It seems that I’ve been left alone on this thread, so I’ll get caught up with this little matter as well.
You must be truly that prideful or that much in denial. Here I’ll say it again about Irenaeus:
His writings affirm both that regeneration happens in baptism, and also that Jesus came so even infants could be regenerated,so you are wrong again.
Prideful? In denial? I’m not perfect, but I haven’t done enough to deserve the kind of rhetoric that you so consistently use with me. And you keep using it, even when I ask you to stop. Be that as it may, this is the explanation pertaining to the question of whether or not infant baptism is spoken of by Irenaeus.
You reference a passage from Irenaeus that says the following:
“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.”
The immediate context of this section is as follows: Irenaeus has just made some erroneous claims about Christ; namely, that His public ministry lasted much longer than just a year, that He lived to be over the age of 40, and that He experience all stages of life, including old age. Because of this, he references the various stages of life- infants, children, boys, youths, old men. He does not list these life stages in terms of who could be or sometimes was baptized. He does it in order to provide an example of how to use the allegorical method in order to reach conclusions that are false. Christ lived through all stages of life in order that/so that He could save all people in all age groups. That’s the substance of his message.
Elsewhere, we can see other things that Irenaeus says about salvation in general. He also mentions “innocent children,” which surely includes infants.
“And again, who are they that have been saved and received the inheritance? Those, doubtless, who do believe God, and who have continued in His love; as did Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun, and innocent children, who have had no sense of evil.”
You might ask yourself why he doesn’t mention baptism. Shouldn’t that be central to any response of an apostolic Christian to such a question? Someone asks you, Who are they that have been saved and received the inheritance? You say, Those who believe God and who have continued in His love. Give a few examples, mention that innocent children will also receive the inheritance, and you’re done.
So first, Irenaeus doesn’t allude to baptismal regeneration or baptism of any kind (whether by water or by the Holy Spirit) in his response. He is complete in his response to the extent that he comments on the status of small children, but he somehow leaves out baptism. Additionally, he appears to be more of the “saved by innocence” school of thought with regard to young children and, presumably, infants.
While Irenaeus’ response to the “Who are they that have been saved?” question is interesting in that he could complete one without mentioning baptism, he did say a few things that support it. One of them makes use of the allegorical method of interpretation (again). Irenaeus references Namaan, the way he dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, and how he came up healed of leprosy. He associates this with baptism by water:
“…it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions…”
So yes, Irenaeus was an advocate of baptismal regeneration. But no, he did not reference infant baptism. Infants are mentioned in a couple of places for a couple of reasons, but never in support of an infant baptism that must happen in order to assure that they will “receive the promise.” Rather, he supports the “innocence” theory where infants and children that have “no sense of evil” will be saved and “receive the inheritance.”
Thus, it is fully accurate to represent Irenaeus as one who advocated a child- and infant-specific soteriology that had to do with innocence and their sense of evil rather than baptism, and it’s also accurate to say infant baptism was not spoken of for the first 200 years of Christianity. Furthermore, it’s accurate to say Tertullian was the first to mention it explicitly, and he wrote against it. Justin Martyr also wrote in a way that was opposed to it in 155, but he was not as explicit. It is interesting, however, that Justin did this in Rome.
Oh, and add to that Reading.)