B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
An infant has no sin to repent of, therefore they can receive the benefits of Sacramental Baptism without the rnecessity of repentence.
- Status
I
Ignatius33
Guest
I thought I would provide some patristic passages demonstrating that (1) the early Church uniformly believed that being “born again”/“born of water and Spirit” (Jn. 3:3, 5) referred to the Sacrament of Baptism and (2) the early Church uniformly practiced infant baptism.
Born Again
continued…
Born Again
- St. Justin Martyr:
- St. Irenaeus:
- St. Theophilus of Antioch:
- Tertullian:
- St. Hippolytus of Rome:
- Origen:
- St. Cyprian of Carthage:
- Aphraates the Persian Sage:
- St. Cyril of Jerusalem:
continued…
I
Ignatius33
Guest
- St. Athanasius:
- St. Basil the Great:
- St. Gregory of Nyssa:
- St. Gregory Nazianzen:
- St. Ambrose of Milan:
- St. John Chrysostom:
- St. Augustine:
**) St. Thomas Aquinas:
“Our Lord said (Jn. 3:5): ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’ . . . By Divine institution water is the proper matter of Baptism; and with reason. First, by reason of the very nature of Baptism, which is regeneration unto spiritual life” (Summa Theologica III, Q.66, Art. 3 [1265-1274 AD]).
“Hence it is clear that by Baptism man dies unto the oldness of sin, and begins to live unto the newness of grace. But every sin belongs to the primitive oldness. Consequently every sin is taken away by Baptism” (id. III, Q.69, Art. 1).
I
Ignatius33
Guest
Infant Baptism
**) St. Thomas Aquinas:
“Now children contract original sin from the sin of Adam; which is made clear by the fact that they are under the ban of death, which passed upon all on account of the sin of the first man, as the Apostle says in the same passage [Rom. 5:12]. Much more, therefore, can children receive grace through Christ, so as to reign in eternal life. But our Lord Himself said (John 3:5): ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’ Consequently it became necessary to baptize children, that, as in birth they incurred damnation through Adam, so in a second birth they might obtain salvation through Christ” (Summa Theologica, III, Q. 68, Art. 9 [1265-1274 AD]).
continued…***
- St. Irenaeus clearly endorsed the practice:
- St. Hippolytus of Rome:
- Origen:
- St. Cyprian of Carthage:
- St. Gregory Nazianzen:
- St. John Chrysostom:
- St. Ambrose:
- St. Augustine, who greatly furthered the Church’s understanding of the stain of original sin and its consequences, had this to say:
**) St. Thomas Aquinas:
“Now children contract original sin from the sin of Adam; which is made clear by the fact that they are under the ban of death, which passed upon all on account of the sin of the first man, as the Apostle says in the same passage [Rom. 5:12]. Much more, therefore, can children receive grace through Christ, so as to reign in eternal life. But our Lord Himself said (John 3:5): ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’ Consequently it became necessary to baptize children, that, as in birth they incurred damnation through Adam, so in a second birth they might obtain salvation through Christ” (Summa Theologica, III, Q. 68, Art. 9 [1265-1274 AD]).
continued…***
I
Ignatius33
Guest
I’ve never seen an early Christian author deny the efficacy of infant baptism. The only author who speaks of it unfavorably is Tertullian, who rebelled against accepted practices in North Africa:
“According to circumstance and disposition and even age of the individual person, it may be better to delay Baptism; and especially so in the case of little children. Why, indeed, is it necessary – if it be not a case of necessity – that the sponsors too be thrust into danger, when they themselves may fail to fulfill their promises by reason of death, or when they may be disappointed by the grown of an evil disposition? Indeed, the Lord says, ‘Do not forbid them to come to me’” [Mt. 10:14; Lk. 18:16] (Baptism [200/206 AD]).
But even Tertullian writes only that it “may” be better to delay Baptism; nowhere does he assert that infants “cannot” be baptized. Moreover, he mentions a child’s “sponsors,” indicating that the practice of infant baptism was already long-established inasmuch as these kinds of ceremonial developments don’t happen overnight. Finally, he also allows that infants should be baptized in “cases of necessity” – presumably referring to instances in which their lives were in danger due to sickness.
In short, it seems pretty clear that infant baptism was an apostolic practice. If the Apostles were opposed to infant baptism, it seems odd that no early Christian writings confirm this position or rebuke the Catholic one (shared by all non-Protestant Christians).
Hope this is helpful
“According to circumstance and disposition and even age of the individual person, it may be better to delay Baptism; and especially so in the case of little children. Why, indeed, is it necessary – if it be not a case of necessity – that the sponsors too be thrust into danger, when they themselves may fail to fulfill their promises by reason of death, or when they may be disappointed by the grown of an evil disposition? Indeed, the Lord says, ‘Do not forbid them to come to me’” [Mt. 10:14; Lk. 18:16] (Baptism [200/206 AD]).
But even Tertullian writes only that it “may” be better to delay Baptism; nowhere does he assert that infants “cannot” be baptized. Moreover, he mentions a child’s “sponsors,” indicating that the practice of infant baptism was already long-established inasmuch as these kinds of ceremonial developments don’t happen overnight. Finally, he also allows that infants should be baptized in “cases of necessity” – presumably referring to instances in which their lives were in danger due to sickness.
In short, it seems pretty clear that infant baptism was an apostolic practice. If the Apostles were opposed to infant baptism, it seems odd that no early Christian writings confirm this position or rebuke the Catholic one (shared by all non-Protestant Christians).
Hope this is helpful
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
Concerning your Ante-Nicene quotes:I’ve never seen an early Christian author deny the efficacy of infant baptism. The only author who speaks of it unfavorably is Tertullian, who rebelled against accepted practices in North Africa:
“According to circumstance and disposition and even age of the individual person, it may be better to delay Baptism; and especially so in the case of little children. Why, indeed, is it necessary – if it be not a case of necessity – that the sponsors too be thrust into danger, when they themselves may fail to fulfill their promises by reason of death, or when they may be disappointed by the grown of an evil disposition? Indeed, the Lord says, ‘Do not forbid them to come to me’” [Mt. 10:14; Lk. 18:16] (Baptism [200/206 AD]).
But even Tertullian writes only that it “may” be better to delay Baptism; nowhere does he assert that infants “cannot” be baptized. Moreover, he mentions a child’s “sponsors,” indicating that the practice of infant baptism was already long-established inasmuch as these kinds of ceremonial developments don’t happen overnight. Finally, he also allows that infants should be baptized in “cases of necessity” – presumably referring to instances in which their lives were in danger due to sickness.
In short, it seems pretty clear that infant baptism was an apostolic practice. If the Apostles were opposed to infant baptism, it seems odd that no early Christian writings confirm this position or rebuke the Catholic one (shared by all non-Protestant Christians).
Hope this is helpful
I am familiar with Irenaeus works and in the quote you provided he is not talking about baptism. Irenaeus was referring to the fact that Christ came as an infant, grew through childhood, and adulthood. He set the example for each age through His life.
Your other quotes: Hippolytus, Origen, and Cyprian are all obscure. The Hippolytus quote is undoubtedly spurious as I read commentary on it before. Origen’s commentary on the Romans is extant only in fragments, and I have not seen any of it in the context of the work in which the fragments exist.
If you take a look at the requirements for baptizing in the much earlier work, the Didache, they are not conducive to infant baptism.
I
Ignatius33
Guest
Irenaeus is undoubtedly talking about baptism in the quote provided. In discussing this passage, patristics expert Johannes Quasten remarks: “The redemption of the individual is effected by the Church and her sacraments in the name of Christ. The sacrament is to nature what the new Adam is to the old. A creature receives its perfection in the sacraments. The sacrament is the climax of the recapituation of creation in Christ. By baptism man is born again to God. On this occasion, Irenaeus testifies for the first time in ancient Christian literature to infant baptism: ‘For He came to save all through means of Himself-- all, I say, who through Him are born again to God – infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men’” (Patrology, citing Against Heresies).
Patristics expert William Jurgens likewise cites this passage for his observation that “the Church has always acknowledged that even infants are capable of receiving Baptism” (Faith of the Early Fathers).
By the way, Irenaus was a direct disciple of St. Polycarp, who in turn learned at the feet of the Apostle John himself. Irenaeus’ words on this subject therefore carry heavy weight.
As to your suggestion that the passage of Hippolytus was added later, I can’t comment on that one way or the other.
Origen’s passage is hardly obscure and speaks for itself – he says in no uncertain terms that infant baptism is an apostolic tradition. How is that unclear? In fact, here is another quotation from Origen attesting to the early Church’s practice of infant baptism:
“If you like to hear what other saints have felt in regard to physical birth, listen to David when he says, ‘I was conceived, so it runs, in iniquity and in sin my mother hath borne me’ [Ps. 50:7], proving that every soul which is born in the flesh is tainted with the stain of iniquity and sin. This is the reason for that saying which we have already quote above, ‘No man is clean from sin, not even if his life be one day long’ [Job 14:4]. To these, as a further point, may be added an inquiry into the reason for which, while the Church’s baptism is given for the remission of sin, it is the custom of the Church that baptism be administered even to infants. Certainly, if there were nothing in infants that required remission and called for lenient treatment, the grace of baptism would seem unnecessary” (Homilies on Leviticus [after 244 AD]).
Again, Quasten states: “Origen testifies to original sin and infant baptism. Every human being is born in sin and for this reason it is apostolic tradition to baptize the newly born” (Patrology).
Finally, Cyprian’s affirmation of infant baptism is also anything but obscure. The passage speaks for itself. Quasten writes that Cyprian “wants the sacrament conferred as early as possible and rejects even the custom of waiting eight days after birth” (Patrology).
I’m not relying on patristic outliers here – you are. As far as I know, the only negative statement with regard to infant baptism in all of antiquity was offered by Tertullian, hardly the patristic source one would want to rely on for a singular opinion. As for the Didache not mentioning infant baptism, arguments from silence are the weakest. You need to offer statements against infant baptism (statements like you are making right now). Aside from Tertullian (who, again, merely disfavored it), I’m quite sure none exist.
I
Ignatius33
Guest
Here are some more sources confirming that Irenaeus was indeed talking about baptism:
R.C. Sproul (a Reformed theologian): “The first direct mention of infant baptism is around the middle of the second century A.D. What is noteworthy about this reference is that it assumes infant baptism to be a universal practice of the church. If infant baptism were not the practice of the first-century church, how and why did this departure from orthodoxy happen so fast and so pervasively? Not only was the spread rapid and universal, the extant literature from that time does not reflect any controversy concerning the issue . . . Those who dispute the validity of infant baptism make it less inclusive with respect to children, despite the absence of any biblical prohibition against infant baptism” (Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, 228).
Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson: “The reference in these words is doubtless baptism, as clearly appears from comparing book 3, 17, 1. It has been remarked by Wall and others, that we have here the statement of a valuable fact as to the baptism of infants in the primitive Church” (Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1:391).
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
If you look at my earlier posts I do not deny that infant baptism was practiced in the early church. The question is when and why did the practice begin. I suspect some had practiced it from very early on. But I will not agree with you or any source that claims Irenaeus was talking about baptism. First of all the context of the work regards the amount of time Jesus spent teaching. Irenaeus expounds a bit on Jesus’ life and how He sanctified every stage of life.
I also stated earlier that Christ going to the cross sanctifies infants because He paid the dept for Adam’s sin.
What I question about Origen is that his homilies are questionable with regards to accuracy. But I think you provided enough context from Origen for me to possibly concede the point with regards to him, however, I need to research the credibility of it for myself. But even if Origen did believe infants are in need of baptism, I fail to see any support for it from earlier references. The idea that Christ’s sacrifice is not sufficient for the innocent is, to me, absurd. And I believe Irenaeus was saying that very thing. Furthermore, his emphasis in 3:17:2 is on spiritual baptism with no mention of the necessity for infants to be baptized.
I think you are presupposed to believing that when your read “born again” is automatically means water baptism.
I also stated earlier that Christ going to the cross sanctifies infants because He paid the dept for Adam’s sin.
What I question about Origen is that his homilies are questionable with regards to accuracy. But I think you provided enough context from Origen for me to possibly concede the point with regards to him, however, I need to research the credibility of it for myself. But even if Origen did believe infants are in need of baptism, I fail to see any support for it from earlier references. The idea that Christ’s sacrifice is not sufficient for the innocent is, to me, absurd. And I believe Irenaeus was saying that very thing. Furthermore, his emphasis in 3:17:2 is on spiritual baptism with no mention of the necessity for infants to be baptized.
I
Ignatius33
Guest
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, even if it is at complete odds with patristics scholars. I would be interested if you could find any patristic experts (Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant) who agree with your interpretation of Irenaeus.
As for my pressuposition that born again = water baptism, it is not pressuposition. It is based on Scriptural exegesis plus the unanimous testimony of the early Church. Did any Church Fathers teach that being born again did not refer to the Sacrament of Baptism? I’ve never seen any.
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
Christ doesn’t sanctify infants because somebody decided to have them baptized; He sanctifies infants because He paid the penalty for Adam’s sin.
I think what we have from Irenaeus is verification that water baptism is not sufficient of itself, but is part of the “born again” process. An infant can only be baptized by the will of another and can in no way repent of sins. The Didache states that the baptized should fast two days before his before his baptism with no exception for infants. It is strong evidence that infants were not baptized in the ancient church.
From the Didache:
If I find a scholar who agrees with my interpretation I will let you know. I haven’t taken the time to research that, but I have taken the time to read Irenaeus works over the years. So although I am no scholar I think I can come to reasonable conclusions based on the context of his work. I am willing to bet however, somebody out there agrees with me.
I
Ignatius33
Guest
Well, infants can’t sin, so there is nothing for them to repent of. The whole point of infant baptism is to wash away Original Sin, as Origen and Augustine state.
As for patristics scholarship and St. Irenaeus, I would be intrigued if you come across anyone supporting your view. I’m sure you could find pastors who support it, but I think it would be difficult to find a patristics scholar who supports it. I’ve read quite a few and have never seen one. But, yeah, if you come across one, let me know – thanks.
H
Hiskid1973
Guest
Anyone now how long after the original apostles did the practice show up ?
I
Ignatius33
Guest
I’ve been trying to show that this practice is an apostolic one, as Origen and Augustine expressly state. The earliest writing mentioning infant baptism (well, if one rejects the allusions to infant Baptism in the Bible itself) is by Irenaeus in 180 AD (though that is disputed by Brian here). However, the early writings discussing infant baptism all discuss it without controversy (with the exception of Tertullian, as already explained). In other words, it was practiced throughout the Church, across different lands, cultures and languages. If it were not an apostolic practice, one would think that someone (like Brian) would have made a big fuss about it in the second century – not in the 16th century when some Protestant groups rejeced it.
H
Hiskid1973
Guest
Apostolic as the original apostles or developed doctrine in apostolic succession as you see it…I guess I don’t put much weight on teachings after the original apostles…Thanks…God Bless
Just curious, do you think all are church’s practice things that were not done in the original churches.Like I know we get made fun of because our “altar calls” yet that experience radically changed my life almost 40 years ago…We get fun poked at witnessing snd passing out tract yet " he that wins souls is wise"…See when my kids were little they were exposed to the gospel…One was seven when she understood and the others were older when they chose Him on their own…Gues if I did it wrong I’ll find out up there…peace to you…Thanks for comment…I’m just a simple man with a simple faith…I had three head trauma’s so I don’t understand or think on to deep of level…
I
Ignatius33
Guest
For instance, around the year 252 AD, St. Cyprian and 66 prelates held a council in Carthage. While the Council was in session, a prelate named Fidus wrote to the Fathers, asking whether infants ought to be baptized before the eighth day following their birth, or on the eighth day, in accordance with the practice of circumcision. The bishops unanimously subscribed to the following reply, authored by Cyprian:
“As to what pertains to the case of infants: you said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and 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 judged that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born . . . Spiritual circumcision ought not to be hindered by carnal circumcision . . . we ought to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death *" (Letter of Cyprian and of His Colleagues in Council: To Fidus [251/252 AD]).
Notice there is no controversy whatsoever regarding the practice of infant baptism itself. The only issue is whether or not to wait eight days.*
“As to what pertains to the case of infants: you said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and 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 judged that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born . . . Spiritual circumcision ought not to be hindered by carnal circumcision . . . we ought to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death *" (Letter of Cyprian and of His Colleagues in Council: To Fidus [251/252 AD]).
Notice there is no controversy whatsoever regarding the practice of infant baptism itself. The only issue is whether or not to wait eight days.*
J
jmcrae
Guest
Then how is it that anyone would ever need to be “born again”, whether by Baptism or by any other means, if we are already born into the state of sanctification - which is to say, born “born again”, or born “saved”?
I
Ignatius33
Guest
God bless you, we are all called to have a simple, child-like faith, something which I often struggle with.
J
jmcrae
Guest
St. Polycarp was baptized as an infant, and died in 155 AD at the age of 86 - so it was the common practice of the Church by at least 69 AD, which is only two years after the deaths of Sts. Peter and Paul in Rome.
To put that into context, the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple took place in 70 AD, and St. John the Divine didn’t start writing his Gospel, his letters, and the Book of Revelation until at least 90 AD.
So, the practice of infant baptism was already quite well established during the lifetime of St. John, at least.
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
Which is applied to each person initially in Baptism, and then the other Sacraments.
- Status