in the light of the entire picture. It is therefore clear that the authors were not concerned with investigating the data as such—they had a given conviction and were groping for 'proofs.'” (Baptism in the Early Church, 16f, 26)
Phil: substitute the word "believer's baptism" into your first two quotes and you have the same problem that a scholar is "groping for proofs" for believer's only baptism by appealing to instructions for the baptism of new catechumens.[/QUOTE]

My point was not that one can conclusively establish a "believers only" position on baptism among the ECFs, but rather that "only believers" baptism is actually addressed until Tertullian makes an argument against infant baptism. That's just a simple fact.

[/quote]...when Augustine and Pelagius were involved in dispute, in an offhand comment Pelagius admitted that he had never heard of anyone so impious as to suggest that infants should not be baptized. Nobody? Was Pelagius really ignorant of Tertullian?[/quote]

Based on this version of events, apparently so.

[/QUOTE]I'm sorry but a handful of documents that address catechumen baptism and Tertullian's aberrant baptismal views do not an ECF position make.[/QUOTE]

I would largely concur. However the fact that also baptizing these catechumen's children is never even vaguely alluded to is a significant factor that is not so easily explained away.
 
Did the orthodox ever question the Trinity, once it had been established? That would be a parallel question to ask.
Depends on what you mean by orthodox.

First, the point is that the Trinity was an established doctrine handed down by the Apostles in their teaching. This, later writers argue for. Your statement that the "Church hadn't settled it" sounds more like those that see the doctrine as created by the Church rather than something in the Apostolic faith that had to be clearly articulated.

Second, Athanasius was banned 5 times from his bishopric for defending Nicene orthodoxy because a large and influential segment of the Church became Aryan. The point is that your argument is weak. The Trinity is even more foundational to Christian orthodoxy than Baptism. The same can be said for the humanity and divinity of Christ that were early defended by Iraneus. The same can be said for the Gospel, which, within Paul's own preaching ministry, was being trampled underfoot by the Judaizers.

It is hardly an argument to note that Arius felt comfortable "taking on" baptism because it wasn't widely held. That has happened all the time in the history of the Scriptures and the Church.

ad hominem.

Not. You are the one "psychologizing" on why Tertullian felt comfortable taking on a doctrine. Why does Tertullian never appeal to Apostolic teaching on the subject to note that his is the view of the Apostles? The aberrant nature of his doctrine of baptism is very germane as is his willingness to later abandon all Christian orthodoxy. If we're going to evaluate the character of a man then the fact that he abandoned Christian orthodoxy wholesale is completely germane to whether he's "held fast" by historical orthodoxy on a particular doctrine.
 
Notably, all of these sources plainly use terminology that is applicable to cognitive, responsive recipients of some age (e.g., fasting, hoping, repentance, pure living, informed belief, etc.). On the other hand, none of these writings mention anything about the baptism of persons who were for reasons of age (or any other circumstance) baptized under different theological or practical warrants. Something we do see in these writings are seeds of the rationale usually given by subsequent patristic writers for baptizing infants, namely its supposed connection to spiritual regeneration (although, notably, by “regeneration” Justin evidently meant something that occurs after a person has already “believed”).

The apostolic fathers simply reflect New Testament requirements in the case of those who are coming for baptism from outside the visible church. That suffices to answer the affirmative part of your statement. The negative part of your statement is accounted for on the basis that there was a general lack of interest in the status of children in all segments of society at that time, so it is not surprising to see this reflected in the church's instruction concerning baptism. For affirmative evidence relative to the practice of the apostolic fathers we have the testimony of men who wrote less than a century later. Infant baptism was regarded by third century writers as a practice which had been continued since apostolic times in diverse geographical locations; and because there is no witness to the contrary there is no reason to suppose these writers needed to invent an apostolic origin in order to buttress its claims against opponents.

Rev. Winzer, a couple of thoughts here.

First, we have long been told that we should accept the idea that infants were baptized in the apostolic church because the important status of children within the family unit was so obvious and integral to the cultures of that time that their inclusion in baptism would naturally be taken for granted (thus explaining the lack of any direct mention of the practice in the NT). Are we now to believe that the reason no Christian writings produced immediately after the NT era includes any reference to children being baptized is because their status was suddenly so reduced that it resulted in a general "lack of interest" concerning them? Surely, if employing the same argument from silence in such antithetical ways regarding the same issue is to be deemed appropriate, then those who may hold a different view of the historical datum are at a decided disadvantage in any discussion of it, to say the least.

Secondly, if one is to put any practical stock in the fact that some ECFs deemed the practice of baptizing infants to have been handed down from the apostles, to be consistent should they not also perform such baptisms in the manner which many ECFs also claimed to have been handed down from the apostles - namely, triple immersion?

I honestly don't want to come across as being glib or disrespectful in my remarks here, but I guess I don't know how to phrase my thoughts any better.

Best regards,

Phil D.
 
First, we have long been told that we should accept the idea that infants were baptized in the apostolic church because the important status of children within the family unit was so obvious and integral to the cultures of that time that their inclusion in baptism would naturally be taken for granted (thus explaining the lack of any direct mention of the practice in the NT). Are we now to believe that the reason no Christian writings produced immediately after the NT era includes any reference to children being baptized is because their status was suddenly so reduced that it resulted in a general "lack of interest" concerning them?

I would refer to this as a twisted construction rather than referring to it as glib. Is it possible you've studied this but this is the best explanation you can give that no direct mention of infants being baptized in a historical narrative would be natural? Of course, when Acts 2:38-39 is ruled out of order as not applying to the children of believers or Matt 28:18-20 is ruled out of order because disciples are seen as coextensive with adult converts then this completely reduces the aperture. When federal theology is thrown out the window and the only thing a person can appeal to is direct evidence then that severely limits the aperture but also points to the poverty of the one making the request.

I can surmise a reason why a group of people that take certain things for granted don't take a whole lot of time to remind others about it. Did you know that Marines don't walk on grass? We don't write that down in Base orders but it's been handed down as something we just don't do.

As I said before, the controlling issue here is going to be how one views the Scriptures. Historical theology is not going to settle this. There are plausible reasons for silence if you're a paedobaptist and the credobaptist is going to appeal to the same silence and pour theological content into the silence (as you just did). Scholars do the same thing and I don't accept that there's no "direct mention" of the baptism of infants when Christ commands their baptism in Matt 28:18-20 because the children of believers are, by definition, disciples.
 
There are not really any seeds of covenant theology in the fathers, as there are seeds of justification and substitution.
Does Irenaeus count? Melito of Sardis?

I suggest some acquaintance with the work of J. Ligon Duncan, RTS Jackson. First Presbyterian Church - Jackson Mississippi

Some relevant titles:
The Covenant Idea in Ante-Nicene Theology. PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh, New College, Scotland, 1995.
"The Covenant Idea in Irenaeus of Lyons," J. Ligon Duncan (found in Confessing our Hope: Essays Celebrating the Life and Ministry of Morton H. Smith, GPTS)
"The Covenant Idea in Melito of Sardis: An Introduction and Survey," by J. Ligon Duncan III.
 
Also,
despite the paucity of the evidence, and the various interpretations of the given evidence, I note that the inscriptions have not once been mentioned.
 
Rich, maybe I didn't express my point well enough, so let me try again: Paedobaptists both tell us that the absence of specifically mentioning infants in the biblical narratives on baptism is due (in part at least) to the fact that children, both in ancient Jewish and Gentile cultures, occupied such a high status in the family unit that they were naturally included in all things pertaining to ancient "households" (e.g., see Tim's arguments in #19 and #21 of this thread, and J. Jeremias, Infant Baptism, throughout) -- as well as that the same phenomenon of "absence of specifically mentioning infants in discussions of baptism" in subsequent Christian writings was due to the low status that was generally ascribed to children, as Rev. Winzer posited in #67. Thus my objection was that the same argument of silence cannot credibly by used in such antithetical ways to account for the same thing. In other words, it was simply an objection against what I perceive to be a we-can-have-it-both-ways-as-long-as-it's-convenient methodology sometimes used within the larger paedobaptist community, rather than an attempt to address the substantive merits, per se, of the individual arguments.

As for Acts 2:38 applying to the children of believers, I absolutely believe it does. "...For the promise (i.e., to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, upon meeting the preceding requirements of first repenting and being baptized - thus the promise clearly does not refer to the simple or inherent right of anyone to receive the sacrament of baptism apart from the given qualifications) is unto you (Peter's as then still unrepentant hearers) and to your children, to as many as the Lord our God shall call unto himself (the elect)." Indeed, as it is a very succinct presentation of the universal terms of the gospel, I think this passage applies equally to every person in the world.

But then again, based on how this conversation typically goes between credo's and peados, we probably don't want to rabbittrail too far on the proper exegesis of Acts 2:38 here, do we?:)
 
Quote from Phil
"...For the promise (i.e., to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, upon meeting the preceding requirements of first repenting and being baptized - thus the promise clearly does not refer to the simple or inherent right of anyone to receive the sacrament of baptism apart from the given qualifications)

There are no qualifications for receiving the baptism by/with the Spirit into Christ, apart from being one of the elect. It happens - since the inaugural period in the Book of Acts - to all believers at regeneration and is monergistic. Our water baptism points to it and is the sign and seal of it, whether or not we are baptised with water before or after we are baptised by Christ into Himself by/with the Holy Spirit.

The early believers couldn't be baptised into Christ with the Spirit until He had ascended to God's right hand. Since those early days in the Book of Acts, baptism with the Spirit has coincided with regeneration.

E.g.

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.(Romans 6:3-5, ESV)

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. (John 14:16-18, ESV)

In the Old Testament regeneration was sometimes called "circumcision of heart". It didn't matter whether physical circumcision happened before or after circumcision of heart, or not at all in the case of girls and ladies, but physical circumcision pointed to and was the sign and seal of this spiritual circumcision.

What about those who were physically circumcised but never spiritually circumcised? Paul teaches us that their unbelief does not nullify God's covenant faithfulness.

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, "That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged." (Romans 3:1-4)

The same could be said in paraphrase with regard to Christians (nominal "Christians") and baptism:-

Then what advantage has the Christian (or if you like "Christian")? Or what is the value of baptism? Much in every way. To begin with, the Christians were entrusted with the oracles of God. What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, "That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged."
 
Last edited:
Rich, maybe I didn't express my point well enough, so let me try again: Paedobaptists both tell us that the absence of specifically mentioning infants in the biblical narratives on baptism is due (in part at least) to the fact that children, both in ancient Jewish and Gentile cultures, occupied such a high status in the family unit that they were naturally included in all things pertaining to ancient "households" (e.g., see Tim's arguments in #19 and #21 of this thread, and J. Jeremias, Infant Baptism, throughout) -- as well as that the same phenomenon of "absence of specifically mentioning infants in discussions of baptism" in subsequent Christian writings was due to the low status that was generally ascribed to children, as Rev. Winzer posited in #67. Thus my objection was that the same argument of silence cannot credibly by used in such antithetical ways to account for the same thing. In other words, it was simply an objection against what I perceive to be a we-can-have-it-both-ways-as-long-as-it's-convenient methodology sometimes used within the larger paedobaptist community, rather than an attempt to address the substantive merits, per se, of the individual arguments.
This is seeing the problem in terms of a false dilemma where silence on a particular subject doesn't have to be for the same reasons in every community. Everybody went to Church on the Lord's Day. The reasons may be very theological in the minds of those who consciously changed their day of worship in the NT accounts whereas those that picked up the practice may be silent on it because "...that's what we always do." One argument may be appropriate given the nature of Jewish households and it's good as far as it goes but is not the all-controlling argument.

As for Acts 2:38 applying to the children of believers, I absolutely believe it does. "...For the promise (i.e., to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, upon meeting the preceding requirements of first repenting and being baptized - thus the promise clearly does not refer to the simple or inherent right of anyone to receive the sacrament of baptism apart from the given qualifications) is unto you (Peter's as then still unrepentant hearers) and to your children, to as many as the Lord our God shall call unto himself (the elect)." Indeed, as it is a very succinct presentation of the universal terms of the gospel, I think this passage applies equally to every person in the world.

But then again, based on how this conversation typically goes between credo's and peados, we probably don't want to rabbittrail too far on the proper exegesis of Acts 2:38 here, do we?:)
You simply prove my point that you've just read "history" in a way that is controlled by your theology of baptism. Peter uses language that I see fits within a context of Abrahamic Promise while you conflate Promise with the graces conferred by the same and infer a whole Sacramental theology into the statement. We don't even have to go to the ECF's to see a divergence in how we interpret the language of Church History but to the Apostle himself.

Why do you list the WCF as your Confessional subscription in your profile?
 
Richard,

I certainly meant "qualifications" in the context that the elect will exercise their God-given faith by responding affirmatively to the call of the gospel, and following through with what becoming a faithful follower of Christ entails.


All: I get the sense that I've already been more assertive in this thread than is probably becoming of a freshman to this board. I also think I'm among those culpable for taking much of the conversation here a bit off-course from the what was intended with the OP. Moreover, it seems to me that some of the posts (including my own) are becoming increasingly edgy and/or contentious, for which I apologize. Obviously, many of us are passionate about the issue of baptism, and rightly so. And it is certainly proper for iron to sharpen iron. Still, I think the usefulness of my participation in this thread is drawing to a close. I do hope that some of the original source materials that I have cited here, as well as my better comments may have been helpful in some way to those who may have read them. I know for my part I have really enjoyed and benefited from the vast majority of others' contributions here. But taking a breather now will probably do me good. If and when another thread is started on the subject of baptism, you may well hear from me again (for better or worse...). Until then, best regards to all.

Phil D.
 
oreover, it seems to me that some of the posts (including my own) are becoming increasingly edgy and/or contentious, for which I apologize. Obviously, many of us are passionate about the issue of baptism, and rightly so. And it is certainly proper for iron to sharpen iron. Still, I think the usefulness of my participation in this thread is drawing to a close.

For what it's worth, I was not offended. It's a forum for debate and discussion and the discussion has been civil.

Thanks for your participation.
 
Rich, you asked (and apparently posted at the same time that I was writing my intended farewell post), "why do you list the WCF as your Confessional subscription in your profile." That's certainly a fair question, and merits an answer. In short, because, all things considered, I believe it is the single best summary of the biblical faith out there. In the various matters where it differs with the LBC, baptism excepted, I usually find that I actually agree more with the formulations given in the WCF. For example, even with regard to the sacraments, I prefer the term "sacraments" (obviously, given my own designation) over that of "ordinance", since I believe they are, properly used, a means of grace, with a true spiritual dimension to them. In other words, I believe they indeed inwardly seal and confirm the spiritual benefits which they signify. This vital role seems to be largely ignored, or at least implicitly downplayed in the LBC. I also differ from many baptists in that I am not inclined, nor do I feel a compulsion to ultimately pronounce someone "unbaptized" if they received the rite as an infant. And, yes, I realize that in many ways this mix of convictions makes me a rather enigmatic oddball. But I'm simply trying to walk faithfully in the light God has, and will continue to graciously give me concerning each facet of my faith. Given all this, I'm sorry if claiming the WS as my overall preferred statement of faith offends somebody. While I suppose this explanation may raise more questions than it answers, I'm not sure what else to say for now.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the reply Phil. I think if you really wrestle with the idea of Sacramental union and the relationship between Promise (grace signified) and grace conferred that you might realize you either do or do not agree with the Sacramental ideas in the Reformed confessions.

Blessings!

Rich
 
Hi Phil:

If the Early Church Fathers could get the meaning of water Baptism so wrong, and so quickly after the 1st Century, then why would one have confidence in their supposed views concerning adult immersion?

Blessings,

Rob
 
First, we have long been told that we should accept the idea that infants were baptized in the apostolic church because the important status of children within the family unit was so obvious and integral to the cultures of that time that their inclusion in baptism would naturally be taken for granted (thus explaining the lack of any direct mention of the practice in the NT). Are we now to believe that the reason no Christian writings produced immediately after the NT era includes any reference to children being baptized is because their status was suddenly so reduced that it resulted in a general "lack of interest" concerning them? Surely, if employing the same argument from silence in such antithetical ways regarding the same issue is to be deemed appropriate, then those who may hold a different view of the historical datum are at a decided disadvantage in any discussion of it, to say the least.

That infants were treated as part and parcel of the family unit does nothing to create a "status" whereby they are treated as individuals in their own right. The dilemma you have created is therefore non-existent. Family integration explains household baptisms and lack of status explains the lack of individual instruction relative to their baptism.

Secondly, if one is to put any practical stock in the fact that some ECFs deemed the practice of baptizing infants to have been handed down from the apostles, to be consistent should they not also perform such baptisms in the manner which many ECFs also claimed to have been handed down from the apostles - namely, triple immersion?

Where running water was not available pouring sufficed.

The affirmative point I was making did not pertain to the authority of "apostolic tradition," so any argumentum ad absurdum is irrelevant. The question is, What was practised in the second century? We have modern scholars seeking to make judgements based on the minimal evidence which has been preserved over the centuries and overlooking the unchallenged testimony of church fathers who lived within a generation or two of the sub-apostolic fathers. My argument is that their appeal to apostolic practice should not be excluded simply because the second century evidence itself lacks explicit reference to infant baptism.
 
Richard,

I certainly meant "qualifications" in the context that the elect will exercise their God-given faith by responding affirmatively to the call of the gospel, and following through with what becoming a faithful follower of Christ entails.

Not to go on at great length, Phil. It's good to have you on the Puritan Board. We're all brothers in Christ whether we discuss and argue about baptism or not.

In the Reformed view faith and repentance logically - if not necessarily chronologically - follow regeneration/baptism with the Spirit, and for Baptists a profession of this must precede water baptism.

The interesting thing is that the Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists would agree that the Apostles and others were baptised with water long before they were baptised with the Holy Spirit into Christ, which breaks the Reformed Baptist contention that you must be baptised with water only after being baptised with the Spirit into Christ.

Peter's remark,

For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." (Acts 2:39)

would have been understood to mean that the children are included in this new phase of the Covenant, as they were from the time of Abraham.

Being under the promise of the Covenant didn't mean that such children or adults would receive anything automatically without faith in the promise of God. The same is true today with baptism. Romans 3:1-4 shows this.

But since the promise was "for them" circumcision could not be denied them, and the same is true for baptism today.

It would be interesting if someone like Rich or someone else could better "unpack" that phrase "the promise is for you and your children" and what it means that the promise is peculiarly for the children of believers differently to others.

Do Reformed Baptists believe that the promise is for their children?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top