Justin Martyr on Infant Baptism

[mikeledes]

John Calvin on Infant Baptism and the claim that it was not endorsed by the early Church:

8. Every one must now see that paedobaptism, which receives such strong support from Scripture, is by no means of human invention. Nor is there anything plausible in the objection, that we no where read of even one infant having been baptised by the hands of the apostles. For although this is not expressly na by the Evangelists, yet as they are not expressly excluded when mention is made of any baptised family, (Acts 16: 15, 32,) what man of sense will argue from this that they were not baptised? If such kinds of argument were good, it would be necessary, in like manner, to interdict women from the Lord’s Supper, since we do not read that they were ever admitted to it in the days of the apostles. But here we are contented with the rule of faith. For when we reflect on the nature of the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, we easily judge who the persons are to whom the use of it is to be communicated. The same we observe in the case of baptism. For, attending to the end for which it was instituted, we clearly perceive that it is not less applicable to children than to those of more advanced years and that therefore, they cannot be deprived of it without manifest fraud to the will of its divine Author. The assertion which they disseminate among the common people, that a long series of years elapsed after the resurrection at Christ, during which paedobaptism was unknown, is a shameful falsehood, since there is no writer, however ancient, who does not trace its origin to the days of the apostles

This is from the following link:

apuritansmind.com/Baptism/CalvinInfantBaptism.htm

Both of the most important and learned reformers, Martin Luther and John Calvin, believed that infant baptism was practiced by the apostles and by the early chuch.

John Calvin also said the following about the opponents to infant baptism:

1. Let us now discuss the arguments by which some furious madmen cease not to assail this holy ordinance of God.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Atemi]

Basil on Baptism

Those not baptized are still in darkness, and the Church ceases not to solicit them to come and be renewed in the sacrament of regeneration. Decide, then, to be baptized without delay. Show the seal of the child of God.** The true motive for delay is a desire to indulge yourself in evil.** There will be nothing to commend in giving yourself when sated with pleasure and ready to die. Life, too, is uncertain; also, one’s ability to receive baptism if so delayed. It may be too late at last, and then — the fires of hell! (Homily upon Baptism, [ca.350 A.D.]).

So, here is Basil in the middle of the fourth century clearly stating two important truths:

1. Those who are unbaptized are living in darkness; and
2. Delaying baptism is indulgent and dangerous.

And the funny thing is is that Basil himself put off his baptism until he was 27 as was the accepted practice of the pious Catholics of his day.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.vi.i.iii.html

Why would pious Catholics purposely NOT baptise their infants, if the church did not accept it?

…

 

[Atemi]

Even if we assume for a second this is true.

What’s your point?

My point in this thread is that Justin Martyr never mentioned infant baptism in all his references to the Sacrament. In actuality, he implicitly denies that infant baptism is possible.

Something to this effect:

“Some people thought you should wait to be baptized therefore infant baptism is wrong despite the fact that there is plenty of clear evidence that infant baptism has been practiced over the entire history of the Church?”

No.

 

[Atemi]

Atemi, who cares about your “finding hard to believe”.

Even you have your own opinions. Crazy, isn’t it?

The historical evidence is overwhelming that no one could receive the Eucharist if they were not baptized, and why is that? because early Christians did not consider the Eucharist as a mere symbolism, like what you believe.

In the case of Constantine, if he was not interested in getting baptized early on, why would he be interested on receiving the Eucharist or any other sacrament for that matter?

Because he was a Christian.

I do not recall anything saying that Constantine was kept from all the Sacraments. If you have historical evidence that Constantine was kept from the Sacrament, then of course I am more than willing to look at it.

…

 

[DallasCatholic]

My point in this thread is that Justin Martyr never mentioned infant baptism in all his references to the Sacrament. In actuality, he implicitly denies that infant baptism is possible.

You have consistently ignored the fact that Justin Martyr was not speaking of infant baptism but of the baptism of adult converts.

 

[Atemi]

John Calvin on Infant Baptism and the claim that it was not endorsed by the early Church:

Sorry Michael, but I do follow Calvin, I follow Christ.

Since you value Calvin’s opinion so much regarding infant baptism, then I guess you also value his same opinion regarding the papacy.

I guess some of us are “furious madmen” and others “antichrists.”

That’s why it is best to go to the Master for our doctrine.

 

[clmowry]

So your not suggesting that he explicitly denied the validity of infant baptism in any of his writings?

My point in this thread is that Justin Martyr never mentioned infant baptism in all his references to the Sacrament. In actuality, he implicitly denies that infant baptism is possible.

 

[mikeledes]

These quotes from the Church Fathers contradict the notion that infant baptism was not handed down by the apostles:

catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_of_Infant_Baptism.asp

Here is a quote from Wikiepdia on infant baptism:

While the earliest extra-biblical directions for baptism,[4] which occurs in the Didache (c. 100),[5] seems to envisage the baptism of adults, rather than young children, since it requires that the person to be baptized should fast,[6] writings of the second and early third century indicate that Christians baptized infants too.[7] Irenaeus (c. 130–202) speaks not only of children but even of infants being “born again to God”[8] and three passages of Origen (185–c. 254)[9] mention infant baptism as traditional and customary.[10] Tertullian (c. 155–230) too, while advising postponement of baptism until after marriage, mentions that it was customary to baptize infants, with sponsors speaking on their behalf.[11] The Apostolic Tradition, attributed to Hippolytus of Rome (died 235), states that children were baptized first, and if any of them could not answer for themselves, their parents or someone else from their family was to answer for them.[12]

From at least the third century onward Christians baptized infants as standard practice, although some preferred to postpone baptism until late in life, so as to ensure forgiveness for all their preceding sins. The belief that people baptized as infants needed to be rebaptized arose only in the sixteenth century.[13**]

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Sorry Michael, but I do follow Calvin, I follow Christ.

Since you value Calvin’s opinion so much regarding infant baptism, then I guess you also value his same opinion regarding the papacy.

I guess some of us are “furious madmen” and others “antichrists.”

That’s why it is best to go to the Master for our doctrine.

I believe Calvin believed he follwed Christ when he taught what he taught on infant baptism. He certainly believed he went to the Master for his doctrine.

The point of quoting Calvin was not that I believed he was right on everything. What I find interesting, however, is that some Protestants can claim that the early church clearly practiced infant baptism, including the founding fathers of Protestantism, while others claim that it is not. Why the contradiction?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[El_camino]

Atemi:

Actually, Polycarp is no such evidence at all. He never said he was baptised as an infant. Pure conjecture.

Actually THIS is not true. All ECFs assert that there are three types of individuals 1) Unbelievers 2) Catechumens 3) Believers. The unbelievers where thos who did not believe in Christ, the catechumens believed in Christ but were in the process of preparation for being baptized and the believers were those who have already been baptized.

Polycarp said that he had been a believer all his life; therefore, this could only mean that he was baptized as an infant. Had he not been baptized as an infant, he would have said the number of years (fewer than his age) since he was baptized.

Many blessings,

E.C.

 

[mikeledes]

It’s also interesting how some Protestants can see infant baptism as clearly taught by Scripture and others do not:

John Calvin:

1. Every one must now see that paedobaptism, which receives such strong support from Scripture, is by no means of human invention. Nor is there anything plausible in the objection, that we no where read of even one infant having been baptised by the hands of the apostles. For although this is not expressly na by the Evangelists, yet as they are not expressly excluded when mention is made of any baptised family, (Acts 16: 15, 32,) what man of sense will argue from this that they were not baptised?

Ulrich Zwingli:

On the 6th of November in the preceding year [1525], a public discussion on the subject of infant baptism had been held in the council hall, when Zwingli and his friends proposed the following theses:

—

“Children born of believing parents are children of God, like those

who were born under the Old Testament, and consequently may

receive baptism.

“Baptism under the New Testament is what circumcision was

under the Old; consequently, baptism ought now to be

administered to children, as circumcision was formerly.

“We cannot prove the custom of re-baptizing either by examples,

texts, or arguments drawn from Scripture; and those who are re-baptized crucify Jesus Christ afresh.”

Martin Luther:

That the Baptism of infants is pleasing to Christ is sufficiently proved from His own work, namely, that God sanctifies many of them who have been thus baptized, and has given them the Holy Ghost; and that there are yet many even to-day in whom we perceive that they have the Holy Ghost both because of their doctrine and life; as it is also given to us by the grace of God that we can explain the Scriptures and come to the knowledge of Christ, which is impossible without the Holy Ghost. But if God did not accept the baptism of infants, He would not give the Holy Ghost nor any of His gifts to any of them; in short, during this long time unto this day no man upon earth could have been a Christian. Now, since God confirms Baptism by the gifts of His Holy Ghost as is plainly perceptible in some of the church fathers, as St. Bernard, Gerson, John Hus, and others, who were baptized in infancy, and since the holy Christian Church cannot perish until the end of the world, they must acknowledge that such infant baptism is pleasing to God. For He can never be opposed to Himself, or support falsehood and wickedness, or for its promotion impart His grace and Spirit. This is indeed the best and strongest proof for the simple-minded and unlearned. For they shall not take from us or overthrow this article: I believe a holy Christian Church, the communion of saints.

But that’s another topic.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Atemi]

You have consistently ignored the fact that Justin Martyr was not speaking of infant baptism but of the baptism of adult converts.

He spoke of baptism in general, not baptism for adult converts only. What you say is no “fact.”

 

[Atemi]

I believe Calvin believed he follwed Christ when he taught what he taught on infant baptism. He certainly believed he went to the Master for his doctrine.

What one believes, and what is, can often be very different things.

The point of quoting Calvin was not that I believed he was right on everything. What I find interesting, however, is that some Protestants can claim that the early church clearly practiced infant baptism, including the founding fathers of Protestantism, while others claim that it is not. Why the contradiction?

I know of not a single Protetestant that claims those in the early church did not practice infant baptism.

It all depends on what you define as the “early church.”

…

 

[Atemi]

Actually THIS is not true. All ECFs assert that there are three types of individuals 1) Unbelievers 2) Catechumens 3) Believers. The unbelievers where thos who did not believe in Christ, the catechumens believed in Christ but were in the process of preparation for being baptized and the believers were those who have already been baptized.

Polycarp said that he had been a believer all his life; therefore, this could only mean that he was baptized as an infant. Had he not been baptized as an infant, he would have said the number of years (fewer than his age) since he was baptized.

All conjecture.

He “would have” said this or “would have” said that is meaningless for this subject.

The fact is that he never said he was baptised as an infant. That is all we are left with.

Filling in the details you like where he did not is not very wise, IMV.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

All conjecture.

He “would have” said this or “would have” said that is meaningless for this subject.

The fact is that he never said he was baptised as an infant. That is all we are left with.

Filling in the details you like where he did not is not very wise, IMV.

Does scripture forbid infant baptism, anywhere?

Where does scripture talk about the required age for baptism? What are Christ teachings on this very subject?

If they are not in scripture how is it that you have them, personal revelation?

 

[clmowry]

When Justin Martyr makes a link between Baptism and Circumcision, doesn’t that “imply” it should be bestowed upon infants?

I also notice that he speaks of being born of pagan parents and receiving wicked training. Doesn’t this imply that he is refering specifically to those not raised in a Christian home. i.e. Those not already baptized and raised in the christian faith?
Chuck

 

[mikeledes]

What one believes, and what is, can often be very different things.

Absolutely true. John Calvin believed infant baptism was ordained by Christ and that it was practiced in the early Church. Luther and Zwingli believed the same. I wonder where they got that idea from? I wonder why they could see it so clearly in the early church fathers, while you and other Protestants do not?

I know of not a single Protetestant that claims those in the early church did not practice infant baptism.

It all depends on what you define as the “early church.”

How would you define the “early church”?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

This is from a Lutheran website:

From the beginning of New Testament Christianity at Pentecost to our time, unbroken and uninterrupted, the Church has baptized babies. Polycarp (69-155 AD), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant. Justin Martyr (100-166 AD) of the next generation, about the year 150 AD, states in his Dialog with Trypho The Jew that baptism is the circumcision of the New Testament." Irenaeus (130-200 AD) writes in Against Heresies II 22:4 that Jesus came to save all through means of Himself – all, I say, who through Him are born again to God – infants and children, boys and youth, and old men."

Similar expressions are found in succeeding generations by Origen (185-254 AD) and Cyprian (215-258 AD), and at the Council of Carthage in 254 where the 66 bishops stated: “We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God…especially infants…those newly born.” Origen wrote in his Commentary on Romans 5:9: “For this also it was that the Church had from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants.” Origen also wrote in his Homily on Luke 14: “Infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins.” Cyprian’s reply to a bishop who wrote to him regarding the baptism of infants stated: “Should we wait until the 8th day as did the Jews in the circumcision? No, the child should be baptized as soon as it is born.”

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.

 

[mikeledes]

This is from a Lutheran website:

lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=4411

From the beginning of New Testament Christianity at Pentecost to our time, unbroken and uninterrupted, the Church has baptized babies. Polycarp (69-155 AD), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant. Justin Martyr (100-166 AD) of the next generation, about the year 150 AD, states in his Dialog with Trypho The Jew that baptism is the circumcision of the New Testament." Irenaeus (130-200 AD) writes in Against Heresies II 22:4 that Jesus came to save all through means of Himself – all, I say, who through Him are born again to God – infants and children, boys and youth, and old men."

Similar expressions are found in succeeding generations by Origen (185-254 AD) and Cyprian (215-258 AD), and at the Council of Carthage in 254 where the 66 bishops stated: “We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God…especially infants…those newly born.” Origen wrote in his Commentary on Romans 5:9: “For this also it was that the Church had from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants.” Origen also wrote in his Homily on Luke 14: “Infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins.” Cyprian’s reply to a bishop who wrote to him regarding the baptism of infants stated: “Should we wait until the 8th day as did the Jews in the circumcision? No, the child should be baptized as soon as it is born.”

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.

Irenaeus stated:

“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” (Against Heresies, Book 1, Ch. 22.4).

And he believed that regeneration was accomplished in baptism. Irenaeus was a contemporary of Justin Martyr and knew Polycarp, who was disciple of Saint John. I think he would know whether infant baptism was handed down from the apostles or not.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Atemi]

Irenaeus stated:

“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” (Against Heresies, Book 1, Ch. 22.4).

Irenaeus is not talking about water baptism here in this section. He is making an argument that Christ died at over 50 years old.

LOL.

BTW, you cited the wrong book. It is Book 2, not Book 1.

And he believed that regeneration was accomplished in baptism. Irenaeus was a contemporary of Justin Martyr and knew Polycarp, who was disciple of Saint John. I think he would know whether infant baptism was handed down from the apostles or not.

If Irenaeus was so well connected and informed, how do you suppose he believed and taught that Jesus Christ was older than 50 years old when He was crucified?

You would think He would know, right?

…