Believer's Baptism. An Early Church Father's compialation

[TypesAndShadows]

Several times you have referred to the Didache, and several times you have called it “comprehensive” as evidence for why it not explicitly mentioning infant Baptism is a problem.

May I suggest you read the whole Didache, when you next have 10 minutes? It’s easy to find. Here’s an English translation: earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-hoole.html

How much advice does it give about Baptism? How much detail does it give? How many special cases does it lay down and advise on?

 

[dronald]

Several times you have referred to the Didache, and several times you have called it “comprehensive” as evidence for why it not explicitly mentioning infant Baptism is a problem.

May I suggest you read the whole Didache, when you next have 10 minutes? It’s easy to find. Here’s an English translation: earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-hoole.html

How much advice does it give about Baptism? How much detail does it give? How many special cases does it lay down and advise on?

This much:

7:1 But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water;
7:2 but if thou hast not running water, baptize in some other water, and if thou canst not baptize in cold, in warm water;
7:3 but if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
7:4 But before the baptism, let him who baptizeth and him who is baptized fast previously, and any others who may be able. And thou shalt command him who is baptized to fast one or two days before.

Would you say that none of those people had infants?

 

[dronald]

I had to return to your OP, but I see you mention:

I also note that you make quite a case for the apparent “silence” of the first two hundred years of Christianity. Yet, isn’t it possible that due to constant persecutions, many writings were destroyed that would be so valued now? Isn’t it also possible that since Christianity was so much in its infancy, that direct oral teaching was the primary means of disseminating doctrine? IOW, expecting much (or any) extant written teaching from those years is not only unrealistic, but to base one’s argument on their “silence” is actually specious?

Even at Eusebius’s 4th century vantage point, he had much difficulty finding convincing written texts on many ancient questions from those early ages.

What the Catholic Church represents, OTOH, is a consistent tradition, that has always been alive and continuous. It didn’t pop out of nothingness.

If there’s ANYTHING one should be able to gather from Catholic Church history, is that the Church went to incredible lengths to maintain the veracity and truthfulness of all its doctrines. This we can adduce without even resorting to Church infallibility.

Yes, Christians were persecuted; but many writings did survive. If you look up “Fathers” in the Catholic Encyclopedia you’ll see just how much was written by ECF’s. Although, nothing about infant Baptism for 200 years and then some. Also, not even in the Bible.

Remember, your Church maintains that not every belief will be found in the Bible; but 200 years after that, nothing about your most important Sacrament? Nothing that proves it was practiced then as it’s practiced now? In fact, there are guides on Baptism but nothing for infants.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I’m not trying to overthrow any beliefs.

Tertullian may have been speaking against the practice of infant Baptism proving it to be already in existence as a practice; but there’s no evidence prior to him that it did. Anything you say is speculation, although it could be true.

OK so this takes us to the 2nd century–not counting scripture…

Equally, I could say Cyprian wanted to make clear that infant Baptism was the correct approach in response to those who said one must wait a while. I have no evidence of this, so I cannot make such a claim.

The Chaplet was brought up because Tertullian uses it to claim his beliefs on Baptism are Apostolic.

You say it’s likely that Tertullian was not speaking of believing parent’s infants but this can only be speculation. He certainly seemed clear that candidates should fear what Baptism means, understand it and be Baptized.

Since Tertullian expressly mentions both classes it is just as much speculation to say he meant primarily to address believing parents’ infants especially given the prominence of the catechumenate in his time and place.

Finally, regardless of who he was speaking of; it is in no way in line with today’s Catholic teaching.

Even if one were to argue that he is speaking to believers’ infants, his cautions are a practical council not a dogmatic proscription of infant baptism and the theology behind it as against divine revelation. This is also a far cry from today’s Evangelical/Baptist position. Further Catholic practice is actually in accord with Tertullian’s advice for children above the age of reason and adults irrespective of faith background.

And Irenaeus? His theology and practice is identical to that of the CC and EOC and goes back to the early to mid 2nd c.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I think you’ve done well summarizing some things logically. My argument was that Baptism was spoken of, and the way we ought to be Baptized was spoken of and yet infants are completely excluded for the first 200 years of Christianity.

Thank you for taking the time to respond. It sounds like you’re very busy.

I don’t think you have taken into account in this post a great deal of data I have brought to your attention regarding the first 200 yrs.

(1) ECFs

(a) Irenaeus: as discussed above (Mar 10, ‘14, 10:35 pm) - shows infant baptism at least early in the 2nd c.

(b) Tertullian: directing his objections against infant baptism to an existing usage in the church - at least 2nd c.

(c) Origen: reports infant baptism as an established custom calling it apostolic in origin - at least 2nd c

(d) Cyprian of Carthage: reports infant baptism as an established custom - at least 2nd c

And before the ECFs . . .

(2) The New Testament: data I presented (Mar 9, '14, 9:39 pm.) suggesting infant baptism as likely and certainly not proscribed.
. . . .

I’m not here to say Catholics are completely wrong, I’m here to say the Evangelical/Baptist position can be supported equally well to yours.

It would be one thing to say the Evangelical/Baptist position is that, as a practical council and w/o prejudice to the validity of infant baptism, baptism should be delayed till one can make a conscious act of faith.

However I thank the Evangelical/Baptist position includes (1) the proscription of infant baptism not on merely practical grounds but as a revealed truth; and (2) an entirely different theology of baptism in the first place not seeing it imparting a new birth in the life of grace and the gift of faith as a character trait (a habitus) that is exhibited from baptism on in an age-appropriate way. IOW, they reject, as against revelation, the Catholic understanding that just as a baby has an intellect from birth which acts and grows through the stages of life depending on environmental support, so too baptism imparts the gift of faith which grows and develops within a Christian home/environment.

As for those expressing Church authority, that is one argument but I’m interested in the historical aspects.

Fair enough, but NT teaching and practice is in history.

 

[TypesAndShadows]

This much:

7:1 But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water;
7:2 but if thou hast not running water, baptize in some other water, and if thou canst not baptize in cold, in warm water;
7:3 but if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
7:4 But before the baptism, let him who baptizeth and him who is baptized fast previously, and any others who may be able. And thou shalt command him who is baptized to fast one or two days before.

Would you say that none of those people had infants?

I would say they almost certainly did, and there were probably all sorts of other situations that were not explicitly covered in the four lines chosen to represent the basic instructions on Baptism in a set of precepts to be recited to catechumens.

It also says nothing about whether children can receive Communion, what readings should be used in worship services, what process should be used before Baptism for judging whether someone should be Baptised, how marriage works, nothing about Scripture at all, etc. Is this a sign that there were no children present at the Eucharist, that there were no readings, that just anybody prepared to fast for a couple of days was immediately Baptised, that there was no marriage, that they had no copies of the Old Testament Scriptures?

But that is the sum total of all it has to say in Baptism. To categorise it as “comprehensive” is simply inaccurate. It spends much longer carefully instructing the faithful to stop being so credulous just because a freeloader says they’re a prophet (chapter 11 is my favourite), and to be generous with what they have.

 

[SPH1]

I think you’ve done well summarizing some things logically. My argument was that Baptism was spoken of, and the way we ought to be Baptized was spoken of and yet infants are completely excluded for the first 200 years of Christianity.

Your concluding assumption indicates that infant baptism then suddenly sprung up out-of-the-blue sometime later, becoming apostolic tradition certainly by the time of Augustine. Correct?

We have the Didache that ignores infants. What about the Church members who would have wanted direction for their infants? Why were they left out?

Likewise, Justin Martyr spoke of Baptism and when one ought to be Baptized; again ignoring infants. For the first 200 years of Christianity who was giving direction on how infants may be washed clean of all sin?

If this is correct, then perhaps infant baptism did not require much direction? It was adults that required more?

I don’t fully understand some of the replies regarding Bishops who claimed a child who is in no danger should wait at least three years until they can “answer something about the Sacrament.” Do you agree that infants should wait three years before Baptism or do you disagree.

In post 11 I asked you if your church group had parents speak for the child if the child could not. Now, do you also agree with baptizing at the age of three years?

Also, why was Gregory Baptized (while his father was a Bishop) at thirty. Why not when he was an infant? Shouldn’t his father and Gregory himself known that it should be done ASAP?

Okay, this is a stumper.

Or, maybe Gregory wanted to do it “Christ’s way” and wait until around 30 yrs of age? Got that idea from one of my Lutheran links up above.

You also want to know what I’m trying to prove, and it’s that history can support the belief that a person should at least understand what Baptism is (even if only a little) before taking part.

Except if the child/infant is in danger of death. Furthermore, I suspect that what “history” requires re age and understanding and what your church may require are not the same.

I’m not here to say Catholics are completely wrong,

Yes, you are if you are an anabaptist/re-baptiser.

And again, it isn’t just Catholics. It’s also pretty much everyone from the classical protestant reformation.

I’m here to say the Evangelical/Baptist position can be supported equally well to yours.

Not if you believe that Christ is actually head of the Church with the Holy Spirit as its guide. If one suggests that the whole church went off the rails for some 1500 (or x-number) of years - centuries actually - then one can only see Christ as “head” of the church in some symbolic or figurehead sense.

Some groups have symbolic sacraments (baptism) and a symbolic, invisible church. Why not a symbolic God to top it off?

 

[Bayou_Catholic]

Most of the Protestant churches that delay baptism also hold that is strictly symbolic, something done in obedience and following the example set by Our Lord. It to them has nothing to do with forgiveness of sin. They think one’s sins are forgiven as soon as they are ‘born again’ or ‘get saved’. That is what confuses me with the denominations that insist on a certain age and submersion only.

If baptism has nothing to do with salvation and forgiveness then why be so particular about it?

This has been my experience as well.

Personally I was born in such a sect, but they taught that baptism does forgive sin. Only later did I convert away from it.

Rarely have I come across one who holds to believer’s baptism yet acknowledges its regenerative nature.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I believe the Campbellite-type churches reject infant baptism while believing sins are forgiven in baptism. This is not too surprising since (1) there is no clear recorded example of infant baptism in the NT, and (2) baptism does seem to have this role according to the plain words of Scripture unless it is read with preconceptions that cause someone to deny it.

 

[Cathoholic]

dronald. You asked:

Also, why was Gregory Baptized (while his father was a Bishop) at thirty. Why not when he was an infant? Shouldn’t his father and Gregory himself known that it should be done ASAP?

St. Gregory’s father was a pagan or a Hypsistiani (basically an older version of a Unitarian with a pagan slant). (I mentioned that here)

If St. Gregory’s dad was a “bishop”, it was a heretical sect unless you have some information that I don’t.

The thing that pushed St. Gregory into getting Baptized is, he almost died at sea on a ship in a storm and did not want to die without Baptism.