Infant Baptism in the early Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zaccheus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

Zaccheus

Guest
I might be arguing with a friend about infant baptism. He’s a bible-only believer.
Please show me scriptural passages to prove that the Apostles in particular, and the early church in general, practiced infant baptism.
 
Zaccheus said:
…
Click to expand...
Necessity of baptism and whole household baptisms:
Matt 28:19–20
Luke 18:15–16
John 3:3-8
Acts 2:38-39
1 Peter 3:20-21
Acts 16:14-15
Acts 16:31-33
Click to expand...
Council of Carthage (253 A.D. ) condemned withholding baptism of infants until the eighth day after birth.

Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–235 A.D.) wrote: “Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them”.
 
Last edited:
Um, why would you be arguing a position you can’t defend on your own?

It’s not up to other people to do your homework for you. Buy books, read them, and form your own explanations. Know your subject well before you engage in apologetics or debate.
 
1ke said:
Um, why would you be arguing a position you can’t defend on your own?

It’s not up to other people to do your homework for you. Buy books, read them, and form your own explanations. Know your subject well before you engage in apologetics or debate.
Click to expand...
My friend brought it up, and why shouldn’t I try to answer him?
 
Last edited:
Great and readable book on the topic would be “Augustine and the Catechumenate” by William Harmless. although it’s a touch dated, this is still considered to be one of the more authoritative works on early christian initiation rites. The footnotes will ‘note’ where Augustine was citing scripture; the ancient saint “spoke bible” and would weave it in to whatever point he was making. It’s academic, but well written and very readable by any audience.

There’s another article on initiation rites in the Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies that addresses the development of infant baptism. A little more dense in terms of readability.
 
You do not have to defend the ancient practice, since it has always been accepted. Your friend needs to defend the novel practice of denying baptism to certain classes of people.

It’s a shame in apologetics when well-meaning Catholics think they have to argue an old canard. Often the right answer is silence, because the interlocutor does not wish to arrive at the Truth, but wishes to pull out arguments that denigrate Catholic belief. If your disputations will fall on deaf ears, it is time to make a brief invocation of the Holy Spirit and move on.
 
Zaccheus said:
He’s a bible-only believer.
Click to expand...
So I’m guessing he’s from the big Protestant family. Does he gravitate around the Calvinist / Presbyterian tradition ? Because this is an extract from what Calvin had to say about infant baptism :
Doubtless, the design of Satan in assaulting infant baptism with all his forces is to keep out of view, and gradually efface, that attestation of divine grace which the promise itself presents to our eyes. In this way, not only would men be impiously ungrateful for the mercy of God, but be less careful in training their children to piety. For it is no slight stimulus to us to bring them up in the fear of God, and the observance of his law, when we reflect, that from their birth they have been considered and acknowledged by him as his children. Wherefore, if we would not maliciously obscure the kindness of God, let us present to him our infants, to whom he has assigned a place among his friends and family that is, the members of the Church.
Click to expand...
(The Institutes, XVI,4)

The whole passage, here, is worth a read, with scriptural arguments in favour of infant baptism from a Reformer’s point of view.
 
Zaccheus said:
My friend brought it up,
Click to expand...
Well that is a little bit different than what I got from your original post.
Zaccheus said:
why shouldn’t I try to answer him?
Click to expand...
It’s perfectly reasonable to answer him, and Catholic Answers website has some good tracts on this topic.

It sounded like you were going to start a debate, which is different from responding to a question. Also, don’t get sucked in to bible proof texting.

You will find that if he is “Bible only” you are already at a disadvantage since that is itself not biblical. The Church communicates divine revelation, which is both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Your friend rejects this, and will try to force you down a Bible only path. Don’t go there.
 
Zaccheus said:
I might be arguing with a friend about infant baptism. He’s a bible-only believer.
Please show me scriptural passages to prove that the Apostles in particular, and the early church in general, practiced infant baptism.
Click to expand...
There are no scriptural passages that explicitly refers to infant baptism, as demonstrated by the fact that people here are largely not referring to scripture, but trying to point to historical sources instead. Now, there are some that refer to household baptism (which, to some posters’ credit, has been mentioned), but we have no way of knowing if there were infants in the household in question, meaning they are speculative.

The better counter to the question of “where is infant baptism in the Bible?” in my view, is to point out that even if there is no mention of infant baptism, nor is there any mention of what logically follows if one rejects infant baptism, which is delaying baptism until they reach the proper age. Nowhere does the Bible mention anyone’s baptism being delayed for reason of age, nor is anyone ever mentioned as being baptized only once they reach the proper age. Indeed, if it is to be delayed until they reach the right age, the absence of a guideline as to what the “right age” is supposed to be is rather conspicuous.
 
Recognizing that the baptism is a replacement sign of the new covenant that replaces circumcision might be helpful for your friend. Then ask him when Jesus was circumcised.
 
JSRG said:
Now, there are some that refer to household baptism (which, to some posters’ credit, has been mentioned), but we have no way of knowing if there were infants in the household in question, meaning they are speculative.
Click to expand...
Nor do we have any evidence, from the passages cited or any other scriptural reference, that babies were not baptized.

The issue is that modern day “bible only” individuals have an unspoken presumption that Scripture, written by people 2,000 years ago, knew what questions people 2,000 years later would “think up”.

And it is not just issues about baptism which are not explicitly taught; there is a whole host of moral issues which simply were not present 2,000 years ago; that does not mean that because Scripture does not address a specific current day topic, that therefore there is no moral implication in the matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top