C
ChristMySavior
Guest
Preach it brother!
- Status
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
Yes and no. If we assume that the practice was universal from NT onward, then no. If we assume that it was universal by the 3rd or 4th century then yes. By the time of the Reformation, it was certainly the universal practice of the church. It doesn’t surprise me that the major Reformers kept the practice just as Luther and Calvin’s mariology was not nearly as divergent as that of their spiritual progeny. But that only make sense since divergence widens over time, and as the Reformation gained momentum, it’s not surprising to see that even Protestant traditions were questioned by later Protestants.
The specific historical question I’m interested in is whether or not there is evidence that infant baptism goes back to the apostles. I don’t think there is. That said, the practice was certainly early in the West and relatively widespread by the second century or so. But it did take a while to catch on the East. It’s interesting that Cyril of Jerusalem betrays no knowledge of the practice, which is odd given his relative proximity to the apostolic age, his location, and all those catechetical lectures he wrote specifically to those being baptized. Of course, that’s an argument from silence–but it’s a silence that “says something” in my opinion. Like other Catholic doctrines, I think infant baptism is one that “developed.” But certainly it was an early development.
In any event, however the historical question is resolved, the theological question is what ultimately matters to me. I don’t make claims for the infallibility of Luther and Calvin and disagreeing with them isn’t a problem. If they were wrong, they were wrong. They ought to be held to the same standard by Protestants and we hold Rome if we’re going to consistently apply the sola scriptura principle.
But recall that he first commanded that we “make disciples” of all nations. The “baptizing them” part comes after the “make disciples” part. It seems to me that if you first baptize and then disciple, you miss what Jesus put in the emphatic position, namely, “making disciples.” When Jesus makes a disciple, it’s always an invitation/command to “follow him.” That’s not something an infant can respond to. Further, the command to baptize means “baptize,” which means “immersion.” I don’t want to be legalistic about this as a requirement–that’s not my point. Rather, if the original audience would have understood the command to “baptize” as the command to immerse people in water, how likely is it that they would have practiced immersion on infants? Again, don’t hear me as asserting that Jesus was commanding a specific “mode” of baptism; rather I’m just trying to discern what would have been the original understanding of that command.
That begs a number of questions. Is it possible that God can be merciful and gracious to children without baptizing them? I think so. But if one has the prior understanding that baptism is the means by which sinners are saved and grace is effected, then I can understand the urgency to baptize. But if we reject baptismal regeneration, then the urgency to baptize infants disappears. (Where do we find anyone in the NT trying to get the infants baptized before it’s too late? Remember the age. Infant mortality rates were very high back then and childbirth was a risky venture for women. One would think that if the NT church though baptism was the means by which people were saved, then we’d see all kinds of examples of Christians trying to get vulnerable people baptized ASAP. But no such urgency exists. I find Paul’s comment, “I was not sent to baptize but the preach the gospel,” to be utterly inexplicable in light of theology of baptismal regeneration. Had Paul thought hat baptism was what make us Christians, we would expect to see him putting a lot more emphasis on his baptismal ministry.
Continued…
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
And how does infant baptism follow from this fact exactly? Connect the dots for me.
Again, connect the dots for me between this saying of Jesus and infant baptism. In fact, couldn’t one make the case that because “such as these” are already in the kingdom, that they have no need for baptism?
Paul likens baptism to a funeral. We are “buried” with Christ in baptism. Our “old self” is dead and we rise to “newness of life.” What “old self” does the infant need to die to? They barely have memories.
But what is promised exactly here? Is it not the Holy Spirit? The object of the promise is the Holy Spirit which is for “you and your children.” It doesn’t say that baptism is the promise.
I, for one.
What evidence is there that this baptism of “households” included infants? We also see that “households” spoke in tongues. Does that mean the babies did too? Is it not more likely that it was the believers in those households who were baptized?
If that’s your evidence, then I’m not persuaded. Like I said before, at least there’s a precedent in scripture for baby dedications. That’s far more than anyone can say for the baptism of infants.
I
inkaneer
Guest
Look pal, I could care less about what you think happen way back when. I asked you for evidentiary proof of your position just as I gave proof of mine. You gave no proof you only regurgitated your opinion. That is not good enough by no means. Those writers I listed were from the East. Polycarp, who became the bishop of Smyrna, was a disciple of an Apostle [the Apostle John] and He was baptized as an infant. Now you can’t get any closer to the Apostles than that. So this idea of yours that the practice of infant baptism “took a while to catch on in the East” is bogus. As for Cyril of Jerusalem not saying anything about infant baptism he also does not say anything against it. So your arguement from silence is answered by the flip side argument from silence. But Cyril of Jerusalem did say something about the necessity of Baptism for salvation and any exceptions to Baptism. Guess what? Cyril does not make any exceptions for children. Cyril writes:
“If any man does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation. The only exception is the martyrs, who even without water will receive the kingdom.” (Catechetical Lectures 3:10 [A.D. 350])
So according to Cyril the only people who can be saved without baptism are martyrs who are not baptized. There is no exception for children, infants or toddlers.
Now where is the evidentiary proof that infant baptism was not part of Apostolic teaching? We await your evidence.
C
ChristMySavior
Guest
Miguel,
While some of you arguments are good ones, you keep implying the same things, just in different words. You say that baby dedications have more of a scriptural basis than infant baptisms, yet you overlook and utterly deny the importance of baptism which is not only professed within the NT but throughout the post-NT era by the Church fathers. You still have not commented on any of the Church fathers quotes we have posted and you go by Cyril when we have given you earlier fathers to look at. It appears to me that you simply just have a closed mind. You know what you know, you think what you think, and will not take any objections.
Baby dedications do nothing, that is an OT law which was only for first-born males nonetheless. Baptism brings about salvation. The NT explicitly states that. The NT does not contradict itself. The passage in 1 Peter IS in its proper context when St. Peter says: “Baptism now saves you.” You are denying this and relying on as inkaneer says “a regurgitation of your opinion.”
When you can provide some solid evidence that infant baptism was denied in the post-NT era, I will take a look (not some Paul Jewitt guy either). On a last note, first you asked where in the post-NT era infant baptism was mentioned and we provided that to you. You did not at all comment on that, but you avoided the rebuttal and then said where in the NT is infant baptism. I would like to just point out to you that baby dedications are not in the NT either except for Jesus’ presentation in the temple. You are not consistent.
Blessings
While some of you arguments are good ones, you keep implying the same things, just in different words. You say that baby dedications have more of a scriptural basis than infant baptisms, yet you overlook and utterly deny the importance of baptism which is not only professed within the NT but throughout the post-NT era by the Church fathers. You still have not commented on any of the Church fathers quotes we have posted and you go by Cyril when we have given you earlier fathers to look at. It appears to me that you simply just have a closed mind. You know what you know, you think what you think, and will not take any objections.
Baby dedications do nothing, that is an OT law which was only for first-born males nonetheless. Baptism brings about salvation. The NT explicitly states that. The NT does not contradict itself. The passage in 1 Peter IS in its proper context when St. Peter says: “Baptism now saves you.” You are denying this and relying on as inkaneer says “a regurgitation of your opinion.”
When you can provide some solid evidence that infant baptism was denied in the post-NT era, I will take a look (not some Paul Jewitt guy either). On a last note, first you asked where in the post-NT era infant baptism was mentioned and we provided that to you. You did not at all comment on that, but you avoided the rebuttal and then said where in the NT is infant baptism. I would like to just point out to you that baby dedications are not in the NT either except for Jesus’ presentation in the temple. You are not consistent.
Blessings
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
Thanks for the compliments. I don’t think I’m denying the importance of baptism. If you got that impression, please forgive my lack of clarity. I think baptism is important. I just don’t see that it’s for infants. Also, I am aware of the citations from the church fathers and am doing quite a bit more study on them. I don’t want to comment directly on them until I’m done with that process. I didn’t mean to give the impression that I’m ignoring them or anyone here who cites them favorably.
Hold the phone. I didn’t deny there are other fathers to look at. Talking about A doesn’t imply that I don’t also believe in the existence of B, C, D and the rest of the alphabet. Recall that I am not denying that infant baptism is a relatively early tradition and that there are plenty of quotations from the fathers that attest to that fact. What I do deny is that the practice itself can be traced back to the apostles. When time permits, I’ll endeavor to argue my case more thoroughly.
And I suppose you’re completely open to the possibility that your church is not in fact infallible and is actually teaching the wrong thing about baptism, right?
I’m not claiming that baby dedications “do” anything. I am claiming that they have a scriptural precedent. That doesn’t mean we have to do them. Nor does it mean we can’t. But do you have any biblical evidence that baptisms were performed on infants? Or is this simply an inference you make from other beliefs you hold about baptism? As for 1 Peter, “baptism saves you now,” I think the context of that verse has to be kept in view, especially the part about the “pledge of new conscience” and “not the removal of dirt.” On the one hand, Peter is quick to qualify what he says by telling us it’s not the water (which removes the dirt) that saves. I take that to mean that there is nothing in the physical act itself that saves. Contrast that to the Catholic view that water, the Trinitarian formula and proper intention on the part of the minister is needed for the baptism to be valid and therefore to effect the grace it purportedly effects. It sounds to me that Peter’s use of the word “baptism” is shorthand for the commitment that it symbolizes and thus what saves isn’t the water but rather the faith that stands behind the entire event. In any event, I’d call your attention to two other details in this passage. First, Peter is addressing those who are mature enough to make the “pledge”. Second he’s also assuming that those being baptized will be immersed in the water–not only because that’s what the word “baptism” means, but also because that’s how “dirt” is removed. Now I think I’m fairly open minded. So I am open to suggestions for how this passage could include infants. But it given the fact that infants can’t make the “pledge of a good conscience,” (which has not yet developed in them) and that it would be dangerous to immerse them under water, I think it prima facie unlikely that Peter was addressing his words to those were about to baptize their babies. It makes far more sense to me that he was addressing his words to those who were already disciples of Jesus Christ. How do you read it?
.
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
Paul Jewett is a professor of systematic theology at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA. His book, “Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace” is a tour de force defense of believers baptism. It’s not my purpose to defend his book. You can read it and draw your own conclusions.
I asked for no such thing. I have access to the same quotes as you do. I’ve read them, but I don’t see that any of them alone or all of them together demonstrate that the practice of infant baptism can be traced back to the apostles.
You’re right. I did not respond to the quotations from the church fathers. And I don’t plan to at the moment for none of them prove that the practice of the later church can be traced back to the apostolic church. But more on this anon.
So they’re not there, but they’re there? You’re contradicting yourself in the same sentence. Further, I said there is biblical precedent for them. I’m not saying that there are any passages, Old or New that prescribe them for the church today. But nor are they forbidden. So if a church decides to adopt the practice it can at least point to examples from scripture. That’s not something you can say about infant baptism. Baptism is mentioned a lot in the NT. But I’m not aware of any place that explicitly describes or prescribes the baptism of an infant. (For that matter, there’s no “thou shalt not baptize babies” either). But if we are going to norm our practice by what we find in the NT, then it seems to me that we should baptize disciples rather than conclude that baptism makes one a disciple
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
After a comment like this, is there even any point having a discussion with you?
That’s a fair request. But I’m going to say, “wait” as I’m not able to do the topic justice, nor will I be able to for a while (leaving on vacation soon).
Was he really baptized as an infant? Does he say that? You mentioned the quote about his “eighty and six” years of service. But then you draw the inference that this must mean he was baptized as an infant. But is that a necessary inference?
Let me get this straight. You’re assuming that Polycarp was baptized as an infant (even though he never claimed this) and then, on this basis, dismissing the idea that the practice took a while to catch on in the East, when you haven’t established that it was the practice of the East in the first place at the time Polycarp wrote. I’m not going to refute this now. I just want to establish first that this is your claim and the basis for your claim so that I don’t misrepresent you later.
So long as it’s not forbidden by Cyril we can assume that he thought it was okay? Is that your view?
Is it possible that Cyril doesn’t mention infants here because he was addressing his remarks to mature catechumens, so that, contextually speaking, we might plausibly conclude that Cyril only has those capable of sin in mind? (I’m just asking if that’s possible). Put another way, if Cyril believed that baptism was necessary for salvation does it follow that he practiced infant baptism? (I ask, because if it does follow, then it truly is amazing that in all he has to say about baptism, there’s not a word about the baptism of infants.)
Are you asking me to prove a negative? If so, then I concede that I have no hope of doing so. Since we both agree that infant baptism was practiced in the post-apostolic church, there’s no need to hash those texts over and over again. But do any of those texts say that the practice (of infant baptism) goes all the way back to the apostles? I ask because it seems to me that you’re citing texts from the ECFs along with the unproven assumption that if it was their practice, then they must have received that tradition from the apostles themselves. So far, I’m not seeing the evidence for it. Is that why you’ve shifted the burden of proof to me to demonstrate that the apostles did not baptize infants? (I submit, I can’t prove they didn’t. But if my not being able to prove a negative constitutes proof of a positive, then I’m afraid there’s no point in having this discussion.)
Augustine, for example, claims infant baptism goes back to the apostles. But all he offers for proof is the writings of Cyprian of Carthage, who lived 250 years after the apostles. Does Augustine give us sufficient reason for his historical claim? If not, should we take Augustine’s word for it because he’s so often right about so many other things? Or is it possible that Augustine is simply making an assumption about the antiquity of the practice, an assumption for which he lacks adequate historical evidence?
I’m going to have to stop here. Let me do my research, think over your comments and your arguments, and as time permits I’ll get back to you. Thank you for your time.
I
inkaneer
Guest
That’s a fair request. But I’m going to say, “wait” as I’m not able to do the topic justice, nor will I be able to for a while (leaving on vacation soon).
So then when you posted your comments that Baptism "…did take a while to catch on the East. " you did not have any proof for that comment. Sort of shooting from the hip theologically? Dangerous to do that.
Quote:
You gave no proof you only regurgitated your opinion. That is not good enough by no means. Those writers I listed were from the East. Polycarp, who became the bishop of Smyrna, was a disciple of an Apostle [the Apostle John] and He was baptized as an infant.
Can a pagan provide the same service to the Lord as a Christian? Polycarp was martyred at the age of 86. 86 years of service to the Lord in a life of 86 years doesn’t leave a lot of room for baptism at an age other than as a very young infant.
You are the one who claim, with apparently no supporting evidence, that infant baptism did not catch on in the East until later. I offered Polycarp, a disciple of an apostle, who was martyred at 86 and who, it was said of him, labored 86 years in service of the Lord as evidence that infant baptism did not take a long time to catch on in the East. To further contradict your unfounded assertion, Origen tells us that the Apostles taught infant baptism. He writes in *Commentaries on Romans *5:9 in about 248 A.D. :
“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants.”
Augustine would also write that infant baptism was the teaching of the apostles:
“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
So the witness testimony is that infant baptism was taught by the Apostles. Now when you get back from your vacation you post your evidence. But I got to tell you. I really don’t think you will.
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
I looked below, and could not find any meaningful response explaining the evident hostility in your remarks. Most Christians I know, in fact most people I know, would conclude that an apology is the appropriate response, but I digress…
What I claimed was that, if Paul Jewett is right, then infant baptism took a while to catch on in the East and if you wish to explore that further, then go ahead and read the book. What I’m not willing to do is reproduce his entire argument here, which I think is against the rules, since it might involve copyright violations. That said, I’m happy to outline the case he develops for this claim, but that’s going to take a while, as the argument is complex and putting it into my own words will take some time.
That’s not really an answer to my question. Is it a necessary inference that Polycarp was baptized as an infant given what he says? Answering a question with a question is evasive at best. I have no problem with idea that Polycarp was born into a Christian home and at some point, perhaps quite early in his life, he received baptism. For him, retrospectively, to have viewed himself as a Christian for the entirety of his life doesn’t necessitate the assumption that he was baptized as an infant. So the best you could argue is that Polycarp probably was baptized based on the quotation you provided. But you made no such qualification. You fudged the evidence and said he was baptized as an infant, despite the fact that you don’t really know that for sure. That’s not honest.
I mentioned Augustine in my previous post but also pointed out that his evidence was weak. Just because Augustine made the claim doesn’t make the claim true. Or put another way, his claim is only as strong as the evidence he provides and he’s got nothing earlier than the middle of the third century to support his claim. Much the same can be said of earlier claims. What we find is the assumption that if it’s the present practice, it must have been an earlier practice. But such claims have to be examined carefully. Augustine also argued for the practice of giving communion to infants and likewise thought (or assumed) that the practice went all the way back to the apostles. But that practice never really caught on in the West. But if you ask the Eastern Orthodox and (I think even some of the Eastern rite uniate churches), they’ll tell you the practice is at least ancient if not apostolic. But once again, does the evidence support that claim?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but appears that you’re quoting isolated texts (probably from an anthology of patristic texts such as Jurgens’ Faith of the Early Fathers), noting the date of the quotation and then inferring from those dates (some earlier than others) that the practice goes back to the apostles. But what you’re not asking is whether or not those church fathers were in the position to know this for sure, whether or not the claims were indicative of a regional or local practice rather than a universal one and whether or not the practice even makes sense theologically. You gave a brief biblical justification for that and I responded to those claims. Were you going to interact with those response or not? Or is this just going to be a debate about history?
As for me, I’m interested in pursuing both angles. Here is what I think my burden is. If the practice of infant baptism is relatively early and widespread (which it is), then I have to explain how it is possible that the church went so drastically wrong so early on. To that end, I need to do my historical homework in order to figure out just when the church began to get off track (assuming that infant baptism is wrong). Your burden, it seems to me, is to argue why the practice is theologically permissible and demonstrate that the historical evidence more likely points to an apostolic origin than an early church development. To that end, you need to do more than cut-and-paste citations from Jurgens, but also argue why those historical claims are in fact credible and how they fit in with what we find (or don’t find) in scripture.
Taking off for vacation after school today. Be back in March.
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
First, let’s be clear about the “claim” that he’s trying to substantiate. It is not the claim that infant baptism wasn’t practiced in the early church. Nor is it the claim that the practice does not go back to the apostles. It’s the claim that there is no evidence that the practice goes back to the apostles. Jewett’s method is to work backward from the Fourth Century to try and trace the doctrine back to the apostolic times. He uses the analogy of tracing a stream back to its headwaters. Since it is readily admitted by everyone that infant baptism was the universal practice of the church by at least the middle of the fourth century, he takes Augustine as his starting point and works backwards from there. To summarize his findings, the stream “dries up” early in the second century and the most the paedobaptist can do is infer an earlier practice from a later practice which is nothing more than an argument from silence. There’s far more to his book than the historical analysis, but in the interest of space, I’ll confine my remarks to the historical question.
The first explicit mention of infant baptism is found in Tertullian (On Baptism, CH 18) and there the reason for the practice is questioned. Tertullian is believed to have composed his treatise on baptism between 200 and 206 AD. That’s not a very auspicious beginning for the doctrine when the first mention of it is tantamount to a denial of its validity!
One might draw a comparison between Tertullian’s questioning of the practice and Paul’s questioning of baptism for the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:29 (which, ironically, has more scriptural witness than infant baptism!).
Actually, you have the much tougher burden of proof. If yours is the claim that the practice goes back to the apostles, then produce the evidence for this claim. I’m betting you can’t do it. Why? Because “the streams dry up” long before you get to the NT church.
That was the question posed to Cyprian of Carthage around 252-253 AD. But stop and think about the implications of such a question arising in the first place. If Cyprian has to convene a council of 66 bishops to look into the question of when and why infants should be baptized, then how confident can we really be of the apostolic origins of the practice?
I have to stop here, but I’ll respond to the rest of your argument as time permits…
I
inkaneer
Guest
You wrote, “It is not the claim that infant baptism wasn’t practiced in the early church. Nor is it the claim that the practice does not go back to the apostles. **It’s the claim that there is no evidence that the practice goes back to the apostles.” ** I write, I take it Peter’s words in Acts 2:39 is not good enough for Mr. Jewitt. Peter said, “For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.” What promise was made to children? The same that was made to the adults Peter was talking to. And what was that promise? Verse 38 tells us it was forgiveness of sin and receipt of the Holy Spirit. And how was that accomplished? It was accomplished by repenting and being baptized. But Mr. Jewitt will say that infants cannot sin let alone repent. But they do have original sin and can be baptized.
As for Cyprian of Carthage the issue he had with Fidus was not whether infants should be baptized but WHEN. Fidus’ position in the argument shows conclusively that the church equated Baptism with the OT practice of circumcision using Paul’s words in Col. 2:11–12. Fidus argued that infants should not be baptized before the eighth day because circumcision was done on the eighth day [See Leviticus 12:2–3]. Now compare Cyprian’s remark to Fidus with Leviticus 12:2–3:
"1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 “Say to the people of Israel, If a woman conceives, and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean. 3 And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.” [Leviticus 12:1–3]
Now Cyprian: “As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).
So it wasn’t the issue of whether infants should be baptized. It was whether they should be baptized before the eighth day or should the OT law of circumcision apply. This shows that infant baptism was being done and no one had any objection to it other than it was possibly done too early. That is ample evidence to support it.
Now I ask again what evidence does Mr Jewitt produce to support his position of adult only baptism in the early church? Do you care to answer?
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
I already dealt with this objection in a previous post. The object of promise is the Holy Spirit. This is what is being promised, not baptism. The indirect object is “for you and your children.” Thus the Holy Spirit is what is promised to “you and your children.” Sounds good to me. But nothing here says baptism is “for you and your children.” Besides that, it isn’t clear that the word for children has to include infants. While it is true that all infants are children, it isn’t the case that all children are infants. Since the practice in question has to do with the baptism of infants (presumably too young to willingly enter into baptism), rather than children (who, while young, may still be willing to enter into baptism), the verse, if it has anything to do with baptism at all, hardly constitutes proof of infant baptism.
Read the entire discourse. The discussion not only considered the when, but also the why. The when concerned whether or not to delay baptism until the eighth day. They why concerned, among other things, the alleged parallel to circumcision. Be that as it may, your claim, and I quote that this discussion “shows conclusively that the church equated Baptism with the OT practice of circumcision…” overstates the case dramatically. First, at most you’ve shown that the North African Church held this position at the time of Cyprian. That doesn’t mean that the entire church baptized infants on the grounds of an alleged parallel between circumcision and baptism. Still less does it prove that this was the view of the apostles. That has to be argued, not assumed.
Right you are. And Cyprian called a council of 66 bishops to discuss the matter. Why discuss the matter or even bring up the question at all if, at the time, there was certainty about the practice going back to the apostles? The reply to Fidus was that baptism should not be delayed at all, not even for a day, lest one die prior to baptism. I’ll prescind from commenting on the reason for this decision (namely, that baptism is the means by which we are saved) and simply contrast this urgency to baptize with Paul’s seemingly nonchalant attitude toward baptism that we see in 1 Corinthians. “Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void” (1 Cor 1:16-17). It just doesn’t seem that a guy who can say this about baptism would have agreed with Cyprian that infants ought to baptized ASAP.
Right, and no one here (I or Paul Jewett) is saying otherwise.
Again, no one is denying that infant baptism was practiced at the time in North Africa. What we’re denying is that there is any evidence that the practice can be traced back to the apostles. The mere fact that there are questions about the “when” and the “why” should cause us to question how certain we can be that the practice is of apostolic origin, or else why would these specific questions arise if in fact there was a clear, universal tradition of apostolic origins?
Sure I’ll answer. Mr. Jewett isn’t making the claim you attribute to him and neither am I. Once again, the claim is simply that there is no evidence that the practice goes back to the apostles. He’s not trying to prove the converse, namely, that only adults were baptized. But just because there is no proof that only adults were baptized in the early church (presumably the NT church) does not mean we can safely assume that infants were therefore baptized and that it just so happens that there is no record of such an event.
As I said before, if we’re looking to scripture for our evidence, then there’s actually more evidence for the practice of being baptized on behalf of the dead (as the Mormons do) than infant baptism. Paul mentions this practice in 1 Cor. 15:29 as something in vogue at the time, but with no approbation at all. In other words, some were already off track with respect to baptism in New Testament times. There is, however, no mention of infant baptism, which, in my view, is difficult to explain if the practice was truly apostolic.
F
fred_conty
Guest
Yes, from the documents which are available or that could be produced, it does seem to me at this particular time in history, a real challenge.
However, using our knowledge about history in general, we know that in many historical studies this same problem exists, and that is, absolute proof. But historians do the best that is possible with the facts they have, and therefore leave the rest to rational conclusions for knowledge of the past. Noone had a video camera, a PC, printing press, telecommunications, post office, substantial writing paper, wide spread education, libraries, pony express, Answer Forums, newspapers, very few libraries. What they did have was fires, floods, Roman destruction, and so on, which would vastly restrict important documents to prove anything.
It seems incredible that some people deny the atrocities of the second world war, when we still have eye witnesses and live film to demonstrate their existence. It dosen’t get any better than that. But it still proves that anyone can deny anything just because they want to. Now I’m not referring to you and don’t intend any offense. But it is true about human denial.
The documents we do have are:
BIble, which says that whole households were baptized mentioned earlier which you have no problem with, except that there may not have been children in those households.
Isn’t there a little bit of wiggle room there. Couldn’t there be, just maybe… Just a tiny bit of doubt there, jee wiz ahhhh. And since they didn’t say those households were baptized “except for those infants there in those cribs”, and maybe “those slave babies”. I don’t hear that. I hear the whole household. Yes, the whole household, adults, teenagers, grandpa, junior, and ah yes, even that little one, oh I forgot, the slaves as well, and yes the slave families. Is this an exageration? If it was important to leave the little ones out, then wouldn’t the Bible have mentioned this somewhere? I have to admit with you that there is no absolute, positive, rock solid proof. But if it were important, wouldn’t they be mentioned somewhere to exclude them?
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
I never said there were no children in those households. In fact, it we be most implausible to suggest otherwise. It doesn’t follow, however, that just because households were baptized, that every single member of the household was baptized. (That would be the division fallacy). If you scrutinize the “household” passages mentioned in scripture, you’ll also find other actions attributed to these households that would seem not to envision infants (e.g., speaking in tongues, hearing the word, etc.)
Again, don’t misconstrue my argument. I never said infant baptism isn’t apostolic in origin. I said there is no evidence that it is apostolic in origin. That’s not the same claim. The “household” passages, unfortunately, neither prove nor disprove infant baptism.
Conversely, if infant baptism were the practice of the apostles, wouldn’t we expect to find at least one recorded in scripture? Don’t get me wrong. I’m not drawing the inference that just because there is no mention of the practice, therefore, there was no practice. That would go well beyond the evidence. But the converse is also true. One can’t infer that just because there was no prohibition, that the practice existed.
If I argue that “all the country of Judea” and “all the people of Jerusalem” went out to see John the baptist (cf Mark 1:5-7), does it follow that every single person, including infants, did this? If so, then must we also suppose that even the infants were “confessing” their sins? I ask, because that’s what the text says. But if “all” these people can be baptized by John and “all” were confessing their sins, and if baptism means “immersion” (which it does), how likely is it that we are meant to infer that even infants were immersed in water by John? Likewise, if entire “households” were baptized, does it follow that every single part of that household was baptized?
The fallacy of division is when we attribute to the individual parts what we attribute to the whole. A car can move from A to B. But the motor, without, the rest of the car, isn’t going anywhere. It sounds to me that this is precisely the reasoning your guilty of when you infer that just because entire households were baptized, that every member of that household was baptized, even if we grant that such households likely had children and infants.
So the whole household does not really mean the whole household…
Acts does specify his whole household…
I
inkaneer
Guest
No, what is being promised is salvation through the forgiveness of sin AND the Holy Spirit. And how is that accomplished? Through Baptism. Read it in context. In Acts 2:14-36 Peter gives the first altar call to the crowd. In verse 37 the crowd responds:
"37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”
Seems to me you want to deny the salvific nature of Baptism.
Quote:
It was whether they should be baptized before the eighth day or should the OT law of circumcision apply. This shows that infant baptism was being done and no one had any objection to it other than it was possibly done too early. That is ample evidence to support it.
Tell me what is the point? If there is no evidence to validate any allegation that infants were not baptized and all the evidence points to the fact that infants were baptized then what is the point? So the earliest evidence is from the year 200 AD. SO what? The earliest copy of any book of the Bible is later than that. Does Mr. Jewitt claim there is no evidence that the books of the New Testament were Apostolic? Seems to me he has to if he is to avoid being a hypocrit.
Quote:
Now I ask again what evidence does Mr Jewitt produce to support his position of adult only baptism in the early church? Do you care to answer?
Again see my answer above. If you and Mr. Jewitt want to persist in what amounts to a moot point rthhat is your business but the fact is that all of the evidence points to the fact that infants were baptized and the testimony of those early church writers who did comment on this issue is unanimous that the practice was the result of the Apostles teaching it.
Why look to scripture? There is no evidence that what we call scripture was written by the Apostles. There is no evidence that what we call scripture is inspired. In fact, there is no evidence that what we call scripture is really scripture. Hey, I am just applying the logic exhibited by you and Mr. Jewitt regarding infant baptism to the scriptures. Now this issue has taken up enough of my time so I’ll end it here.
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
As I stated already, scripture can speak of entire “households” without implying that every single member of the household is included. In other words, what is true of the household as a whole is not necessarily true of every person in the household. I cited the example of “all Judea” and “all Jerusalem” going out to be baptized by John the Baptist, “confessing their sins” (See Mark 1:5-7). But who would want to argue that “all” means everyone without exception? (Would you seriously want to defend the idea that Jerusalem was vacated–no Pharisees, no Harod, no Pilot, no Romans, but rather that every single person in the city went to the Jordan to see John the Baptist with not even a single exception?) Besides, who would seriously defend the notion that infants were"confessing" their sins? And do we really want to ponder the implications of infants being submersed under water since that is what happens in a baptism? In other words, nothing in the passage you cite above requires us to believe that everyone in the household, without exception, was baptized.So the whole household does not really mean the whole household…
Quote:
31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. 34 The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household.
And there’s good reason why we shouldn’t believe that infants were baptized. For the same passage you cite above also says that the apostles spoke the word to the jailer “and all the others.” Would you seriously want to suppose that they addressed the gospel to infants incapable of understanding the message? Notice also that the passage says that the jailer believed, “he and his whole household.” Belief is a response to the word that was spoken to them. Clearly infants are not in view here even if we can rightly assume that there could have been infants present at the event.
Except that they stated their whole household.
Now you do make an interesting point concerning ‘all of Judea’
However, that is an apples to oranges argument.
It is simply not possible for ‘all’ to mean every single person in Judea.
However we are not talking about Judea, we are talking about a single household.
I am sure you can recognize the difference in the thousands of people populating Judea and the 10 to 20 that are in a household.
Sorry, but your logic does not work here.
For it to hold water, we must believe something about infants that is not proven one way or the other.
Given that God knew us before we were born, I would not hazard a guess as to what is or is not known about someone that cannot speak for themselves.
Further, we have Paul likening Baptism to circumcision.
And we know that was done to infants.
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
I agree that the promise is salvation which Peter calls “the gift of the Holy Spirit.” That this comes through baptism, however, is a gratuitous assumption on your part. The text does not say that baptism is the means by which we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. That’s you reading your theology back into the text. What the text does record is the command to “repent and be baptized.” Then we are told “and you will receive the Holy Spirit.” What we’re not told is that there is a causal relation between the two. Correlation is not causality. Umbrellas and rain are highly correlated, but umbrellas don’t cause rain. (But washing my car does!) Likewise repentance and baptism are highly correlated to receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. But there is no evidence in scripture that baptism, ex opere operato, is the cause of our receiving the Holy Spirit. In fact, Scripture is far more flexible than that. In Acts 10, the household of Cornelius receives the Holy Spirit before they received baptism. Can we therefore conclude that reception of the Holy Spirit is required before we can baptize? Be that as it may, let’s get back to the promise. We both agree that it is the promise of salvation. We also agree that this promise is “for you and your children.” What hasn’t been shown is that baptism is “for you and your children.” Besides, why do you isolate baptism from repentance? The command is to repent and be baptized no just be baptized. Further, as I mentioned earlier, nothing requires us to assume that the word for “children” has to imply infants or those too young to repent. So even if we suppose that repentance and baptism is what causes the Holy Spirit to dwell in a believer, we don’t have to assume that repentance and baptism is for infants–at least not on the basis of the text you cite.
Were baptized when? By 200 AD. Well, that’s at least a century after the last book in the NT and there the practice is questioned by Tertullian. Don’t you find it the least bit troubling that the earliest patristic witness to infant baptism is a questioning of its validity?
That’s a complete red herring. You’re getting desperate now if you’re resorting to arguments like that. What do you suppose the earliest date of the manuscript evidence is for Tertullian’s On Baptism? And are you seriously going to argue that just because the manuscripts are older than the originals that we have no reliable historical witness back to apostolic times? Seriously?
What you’re doing is resorting to the liberal nuclear option by casting doubt upon the historicity of our sources. Please reconsider this line of argumentation. It doesn’t really lead anywhere but to a skeptical conclusion.
As for the history of infant baptism, you’ve got nothing solid to connect it to the apostles until the middle of the second century and the very first mention of it is tantamount to a denial of its validity. You’ve also got all kinds of inexplicable silences. Why, for example, does the Didache not mention it when it purports to be a manual for apostolic doctrine and practice? Why does Cryil of JERUSALEM (location, location, location) who perhaps spilt more ink on the subject of baptism than any of his contemporaries mention NOTHING about it?
Is this proof that infant baptism wasn’t practiced by the apostles? No. But, in my admittedly biased opinion, it is strongly suggestive of the probability that they did not.
- Status