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

[Church_Militant]

Good effort Dronald…really it is. Except for one glaring and epic fail.

You assert that the ECF were like modern Protestants in doctrine with regard to “believer’s baptism” and that instructions concerning infant baptism are absent from their writings, right?

Sorry, but you may as well go ahead and can your essay because you have erred badly in missing a critical bit of ECF research.

Did you look at Polycarp? No? And apparently neither did anyone else in this thread so far.

Guy’s, what does it tell you when an 86 year old man, in sworn and public testimony at his own capital trial for being a Christian tells his prosecutor that he’s been a Christian for “eighty and six years” and will not deny his Lord?

Read it yourself in my blog article The Case For Infant Baptism

CHAPTER 9 (LINK) 9:1 But to Polycarp, as he entered the arena, there came a voice from heaven, saying, Be strong, and play the man, O Polycarp. And the speaker no man saw; but the voice those of our people who were present heard. And when he was brought in there was a great tumult, when men heard that Polycarp was apprehended.

9:2 Then, when he had been brought in, the proconsul asked him if he was Polycarp. And when he confessed, he would have persuaded him to deny, saying, Have respect unto thine age, and other things like these, as is their custom to say: Swear by the fortunes of Caesar; Repent; Say, Away with the Atheists. But Polycarp, when he had looked with a grave face at all the multitude of lawless heathen in the arena, having beckoned unto them with his hand, sighed, and looking up unto heaven, said, Away with the Atheists!

9:3 And when the proconsul pressed him, and said, Swear, and I will release thee, revile Christ; Polycarp said, Eighty and six years have I served him, and in nothing hath he wronged me; and how, then, can I blaspheme my King, who saved me?

Polycarp was a disciple and friend of St. John the apostle and there is evidence that St. John is who baptized him.

Have a great day!http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/DrinkBeerIrishHatSmiley.gif

 

[JustaServant]

Hi D. R., I concur with CM, you make a nice effort. Your posts on NCRs reveal you are more of a thinker with an open mind, and that’s a good thing.
Here are some verses for you to consider:

Genesis 17
1And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

2And I will **make my covenant **between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.

7And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee **in their generations **for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

10This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; **Every man child among you shall be circumcised. **
11And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

12And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

13He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

23And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham’s house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.

27And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him.

Genesis 21:4
4And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac being eight days old, as God had commanded him.

Colossians 2
11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

13And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Acts 16:15 (King James Version)

15And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

1 Corinthians 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

Acts 2:

38
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 will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39
For the promise is made **to you and to your children **and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.”
I can post more later today.
Good luck with your classes.

And oh, BTW CM, that leprechan looks positivly EVIL.
…and I’m Irish.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

There are two fundamental points that go against Dronald’s position.

(1) No church father denied the validity of infant baptism, even if they recommended deferring it.
(2) No church father said that infants were saved without baptism.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Thank you everyone who contributed with some thought provoking replies.

My intentions were questioned, and I thought I made them clear but I will reiterate. The reason I wrote out what I did was to provide evidence that Believer’s Baptism can be defended historically. It has been my experience here that some Catholics think there’s no way it can be.

Unfortunately the stress of school work will prevent me from quoting every point and coming up with concise arguments for each one. Rather, most of my posts will be from my phone in my spare time. I had promised to write something after being challenged a few times and finally found the time to do so.

I have conceded and shall again that Cyprian was in favour of infant Baptism, and I will also concede Origen’s position as well.

1. What I will not concede is the writers of the Didache felt it necessary to give instructions on infant Baptism, as such was ignored. This is going back to perhaps the 1st Century.
2. Aristedes felt that children must be convinced of the truth before being considered, “brothers without distinction.”
3. Justin Martyr speaks of “children of choice” in regards to Baptism and completely disregards any information on infants. Again, for such an important Sacrament for this day, it was certainly being ignored by the absolute earliest.
4. (new point) Irenaeus speaks of Jesus passing through each age including infancy; whether or not he is speaking specifically of Baptizing infants is unclear. No obvious evidence is presented any any speculation is just that. Rather, Irenaeus was speaking out against Gnostics who believed that Jesus was never an infant. No where can we truly presume this has to do with Baptism.

Irenaeus even writes:

“We are made clean from our old transgressions by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord. We are thus spiritually regenerated as newborn infants, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

Is he saying newborn infants are regenerated as newborn infants as well? He equates those Baptized being regenerated as newborns. I don’t see how this would work for one who is only a newborn.

1. Someone should really break down what Tertullian said on infant Baptism, because he seemed strictly against it.

I will come back for some more points tomorrow (I think). But it’s going to be really rough for me.

I also ask that you all please forgive me for a lackluster response, I just know this is the last night before it’s back to the school books; so I had to leave with something.

God bless, and thank you.

First, all the best with your work at school.

I can only speak for myself, but I wasn’t questioning your intentions. I was trying to draw out the status of the question.

It is this: certain Reformers protested against the established Catholic (and EOC) teaching and practice regarding infant baptism held to be of apostolic origin and they proposed the newer teaching in its place that the CC has departed from the word of God in this instance and baptism should be limited those who can make a deliberate and conscious act of faith.

The burden is on you not just to “provide evidence that Believer’s Baptism can be defended historically” but to show that Believer’s Baptism is necessitated by divine revelation in Scripture and as witnessed to in the life and practice of the early church; i.e., to show that it is more reasonable to abandon the CC’s position as a departure from divine revelation (the word of God) and adopt yours.

But you’ve got problems even in trying to “provide evidence that Believer’s Baptism can be defended historically.” Infant baptism is never proscribed by any NT author nor by any ecclesiastical author in first 2 centuries. Yet Believer’s Baptism as taught by the Reformers and you includes that proscription.

There is also the evidence from the NT that I provided in the post above this one suggesting that indeed infant baptism is likely.

I appreciate your conceding Cyprian’s and Origen’s as well. But you seem to miss the point that neither Origen nor Cyprian see infant baptism as an innovation of their time. It was an established custom. Along with this it is the claim in Origen that infant baptism is of apostolic origin. So they do give us access to the 2nd century at least.

 

[dronald]

First, all the best with your work at school.

I can only speak for myself, but I wasn’t questioning your intentions. I was trying to draw out the status of the question.

It is this: certain Reformers protested against the established Catholic (and EOC) teaching and practice regarding infant baptism held to be of apostolic origin and they proposed the newer teaching in its place that the CC has departed from the word of God in this instance and baptism should be limited those who can make a deliberate and conscious act of faith.

The burden is on you not just to “provide evidence that Believer’s Baptism can be defended historically” but to show that Believer’s Baptism is necessitated by divine revelation in Scripture and as witnessed to in the life and practice of the early church; i.e., to show that it is more reasonable to abandon the CC’s position as a departure from divine revelation (the word of God) and adopt yours.

But you’ve got problems even in trying to “provide evidence that Believer’s Baptism can be defended historically.” Infant baptism is never proscribed by any NT author nor by any ecclesiastical author in first 2 centuries. Yet Believer’s Baptism as taught by the Reformers and you includes that proscription.

There is also the evidence from the NT that I provided in the post above this one suggesting that indeed infant baptism is likely.

I appreciate your conceding Cyprian’s and Origen’s as well. But you seem to miss the point that neither Origen nor Cyprian see infant baptism as an innovation of their time. It was an established custom. Along with this it is the claim in Origen that infant baptism is of apostolic origin. So they do give us access to the 2nd century at least.

Would you also say that Tertullian claimed to pass on the Apostolic Tradition where it relates to Baptism, while also being in favour of waiting past infancy for candidates?

Also, I want to quickly address some replies:

Oddly enough Aristedes was quickly dismissed even though he claimed children must be convinced of the truth before one can consider a child a brother without distinction. No mention of Baptism, but certainly implications that the candidate must believe before being a brother. With that in mind, bringing up Polycarp saying he’s served the Lord all his life (no mention of Baptism) as evidence that he was Baptized as an infant is unfair.

Moving onto the second part of my reply. Remember, I’ve covered the Didache’s silence on infant Baptism and assumption that the candidate is a person of comprehension, Justin Martyr’s insistence that “children of choice” shall be Baptized or “those illuminated.”

Tertullian, the very first recorded person to go into detail about the very young and Baptism; claiming that he gets this authority from Tradition and not accepting the practice as ideal.

Hippolytus is often used to argue that, “children who cannot answer for themselves” are infants; and yet Hippolytus compares one group who “can comprehend” with another group who can not. Which is certainly in line with Gregory of Nazianzus’s “I give my advice to wait till the end of the third year, or a little more or less, when they may be able to listen and to answer something about the Sacrament.” Gregory and Hippolytus both emphasize three years before Baptism.

“Giving his advice” won’t fly, considering such would not be practiced now, but such advice was accepted back then even closer to the time of the Apostles?

Also, a legitimate question and not an accusation but why would Gregory’s father (a Bishop) raise a Bishop and not know to Baptize him? Why did Gregory have to reach 30 first? Likewise St Basil was Baptized at a late age, being brought up in a devout Christian family and had this to say:

“Faith and baptism are two kindred and inseparable ways of salvation: faith is perfected through baptism, baptism is established through faith, and both are completed by the same names. For as we believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, so are we also baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; first comes the confession, introducing us to salvation, and baptism follows, setting the seal upon our assent.”

Faith being equated with Baptism.

I have something I want to post later about Eusebius and also about everyone’s favourite; Augustine.

God bless.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I have a song stuck on my head:

People are people so why should it be
You and I should get along so awfully

Ok, you and I don’t get along awfully; but you get my drift?

You are looking at particular situations and giving the data in those instances a value that is non-existent.

1. 
   *]The Church has never condemned Infant Baptism. (An opinion, recommendation, miss does not make doctrine or dogma on the Church as a Whole.)
   *]Even disciples from the Apostles were baptized as infants; to wit: Polycarp.
   
   By departing from a practiced done by the Historical Church, *(Catholic and Orthodox - here you face a situation where we are in agreement and there is no room to put us against the other, a practice much in use lately by some Protestants at CAF) *you are departing from the Faith delivered to the Saints once and for all, for all ages.
   
   It’s not whether you have to concede or not, but the preponderance of the evidence is at odds with what you want to present. All that can be found against the practice (Which is clearly established):
   1. 
      *]a few cases where baptism was done later, and
      *]where some Fathers recommended a waiting period for particular reasons.
      
      Hardly something that can even cast doubts! On the contrary - it presents witness for the practice!
      
      The end results are the same:
      
      The Historical Church has practiced Infant Baptism since the beginning of the Church.

 

[Cathoholic]

Dronald. You said:

Oddly enough Aristedes was quickly dismissed even though he claimed children must be convinced of the truth before one can consider a child a brother without distinction.

That’s NOT what Aristides said.

I put the quote in context and the source to speak for itself here.

Go back and re-read all the posts that mention Aristides and ask who “quickly dismissed” him in the sense of glossing over or contextually quoting what he really said?

You quoted St. Gregory as saying:

"Faith and baptism are two kindred and inseparable ways of salvation: faith is perfected through baptism, baptism is established through faith, and both are completed by the same names.

But the Catholic Church teaches the same thing today. As CCC 1226 says. “Always, Baptism is seen as connected with faith”. But you cannot conclude because of this, they are the same thing. Yet both can be completed by the “same names”.

From the Latin Rite Baptismal Liturgy . . .

Celebrant: What do you ask of God’s Church for N (infant’s name).?
Parents: Baptism.

But the parent’s response can ALSO be (instead of “Baptism”), “faith,” “the grace of Christ,” “entrance into the Church,” or “eternal life.” Yet we don’t think these are all the “same things”.

The fact that there is a Church that STILL TEACHES all of this should tell us there is something supernatural about the Church.

The inseparable interconnection of faith and Baptism still being faithfully taught by the Church Jesus established.

This is WHY the Council of Trent can also call Baptism “the sacrament of faith” in Session VII (Decreee on Justification). Because faith and Baptism are so interconnected (but they are NOT the same thing).

COUNCIL OF TRENT Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified; lastly, the alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby . . .

Unfortunately, you drew the erroneous conclusion of, “Faith being equated with Baptism”.
You erroneously conclude “that faith is perfected through baptism” means “faith equals Baptism”.

If you think faith = Baptism, but you don’t think babies can have faith, and you think St. Gregory thinks the same thing as you, then WHY would St. Gregory of Nazienzen say to Baptize an infant immediately if there is danger of death (lest they die “unsealed and uninitiated”)?

It is in the faith of the Church and the faith of the parent when applicable (i.e. if the parents are alive), in which this infant who is Baptized that allows this infant to be “initiated”. The infant then receives the gift of the grace of a supernatural faith as CCC 1266 and 1813 state.

If your faith makes you ready to accept this responsibility, renew now the vows of your own baptism. Reject sin; profess your faith in Christ Jesus. This is the faith of the Church. This is the faith in which this child is about to be baptized.—Baptismal Liturgy, Latin Rite

 

[dronald]

Dronald. You said:

That’s NOT what Aristides said.

I put the quote in context and the source to speak for itself here.

Go back and re-read all the posts that mention Aristides and ask who “quickly dismissed” him in the sense of glossing over or contextually quoting what he really said?

You quoted St. Gregory as saying:

But the Catholic Church teaches the same thing today. As CCC 1226 says. “Always, Baptism is seen as connected with faith”. But you cannot conclude because of this, they are the same thing. Yet both can be completed by the “same names”.

From the Latin Rite Baptismal Liturgy . . .

But the parent’s response can ALSO be (instead of “Baptism”), “faith,” “the grace of Christ,” “entrance into the Church,” or “eternal life.” Yet we don’t think these are all the “same things”.

The fact that there is a Church that STILL TEACHES all of this should tell us there is something supernatural about the Church.

The inseparable interconnection of faith and Baptism still being faithfully taught by the Church Jesus established.

This is WHY the Council of Trent can also call Baptism “the sacrament of faith” in Session VII (Decreee on Justification). Because faith and Baptism are so interconnected (but they are NOT the same thing).

Unfortunately, you drew the erroneous conclusion of, “Faith being equated with Baptism”.
You erroneously conclude “that faith is perfected through baptism” means “faith equals Baptism”.

If you think faith = Baptism, but you don’t think babies can have faith, and you think St. Gregory thinks the same thing as you, then WHY would St. Gregory of Nazienzen say to Baptize an infant immediately if there is danger of death (lest they die “unsealed and uninitiated”)?

It is in the faith of the Church and the faith of the parent when applicable (i.e. if the parents are alive), in which this infant who is Baptized that allows this infant to be “initiated”. The infant then receives the gift of the grace of a supernatural faith as CCC 1266 and 1813 state.

Thanks for a great response.

In reply to your Aristedes argument; you’re claiming the context points to the servants children? I believe Aristedes is speaking of the Christian’s children, not that of their neighbors when they become converts.

 

[andrewstx]

Very interesting essay, Dronald! I do have one question… do you hold that baptism is a regenerative event (rebirth) or only symbolic (as a public expression of faith)?

I ask because I’ve had discussions with folks (evangelical/pro believer’s baptism) with some viewing baptism as necessary/regenerative and others viewing it as only symbolic. I’d rather not assume which position you hold. I do not intend for my reply to steer the discussion off course. But, it would be helpful for me to understand how you view the effects of baptism (or lack thereof) in this discussion. I apologize in advance if you’ve already addressed this and I overlooked it.

Thanks!!

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?

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

 

[Cathoholic]

Quote:
Now the Christians, . . . . are pure as virgins, and their daughters modest: and their men abstain from all unlawful wedlock and from all impurity, in the hope of the recompense that is to come in another world: but as for their servants or handmaids, or their children if any of them have any, they persuade them to become Christians for the love that they have towards them; and when they have become so, they call them without distinction brethren: they do not worship strange gods: and they walk in all humility and kindness, and falsehood is not found among them, and they love one another: and from the widows they do not turn away their countenance: and they rescue the orphan from him who does him violence . . . .

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Would you also say that Tertullian claimed to pass on the Apostolic Tradition where it relates to Baptism, while also being in favour of waiting past infancy for candidates?
. . .
Tertullian, the very first recorded person to go into detail about the very young and Baptism; claiming that he gets this authority from Tradition and not accepting the practice as ideal.

In historical order, let’s see what Irenaeus said. It is in Adversus Haeresies, II, 22, 4.

Speaking in the first sentence about the baptism of Jesus, he goes on to say “For He came to save all through means of Himself–all, I say, who through Him are born again to/in God renascuntur in Deum]–infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age. . .”

Given that “born again”/ “regeneration” is the unvarying terminology in the church for baptism in a paragraph that begins by discussing baptism, it is hard to imagine how anyone could conclude he was not talking about baptism.

It is also Irenaeus’ terminology: “this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God” (I, 21,1); “And inasmuch as man, with respect to that formation which, was after Adam, having fallen into transgression, needed the laver of regeneration . . . that regeneration which takes place by means of the laver.” (V, 15, 3)

Irenaeus offers here a crystal clear witness to infant baptism in the second century.

Your second quote by Irenaeus (citation? for context):

“We are made clean from our old transgressions by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord. We are thus spiritually regenerated as newborn infants, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

You comment:

“Is he saying newborn infants are regenerated as newborn infants as well? He equates those Baptized being regenerated as newborns. I don’t see how this would work for one who is only a newborn.”

You’re engaging in obfuscation. It’s really not that hard to figure out. He said we are “spiritually regenerated/reborn” as newborn infants. An infant minutes/days/weeks after being naturally can be spiritually reborn just like an adult can.

Re Tertullian

(1) In De Baptismo 18 he is clearly directing his objections against infant baptism to an existing usage in the church. So his very argumentation presupposes the practice as a custom in the church of his time. You made no mention of this. He is actually another witness to the practice of infant baptism in the 2nd century.

(2) The work has in mind catechumens as well as those already in the Faith as chapters 1 & 2 make clear. Given that he uses Ethiopian eunuch (an adult “catechumen”) as an example, it seems likely he has catechumens in mind and their children.

(3) His argument against infant baptism in chap 18 is rather strained. If it were an innovation in his era for the infants of believers and catechumens, why would he not have pointed out this devastating fact? As it is he is reduced to concerns about god-parents.

(4) De Baptismo is a controversial work of Tertullian directed against a certain Quintilla who rejected baptism. What Tertullian PRESENTS the evidence of tradition for is the existence and validity of baptism itself: the apostolic origin of a revealed sacrament… His arguments for delaying baptism are practical advice most likely for catechumens and their families.

(5) Given the likelihood that he is talking about infants of catechumens over infants of believing parents; and given the fact that his argument presupposes the existing practice of infant baptism in the church of his time, the evidence in De Baptismo hardly rises to the level of making it more reasonable to conclude that the teaching and practice of the CC and EOC is against the word of God and should be abandoned.

(6) how what Tertullian says in The Chaplet 3, which concerns adult catechumens, could possibly constitute an explicit argument (or even an implicit one) against infant baptism is beyond me. You have not made that clear at all. We say the same things he did today to adult catechumens in the church.

Again your evidence hardly rises to a level sufficient to overthrow the teaching and practice of the CC and EOC re infant baptism.

I repeat, I appreciate your conceding Cyprian’s and Origen’s as well. But you seem to miss the point that neither Origen nor Cyprian see infant baptism as an innovation of their time–add to that Tertullian. It was an established custom. Along with this it is the claim in Origen that infant baptism is of apostolic origin. So they do give us access to the 2nd century at least.

In sum, you know you’re really just dealing with issues that Jeremias answers thoroughly in his two works on this subject, to say nothing of Kittle’s treatment.

Joachim Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1960.

Joachim Jeremias, The Origins of Infant Baptism: A Further Study in Reply to Kurt Aland. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1962.

It would save a lot of time if, instead of rehashing issues already dealt with by this world class scholar who isn’t even Catholic, you would read his books and then if you can find (intellectual) peers of his who disagree, present their peer-reviewed rebuttals.

 

[SPH1]

Catholics/Orthodox are not the only ones who practice infant baptism. Here is an example from the Lutherans:

Frequently Asked Questions | Doctrine
lcms.org/faqs/doctrine

Augustine (354-430 AD) wrote in De Genesi Ad Literam, 10:39 declared, “The custom of our mother Church in baptizing infants must not be counted needless, nor believed to be other than a tradition of the Apostles.” Augustine further states: "…the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they cannot possibly be vivified in Christ. In 517 AD, 10 rules of discipline were framed for the Church in Spain. The fifth rule states that “…in case infants were ill…if they were offered, to baptize them, even though it were the day that they were born…such was to be done.” (The History of Baptism by Robert Robinson, London, Thomas Knott, 1790, p.269)

This pattern of baptizing infants remained in Christianity through the Dark and Middle Ages until modern times. In the 1500 years from the time of Christ to the Protestant Reformation, the only bonafide opponent to infant Baptism was the heretic Tertullian (160-215 AD) who de facto denied original sin. Then in the 1520s the Christian Church experienced opposition specifically to infant Baptism under the influence of Thomas Muenzer and other fanatics who opposed both civil and religious authority, original sin and human concupiscence. Thomas’ opposition was then embraced by a considerable number of Swiss, German and Dutch Anabaptists. This brought about strong warning and renunciation by the Roman Catholics, Lutherans and Reformed alike. It was considered a shameless affront to what had been practiced in each generation since Christ’s command in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20) to baptize all nations irrespective of age. Historical excerpts are from “Infant Baptism in Early Church History,” by Dr. Dennis Kastens in Issues Etc. Journal, Spring 1997, Vol. 2, No. 3.

This Lutheran link contains further Lutheran responses to objections against infant baptism:
wittenbergtrail.org/forum/topics/lutheran-responses-to

As the Lutheran material suggests, there are many other Protestant churches that practice infant baptism. Anglicans, Reformed/Presbyterian come immediately to mind.

I once had a page called Common Ground listing Orthodox and Protestant churches that tend to agree with the Catholic Church on various doctrines…I may rebuild it.

I would say that our OP is from the Radical Reformation, rejecting pretty much everything from the time of the apostles to the radical reformation. I do not see how the OP can claim that Christ is in any sense head of the church…except perhaps in a symbolic or figurehead sense.

 

[dronald]

I would say that our OP is from the Radical Reformation, rejecting pretty much everything from the time of the apostles to the radical reformation. I do not see how the OP can claim that Christ is in any sense head of the church…except perhaps in a symbolic or figurehead sense.

Lol.

 

[po18guy]

Bible Churches are, by definition, “defined” by the content of the bible and (ostensibly) nothing more. They have no authority to change things, except for those changes which inevitably result from private interpretation.

In history and in contrast, the Catholic Church defined the bible, which is antithetical to “bible” thinking. Bible Christians trace their Churches only back to the bible, whereas both Catholic and Orthodox trace their bible back to the Church. Elemental difference.

The crux of the matter: the power to bind and loose. The Church has absolute authority, on earth and in heaven, to bind or loose “whatever” - in Jesus’ own words. Although I do not claim to be an expert, I do believe that infant baptism is contained within the purview of the concept of “whatever.”

The awesome, authoritative Church has held infant baptism bound on earth, and so it is held bound in heaven. Doesn’t matter what anyone else says, or when they said it.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

A further point.

It is hard to carry on a conversation when it is not clear exactly what your thesis is, especially vis-à-vis Catholics and EOs. You need to spell some things out.

So again I repeat.

(1) What is your thesis?
Is it the following, from your words? “Baptism of infants was not considered an absolute fallacy in extra-biblical Early Church history (1st-2nd c.), nor was it considered absolute truth. Instead there is historical reasoning to reject infant Baptism, if only such comes from the first and second century.”

The first sentence merely asserts that in the 1st-2nd c we find no evidence that infant baptism was expressly required, and, at the same time, none that it was forbidden. No writer bore witness to a teaching that there was a (lower) age limit on baptism, yet they do not describe infant baptism clearly, if at all, either.

What exactly does your second sentence mean? There are historical grounds for maintaining that, despite the facts stated in your first sentence, the early church really did (a) proscribe infant baptism? (b) never practice infant baptism? Or are you saying, in accord with your first sentence, that the early church (c) did not really pronounce definitively either way on the subject, but an argument can be made for believers’ baptism?

Given that (c) only seems likely, the most you can say is that given (c), some other (historical? biblical? theological?) argument can be made for rejecting the practice of infant baptism and accepting only believers’ baptism?

OK, what is the argument?

(2) Believer’s Baptism (=BB) as taught by the Reformers and Evangelicals today in protest against the theology and practice of the CC and EOC includes the proscription of infant baptism not on merely practical grounds but as a revealed truth. Baptism is revealed to be only for those who can make a conscious, mature act of faith and not for infants.

Since the CC does administer adult baptism doing all the things usually associated with it in the fathers and early liturgies, what further does BB as a set of propositions affirm but that infant baptism is a practice against the word of God (divine revelation) and should be proscribed; and that it is more reasonable for Catholics to abandon this theology and practice on dogmatic grounds.

Where do you find this proscription on dogmatic grounds in SS? in the ECFs of the 1st and 2nd c?

So far all you have done is shown either statements applicable to catechumens or practical councils.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Fr of Jazz:

In sum, you know you’re really just dealing with issues that Jeremias answers thoroughly in his two works on this subject, to say nothing of Kittle’s treatment.

Joachim Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1960.

Joachim Jeremias, The Origins of Infant Baptism: A Further Study in Reply to Kurt Aland. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1962.

Thanks Fr of Jazz! I always am grateful for new excellent resources on Infant Baptism. I have recently received Wm. Wall’s History of Infant baptism (an 18th c. Anglican) It is stunning that Protestants have given us such great works in defense of Catholic positions!

 

[dronald]

Thanks Fr of Jazz! I always am grateful for new excellent resources on Infant Baptism. I have recently received Wm. Wall’s History of Infant baptism (an 18th c. Anglican) It is stunning that Protestants have given us such great works in defense of Catholic positions!

The book I cited was actually written as a counter to his books.

 

[dronald]

A further point.

It is hard to carry on a conversation when it is not clear exactly what your thesis is, especially vis-à-vis Catholics and EOs. You need to spell some things out.

So again I repeat.

(1) What is your thesis?
Is it the following, from your words? “Baptism of infants was not considered an absolute fallacy in extra-biblical Early Church history (1st-2nd c.), nor was it considered absolute truth. Instead there is historical reasoning to reject infant Baptism, if only such comes from the first and second century.”

The first sentence merely asserts that in the 1st-2nd c we find no evidence that infant baptism was expressly required, and, at the same time, none that it was forbidden. No writer bore witness to a teaching that there was a (lower) age limit on baptism, yet they do not describe infant baptism clearly, if at all, either.

What exactly does your second sentence mean? There are historical grounds for maintaining that, despite the facts stated in your first sentence, the early church really did (a) proscribe infant baptism? (b) never practice infant baptism? Or are you saying, in accord with your first sentence, that the early church (c) did not really pronounce definitively either way on the subject, but an argument can be made for believers’ baptism?

Given that (c) only seems likely, the most you can say is that given (c), some other (historical? biblical? theological?) argument can be made for rejecting the practice of infant baptism and accepting only believers’ baptism?

OK, what is the argument?

(2) Believer’s Baptism (=BB) as taught by the Reformers and Evangelicals today in protest against the theology and practice of the CC and EOC includes the proscription of infant baptism not on merely practical grounds but as a revealed truth. Baptism is revealed to be only for those who can make a conscious, mature act of faith and not for infants.

Since the CC does administer adult baptism doing all the things usually associated with it in the fathers and early liturgies, what further does BB as a set of propositions affirm but that infant baptism is a practice against the word of God (divine revelation) and should be proscribed; and that it is more reasonable for Catholics to abandon this theology and practice on dogmatic grounds.

Where do you find this proscription on dogmatic grounds in SS? in the ECFs of the 1st and 2nd c?

So far all you have done is shown either statements applicable to catechumens or practical councils.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

 

[dronald]

In historical order, let’s see what Irenaeus said. It is in Adversus Haeresies, II, 22, 4.

Speaking in the first sentence about the baptism of Jesus, he goes on to say “For He came to save all through means of Himself–all, I say, who through Him are born again to/in God renascuntur in Deum]–infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age. . .”

Given that “born again”/ “regeneration” is the unvarying terminology in the church for baptism in a paragraph that begins by discussing baptism, it is hard to imagine how anyone could conclude he was not talking about baptism.

It is also Irenaeus’ terminology: “this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God” (I, 21,1); “And inasmuch as man, with respect to that formation which, was after Adam, having fallen into transgression, needed the laver of regeneration . . . that regeneration which takes place by means of the laver.” (V, 15, 3)

Irenaeus offers here a crystal clear witness to infant baptism in the second century.

Your second quote by Irenaeus (citation? for context):

You comment:

You’re engaging in obfuscation. It’s really not that hard to figure out. He said we are “spiritually regenerated/reborn” as newborn infants. An infant minutes/days/weeks after being naturally can be spiritually reborn just like an adult can.

Re Tertullian

(1) In De Baptismo 18 he is clearly directing his objections against infant baptism to an existing usage in the church. So his very argumentation presupposes the practice as a custom in the church of his time. You made no mention of this. He is actually another witness to the practice of infant baptism in the 2nd century.

(2) The work has in mind catechumens as well as those already in the Faith as chapters 1 & 2 make clear. Given that he uses Ethiopian eunuch (an adult “catechumen”) as an example, it seems likely he has catechumens in mind and their children.

(3) His argument against infant baptism in chap 18 is rather strained. If it were an innovation in his era for the infants of believers and catechumens, why would he not have pointed out this devastating fact? As it is he is reduced to concerns about god-parents.

(4) De Baptismo is a controversial work of Tertullian directed against a certain Quintilla who rejected baptism. What Tertullian PRESENTS the evidence of tradition for is the existence and validity of baptism itself: the apostolic origin of a revealed sacrament… His arguments for delaying baptism are practical advice most likely for catechumens and their families.

(5) Given the likelihood that he is talking about infants of catechumens over infants of believing parents; and given the fact that his argument presupposes the existing practice of infant baptism in the church of his time, the evidence in De Baptismo hardly rises to the level of making it more reasonable to conclude that the teaching and practice of the CC and EOC is against the word of God and should be abandoned.

(6) how what Tertullian says in The Chaplet 3, which concerns adult catechumens, could possibly constitute an explicit argument (or even an implicit one) against infant baptism is beyond me. You have not made that clear at all. We say the same things he did today to adult catechumens in the church.

Again your evidence hardly rises to a level sufficient to overthrow the teaching and practice of the CC and EOC re infant baptism.

I repeat, I appreciate your conceding Cyprian’s and Origen’s as well. But you seem to miss the point that neither Origen nor Cyprian see infant baptism as an innovation of their time–add to that Tertullian. It was an established custom. Along with this it is the claim in Origen that infant baptism is of apostolic origin. So they do give us access to the 2nd century at least.

In sum, you know you’re really just dealing with issues that Jeremias answers thoroughly in his two works on this subject, to say nothing of Kittle’s treatment.

Joachim Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1960.

Joachim Jeremias, The Origins of Infant Baptism: A Further Study in Reply to Kurt Aland. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1962.

It would save a lot of time if, instead of rehashing issues already dealt with by this world class scholar who isn’t even Catholic, you would read his books and then if you can find (intellectual) peers of his who disagree, present their peer-reviewed rebuttals.

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.

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.

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

 

[AmbroseSJ]

The book I cited was actually written as a counter to his books.

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

The big book that I used to support my beliefs is, “Believers Baptism” by Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright.

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.