Infant Baptism

[mVitus]

In today’s homily, one of the things mentioned in the course of it by the deacon was how early Church baptism ws usually done with adults and older children in addition to being a full submergance.
So what I’m wondering is when that started changing and what the ‘why’ was.

 

[Vico]

In today’s homily, one of the things mentioned in the course of it by the deacon was how early Church baptism ws usually done with adults and older children in addition to being a full submergance.
So what I’m wondering is when that started changing and what the ‘why’ was.

About 70 A.D. was written the Syrian Didache. In Chapter 7 has:

“Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

catholicdoors.com/misc/apologetics/baptismsprinkling.htm

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

In today’s homily, one of the things mentioned in the course of it by the deacon was how early Church baptism ws usually done with adults and older children in addition to being a full submergance.
So what I’m wondering is when that started changing and what the ‘why’ was.

Was he saying infant baptism was not done in the early church? Did he cite anything. I know with some of our deacons that they sometimes overstate thier theological expertise.

 

[1ke]

In today’s homily, one of the things mentioned in the course of it by the deacon was how early Church baptism ws usually done with adults and older children in addition to being a full submergance.
So what I’m wondering is when that started changing and what the ‘why’ was.

What he was (hopefully) trying to convey was that the early evangelization took place among those who were, obviously, adults. When adults with children converted many brought their families with them into the church so they too were baptized.

Shortly after the first converts, there would have been children born into the faith. So in addition to babies of converts entering the church, there were also babies of those already in the church.

If he said or implied that babies were not baptized, he is mistaken.

And while then norm for adult baptism was immersion, from the beginning pouring also existed.

He likely didn’t mean to give the impression it was adults VS babies and immersion VS pouring as if one existed without the other. But if he did, he is mistaken.

 

[joeybaggz]

Remember also that Jewish law commanded that on the eighth day, a baby boy was to be circumcised as a sign and seal in the flesh of the covenant with the Lord God. Jesus himself said,“do not withhold the children from me.” The practice of infant baptism has its origins in this tradition, as Christianity and the importance of infant baptism evolved in Church thinking from these traditions and teachings.

Shalom

 

[tm21]

In the early 400’s, Augustine argued against Pelagius who denied original sin. Augustine pointed out that if there was not original sin, then there would be no need to baptize babies. If infant baptism was not believed to have apostolic origin, then Pelagius would have responded as such which would have negated Augustines argument…but he didn’t. Instead, Pelagius acknowledge there was a benefit to infant baptism…only that it did not remit original sin. Hence we can surmise that it was a common belief among Christians…and even heretics…in the early 5th century that infant baptism had apostolic origin. That’s good enough for me.

 

[mVitus]

Thanks for all the answers. So I guess from what’s been said, adult baptism was the norm at the start of the Church, not because babies weren’t baptized, but because adults were the converts.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Thanks for all the answers. So I guess from what’s been said, adult baptism was the norm at the start of the Church, not because babies weren’t baptized, but because adults were the converts.

Kind of. When adults were baptized however if they had babies in the family they were also baptized. Baptism replaces circumcision theologically. Same principle. Sometimes adults were circumcised (which won wars)

If one were to just go to the easter vigil at my parish one Might assume we didn’t practice infant baptism. When in fact, more babies are baptized in our parish than adults. But at the vigil, it’s the converts…