Infant Baptism

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tyrese

Tyrese

Puritan Board Sophomore
I have a quick question. I keep hearing that the Church has always practiced infant baptism. Is this true? and if so, whats some good material to read up on this? As a convinced Baptist I think its really important for me to be alittle more familiar with infant baptism. Thanks.
 
I have two books to recommend, but I do not know if they are in print any longer.

One is titled Sermons on the Mode and Subjects of Baptism by Joseph Lathrop. He was an early American pastor who was well published in the late 1700s through very early 1800s. If you can find this book in whatever form possible, it would be highly recommended as he draws from church history and Scripture to prove his points.

photo-15.jpg



The other would be a book by W. Wall, published in 1707. He was the first (I believe) to set out to prove neither side, but to find all documentation to support baptism in any mode and put it into a single title. It's a massive work and I have waded through mine only a few hours, but the information is phenomenal. Here's the title page for you. If this could be made more readily available, I suppose that there would be a mass exodus of reformed believers leaving baptistic churches and headed over to where infant baptism is practiced. You can see that he deals with documents from the first four centuries. He also makes interesting observations regarding how the children and grandchildren of believers who lived during the time of Paul and Christ all practiced infant baptism, and you would have expected much in terms of letters and documentation correcting those who practiced infant baptism if it was really something that was contrary to the apostles' teaching. There is much more that is groundbreaking that I believe most current works do not touch on.

bap2.jpg
 
here is a summary of William Wall, via Wikipedia

William Wall (6 January 1647 – 13 November 1728) was a British priest in the Church of England who wrote extensively on the doctrine of infant baptism. He was generally an apologist for the English church and sought to maintain peace between it and the Anabaptists.

He was born in Kent, got his BA from Queen's College, Oxford in 1667 and his MA in 1670. After ordination, he took the living in Shoreham, Kent, which he worked at until his death. According to his obituary in the Gentleman's Magazine in 1784, he was offered more lucrative positions, but he refused out of loyalty to his parish.

His contribution to theology came in the form of A History of Infant Baptism in 1705. David Russen had written an anti-Baptist tract entitled Fundamentals without Foundation in 1703, and this had been answered by the Baptist Joseph Stennett in An Answer to Mr. David Russen's Book in 1704. Wall, who knew and respected Stennett, consulted with him and then answered with A History of Infant Baptism. Wall was answered in turn by John Gale in Reflections on Mr. Wall's History in 1711. Wall's book was enormously successful. He cited numerous patristic sources for the practice of infant baptism and yet pleaded with his opponents not to allow such a minor point to tear the church apart. His work was expanded in a second edition in 1707 and a third edition of 1720. Oxford awarded him the Doctor of divinity degree in 1720 for the work, and John Wesley excerpted it in his own works on the question. Despite being the primary voice against Baptist causes, Wall was sincere in his wishes for unity, and he met with his opponent, Mr. Gale, in 1719.

Wall's wife, Catharine (née Davenant) died at the age of 48, and Wall himself died at an advanced age and was buried in his parish.
 
Tyrese,
Just understand that everyone comes to an evaluation of data points already armed with an approach. If the study of history shows us anything, it is that people with widely divergent starting points can interpret the same data in antithetical ways.

Some baptist-minded folks think the weight of historical data can be read in support of their views; or that the best evidence for infant baptism is too late, implying defection from a purer estate, etc. Ultimately, neither side in the debate is willing to grant "authority" to whatever can be gleaned from church tradition.

In the end, the root issue historically is: how disinterestedly am I prepared to judge not only the data, but my approach to the data as well? That is, what are my deepest commitments that actually inform the direction and the manner in which I approach historic data? And how do my impressions/conclusions mesh with other negotiable and non-negotiable commitments in the area of theology? It is vital to have a good philosophy of history, and to have one that is properly in subordination to a good philosophy of theology.

We find similar questions related to the root hermeneutical issue (that is, handling the biblical data). The reason that baptists and non-baptists have different conclusions is in no small part the result of significant differences in understanding how to read the Bible.

Despite our differences (baptist and non-baptist), we are thankful that often we come to stand on and defend the same most-vital terrain (e.g. TULIP). But when you compare how we arrived there, it is clear that the two approaches are not the same; nor will our respective departure trajectories necessarily take us together to further, mutual-defense positions.



My point in all this is to say: it is of utmost concern that as you evaluate data, you go slowly enough to accurately judge the nature of the effects the data has on you as the evaluator. People who make uncritical leaps into studies of "new things" are too often unprepared for inevitable unsettling effects of their study. And the more unprepared they are, the more likely they are to find themselves unmoored from solid footing. This is often the case with sheltered kids who go off to the secular, atheistic-dominated university. They do not know how to evaluate contradictory data; they feel forced into either an anti-intellectual hardening their old positions (though unable to reconcile lots of new data); or jettisoning them in favor of the new paradigm they have just been confronted with (the irony being, they accept the new model with just as much blind dogmatism as the old, and often hold it with greater tenacity).

Your opinions could change, or stay the same with an examination of historical data on this topic. The really important thing is to know as much about why that might be, as about the facts themselves.
 
I hear you, Tyrese. I spent three and a half years attending a Reformed church (OURC) as a credo baptist. Thankfully, they were dear brothers and very kind to me. (Thank you, Dr. Clark!) During that time I read over 1500 pages of books—from Jewett to Calvin—for and against infant inclusion. Then it just clicked, not by way of studying baptism directly, but through growing in my understanding of the invisible / visible distinctions in the Church and the history of redemption. Most of my troubles, I now believe, had to do with talking past one another about terms like "covenant" and how we describe relationships to it.

Back then, I took everything in an ultimate, eschatalogical sense. When I said "Christian" I meant one who was *definitely* regenerate, and so on. But Reformed people switch between describing people we *hope* are truly regenerate as part of "the Church" and those who are ultimately saved as "the Church". They distinguish the two in their minds, but not always in their speech, which can be confusing for a credo baptist who rightly fears any sign that true believers may be lost. However, this is the pattern of speech that Reformed people believe is scriptural.

I look back on my credo baptist days as being "eschatologically anxious", trying to pin things down in the here-and-now that only God knows and shall reveal at judgment, namely, exactly who is regenerate. Anyways...

Some resources that were helpful to me were:

Francis Schaeffer — On Baptism
John Owen — On Baptism
Warfield — Polemics of Infant Baptism

Here is something I wrote about my conclusions:
Infant Baptism: Bogus or Blessing

And finally, this book by J.V. Fesko is an excellent treatment of both the historical and theological arguments for child-inclusion in the visible covenant people of God:
Word, Water, and Spirit
 
As far as I can tell, if we're just considering the post-apostolic church, there is relative silence until c. 200 AD (3rd century). The 2nd century evidence is ambiguous and scholars tend to interpret it according to their interpretation of the NT. Tertullian, however, clearly acknowledged the existence of infant baptism c. 200 in De Baptismo. Irenaeus, in Adv Haer. 3.39 might mention it but that's disputed. Cyprian required it in 250 in Ep. 64. Origen referred to it in his Homily on Luke 14. The big modern debate is between Aland and Jeremias and that was facilitated by Karl Barth's renunciation of infant baptism and adoption of the Baptist view.

For a biblical case see "A Contemporary Defense of Infant Baptism" and Dennis Johnson's essay, "Infant Baptism: How My Mind Has Changed" and a closely related essay On the New Covenant.
 
William Wall's book shows pretty clearly that the "practice" of infant baptism was fairly standard in the early church. He cites Origen as having said that he was told by the Apostle John that Jesus baptized infants.

The knock against some of the practices of infant baptism is that many of those who favored it believed in baptismal regeneration. That is a different discussion, however, from the question of "Did the early church practice it?" I believe Wall's books shows that to be the case.

It appears that this book is available for free at google.com/books.
 
Don Kistler said:
William Wall's book shows pretty clearly that the "practice" of infant baptism was fairly standard in the early church. He cites Origen as having said that he was told by the Apostle John that Jesus baptized infants.

The knock against some of the practices of infant baptism is that many of those who favored it believed in baptismal regeneration. That is a different discussion, however, from the question of "Did the early church practice it?" I believe Wall's books shows that to be the case.

It appears that this book is available for free at google.com/books.
Click to expand...

excellent thoughts!
 
After thoroughly studying this issue ive come to a solid Baptist position because of the biblical evidence (which is the priority). Of course we all have differing beliefs, but I believe scripture is pretty clear on this topic. One thing im always careful of as a Baptist is saying that my paedobaptist brethren are in sin because they baptise there little ones. I only call sin what the Bible clearly calls sin. Although im a Baptist because my Bible tells me that I should ,history is still very interesting to me. Thanks for the recommendations, I will try to get copies of some of the material presented. Thanks.
 
@ Josh. The Westminster confession or the 1689 may give me the freedom to call infant baptism sin/not sin, but my Bible doesnt. I mean I could be wrong, but if God doesnt call somethig sin, than neither should I. I dont believe I have the authority to do so. Presbyterians are dear brothers that I wouldnt dare throw out of the kingdom. With that being said I cant wait to read the two documents presented by constantlyreforming. But again because of the lack of biblical evidence I highly doubt I will change views. I just really wanna read these.
 
Tyrese said:
@ Josh. The Westminster confession or the 1689 may give me the freedom to call infant baptism sin/not sin, but my Bible doesnt. I mean I could be wrong, but if God doesnt call somethig sin, than neither should I. I dont believe I have the authority to do so. Presbyterians are dear brothers that I wouldnt dare throw out of the kingdom. With that being said I cant wait to read the two documents presented by constantlyreforming. But again because of the lack of biblical evidence I highly doubt I will change views. I just really wanna read these.
Click to expand...


I believe that we may have to make judgment calls on whether a sin is a sin if it is not in scripture, according to how the scriptures typify sin, combined with the nature of God and how He relates to man.




For instance, is it a sin for a man to live with a man as a life partner, if he does not lie with a man in a sexual way as it is called sin in scripture? Yet they consider themselves to be married, soul mates, all the usual....yet avoid what the Bible considers to be blatant sin?

This is an argument that was presented to me by a friend at one point.
 
Don Kistler said:
The knock against some of the practices of infant baptism is that many of those who favored it believed in baptismal regeneration.
Click to expand...

This may be just for me, but reading the theology of the church fathers regarding infant baptism (as a whole from all the various fathers in the first 4-5 centuries), it's always seemed to me like they were basically trying to understand the theology behind a practice that was established and they were convinced was of apostolic origin. Almost as if they were sure of the 'what' (that it was practiced from apostolic times) but had a hard time understanding the 'why'. The various justifications for the practice, the introduction of the notion of baptismal regeneration, etc. all seemed to me to come from them trying to come to grips with the theological foundation.
 
@ Constantlyreforming. You got me there. I think your right. I also had to think to myself that saying infant baptism is wrong, is almost the same thing as saying its a sin. I still try to be gracious about the matter.
 
Tyrese said:
@ Constantlyreforming. You got me there. I think your right. I also had to think to myself that saying infant baptism is wrong, is almost the same thing as saying its a sin. I still try to be gracious about the matter.
Click to expand...

I was a Confessional Baptist for 30 years. I defended the position vigourously during that time. The issue for me was Covenant Theology and the Covenant of Grace. It was also historical documents. I do not believe in Solo Scriptura. I believe in Sola Scriptura and there is a difference.

The main question for me came down to does the Mosaic Covenant and all the other Covenants after the Covenant Works contain and element of the Covenant of works or are they purely an administration of the Covenant of Grace. Does the Mosaic Covenant operate similar to the New Covenant. How does Jeremiah 31 play into this situation. How does Leviticus 18:5 and Romans 10:5 relate? I believed that God started with the Covenant of Works and then the proceeding Covenants were mixtures of the Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace till we get to the New Covenant. The New Covenant was purely the Covenant of Grace. I no longer understand that to be. I believe that the Mosaic Covenant is purely an administration of the Covenant of Grace and I have blogged about it a bit.

If infant baptism is sin it is because it is a violation of the Regulative Principle of Worship. If it isn't than the WCF is correct in Chapter 28:5.

V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.
Click to expand...
 
For the sake of accuracy here is Wall's actual citation of Origen (History of Infant Baptism, 4th ed., 1:83):

For this also it was, that the church had from the apostles a tradition [or order] to give baptism even to infants; for they, to whom the divine mysteries were committed, knew that there is in all persons the natural pollution of sin, which must be done away by water. (Commentary on Romans)​

Several things are worth noting here.

1. Origen originally wrote his Romans commentary in Greek, of which only a few fragments are extant (none of which are originals). The various Latin renderings of his works for which earlier Greek copies are still available are notorious for containing obvious interpolations by their various translators. Beginning with Erasmus, virtually all modern textual scholars attribute the Latin version of Origen's Romans commentary as being, at best, a rather crude paraphrase of the original by the late 4th century Italian monk Rufinus.

2. The Latin word which Wall ascribed an alternate meaning of "order" is "traditionem."

3. The author of the text in question claimed that the reason the apostles had handed down this tradition was because the water of baptism washes away original sin.
 
Phil D. said:
3. The author of the text in question claimed that the reason the apostles had handed down this tradition was because the water of baptism washes away original sin.
Click to expand...


Because it is so very difficult to always understand what the early writers meant through some of their writings, I have always wondered if what was insinuated by "washes away original sin" is something far different....

just thinking out loud..
 
@ Kevin. I never responded to that comment by Joshua because I think he knew the question I was asking. Maybe in the future I will need to be more specific to avoid any confusion.
 
One of the things I was recently reflecting on is sort of the latent assumption we have that information traveled in the same manner that it does today. We have many media by which men and women and children throughout the world may learn about things very rapidly. Nevertheless, we know of many remote areas where information travels slowly and customs are still preserved for centuries.

Thinking about this weakens any argument that paedobaptism could suddenly appear on the scene of Church history without any indication that it was an innovation and contrary to Apostolic teaching. The argument that the Church began with the convictions of modern day antipaedobaptists and so quickly degenerated to include the baptism of infants does not square with the light of nature. It's not a Scriptural argument for paedobaptism but it does militate against any theory that it was an innovation because there is no historical record.

Now, some will counter that other doctrines were seemingly lost for some time but, avoiding particulars for the moment, stop and consider the difference between a doctrine and a visible practice. It is quite easy to forget why certain things are performed but is nigh impossible to forget that there was once a time when we only baptized professors. Many, for instance, could not articulate the why of wine during the Lord's Supper in the 19th Century but it did not go unnoticed for even a second when ministers started serving grape juice.

For good or ill, visible practices have a shelf life that long outlasts the why of their performance and I've never seen an adequate explanation for the universal practice of paedobaptism that squares with this reality combined with the fact that information traveled so slowly in the first couple of millenia of the Church's history.
 
Don Kistler said:
William Wall's book shows pretty clearly that the "practice" of infant baptism was fairly standard in the early church. He cites Origen as having said that he was told by the Apostle John that Jesus baptized infants.
Click to expand...

Do you have a page number or quotation for that citation?
 
I'm afraid I don't. It's been years since I read the work. I'm going on memory, which at my age is always suspect.
I think I also read the same thing in Samuel Cradock's work "Knowledge and Practice," in the section in infant baptism.
But, again, I'm not able to give you a page number. And even if I did, it might be from a different edition than the one on
Google books. Sorry, guys.

I did find the material by Cradock, and here is a portion of it:

The fifth and last argument I shall bring for infant baptism shall be the practice of the church in ancient times and near to the apostolic time. And for proofs of this nature, I shall take my rise from the time of Augustine without looking lower, and so ascend toward the days of the apostles. First then for Augustine, who flourished about the year of Christ 410. He is positive and expressly for it, Epistle 3, ad Volusian. Somewhat before Augustine lived St. Jerome, anno 400, who is clearly for infants’ baptism, Epistle ad Laetam.
Before him lived St. Ambrose, about the year 370, who, speaking of the Pelagian heresies (who published among other things that the hurt which Adam did to his posterity was “example nontransit” rather by giv¬ing them such a bad example of disobedience than by conveying unto them any natural sinfulness), thereupon infers that if this were true it would prove a very nullifying of the baptism of infants.
We ascend now to Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, who lived in the 3rd century, about the year 250, who was as great a stickler for infant bap¬tism in his time as any who succeeded him. Epistle ad Fidum lib. 3 Epistle 8. “If,” he said, “remissions of sins are given to the greatest offenders, none of which, if they afterwards believe, are excluded from the grace of baptism, how much rather should infants be admitted to it, who being newly born have not sinned at all, save that they have contracted from Adam that original guilt followeth every man by nature.” Nor was this Cyprian’s opinion only, but the unanimous consent of 66 African bish¬ops convened in council by whom it was declared (as he there related) that baptism was to be administered as well to infants as men of riper years.
Before him lived Origen, about the year 220, who plainly tells us that the apostolic church accepted as tradition the baptism of infants, and further shows that it was administered to them in reference to original sin, which if it were not in infants the grace of baptism might be thought superfluous. And thus far we can go to show the ancient practice of the church concerning infant baptism.





timmopussycat said:
Don Kistler said:
William Wall's book shows pretty clearly that the "practice" of infant baptism was fairly standard in the early church. He cites Origen as having said that he was told by the Apostle John that Jesus baptized infants.
Click to expand...

Do you have a page number or quotation for that citation?
Click to expand...
 
Stephen L Smith said:
Hi Randy, could you clarify. Are you a paedobaptist?
Click to expand...

Yes, I came to understand some things about the Covenants that I had never understood before. I was debating a paedo understanding that looked more like a Baptist theology concerning the Mosaic Covenant. I use to believe that the Mosaic Covenant and New Covenant were very different in substance and that the Mosaic had a works paradigm to it that the New Covenant didn't. After being challenged for a few years I came to understand that what I was debating against was Klineanism (teachings of Meredith Kline) and not Reformed Covenant Theology. Now Kline has the Covenant of Works down but I believe that his thoughts concerning the law and Gospel in the Mosaic are a bit off. If Kline was correct and that there is a works substance or Reinstatement (republication) of the Covenant of Works then I would still be a Baptist I think. But I do not think this any longer. The substance of the Mosaic and New Covenants are the same. Justification is by grace alone through faith alone in the Old and New Covenant and the blessings of that substance have not changed from the Old to the New. I also finally read Jeremiah chapter 31 in context with Jeremiah 32 as Paul Manata asked me to do years ago. And it all started to fit together just a bit more clearly.

If you have any questions or challenges for me just email me Stephen. Puritancovenanter at msn dot com.


I posted a blog about it here.
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/mosaic-covenant-same-substance-new-724/

And here is when I announced my change of view.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/kline-works-merit-pardigm-70896/#post908561
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

scottmaciver
  • Locked
Infant Baptism
Replies
0
Views
1K
scottmaciver
scottmaciver
Z
  • Locked
Infant Baptism?
2
Replies
55
Views
15K
toddpedlar
toddpedlar
Romans922
  • Locked
Infant Baptism????
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
Larry Hughes
L
thistle93
  • Locked
infant baptism questions?
Replies
2
Views
2K
Marrow Man
Marrow Man
amishrockstar
  • Locked
Establishing Infant Baptism
Replies
29
Views
5K
matt01
M
Back
Top