The religious historian Augustus Neander wrote of the first-century Christians: “The practice of infant baptism was unknown at this period.... That not till so late a period as (at least certainly not earlier than) Irenaeus [c. 140-203C.E.], a trace of infant baptism appears, and that it first became recognised as an apostolic tradition in the course of the third century, is evidence rather against than for the admission of its apostolic origin.”—History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church by the Apostles, 1864, p. 162.
I think at this point we’ve gotten away from the thread topic, sola scriptura. What you are doing dave is giving the Watchtower’s argument for their view of infant baptism. The problem is that there are not just Catholic but some Protestants who say that
theirs is the correct understanding of what the Bible has to say on the topic. But if the Church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15), why should we believe that the Church was actually in error and those whose interpretations were unheard of until the 1500s are truly the right ones?
Your historian above is one man, and his explanation is rather strained. If he thinks that Ireneaus being the first person to assert infant baptism is telling, what are we to make of the fact that nobody
denied the practice as apostolic until much later? His own logic argues against him. Someone (Augustine) much closer to the time says the
opposite:
What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400])
“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
“Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born” (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).
“By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal?
This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration” (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).
So on the one hand, regarding infant baptism and a lot of other Protestant distinctives, is the Catholic interpretation of the relevant biblical passages that has clear evidence in the writings of the early Church, while the opposing view is lacking. The problem with the assumption --and that’s what it is-- that the early Church went into apostasy shortly after the apostles until the truth was rediscovered by (Luther/Calvin/Campbell/Joseph Smith/CT Russell, insert your own *de facto *pope here) is that it is contrary to what Jesus said, (Matt. 16:18) that He will build His Church and the gates of hell will
not prevail against it.
And everyone from Luther on is forced to explain why that promise doesn’t really mean what it looks like it means. But then so much for
sola scriptura!
By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar… Romans 3:4 (ESV)
As I said before Dave, the beliefs of the early Church don’t have to be a mystery. But if you only avail yourself of sources the Watchtower points you to, I promise you’re not getting a full or accurate picture.
Question: Would the leaders at your local Kingdom Hall approve or disapprove of you spending a lot of time
here? And why?
“you do realize that the scriptures had not been divided up inot[sic] chapter and verse” excuse? Yeah, DD. I knew that about 18 years ago when I came across it as a Protestant neophyte. The words used still mean what the words actually mean. “Pasa Graphe” means any single passage. Until you deal with the facts you remain in the realm of unjustifiable assertion.