# Baptism in the early church - massive tome



## Pergamum (Feb 24, 2015)

FAQ on Baptism in the Early Church | TGC



> Is there evidence for infant baptism exist before the second part of the second century?
> 
> “There is general agreement that there is no firm evidence for infant baptism before the latter part of the second century.” (p. 856)





> Why did infant baptism emerge?
> 
> “The most plausible explanation for the origin of infant baptism is found in the emergency baptism of sick children expected to die soon so that they would be assured of entrance into the kingdom of heaven.” (p. 856)
> 
> ...



975 pages..bring it on on Paedos! We all know that crushing your theological opponent under the massive weight of your prose is the best winning strategy!


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 24, 2015)

But seriously, has anyone done a review on this book yet?


----------



## Phil D. (Feb 24, 2015)

Pergamum said:


> But seriously, has anyone done a review on this book yet?



Not really a review, but... I own and have read most of the book. Ferguson is a well-respected patristic scholar and this is definitely his _magnum opus_. The work is certainly the most comprehensive compilation and evaluation of the directly relevant historical data to date, and is not likely to be rivaled in this regard anytime soon. Ferguson is a credo-baptist (Christian Church), but is scholarly and fair with the evidence, always showing a willingness to acknowledge the known exceptions to the normative. He also goes to considerable length to discover the theological and ecclesiastical forces behind the various beliefs and practices covered in his survey. It's not a casual read, but is certainly a must-have reference for any serious student of this subject.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 24, 2015)

Ferguson is criticized in some reviews for advocating baptismal regeneration (as a Church of Christ representative); e.g. Review: Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries by Everett Ferguson and http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/7108_7723.pdf

A generally favorable review by a professor (S.A.) in the Dutch-Reformed tradition: Featured: Baptism in the Early Church by Everett Ferguson [Vol. 3, #2] | The Englewood Review of BooksFeatured: Baptism in the Early Church by Everett Ferguson [Vol. 3, #2] - The Englewood Review of Books This author raises a few methodological questions in his analytical portion.

This review is unflattering: https://leegatiss.wordpress.com/2014/11/03/baptism-in-the-early-church/

These are representative from an online search.

There are other reviews in academic journals that I (and probably many others outside of a seminary or a personal subscription, print or online) cannot access.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 24, 2015)

Since Ferguson is with the "Christian Church" is he supportive of the early church's quick departure from the truth regarding baptism (the quick entrance of the errors of baptismal regeneration into the Church). I have often found this troubling as well....very quickly we see almost the whole early church believing in baptismal regeneration. Why? 

While paedos and credos might enlist the help of this book over the mode and recipients of baptism, maybe there is a bigger common foe found in this book.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 24, 2015)

As I think Rev.Winzer has pointed out previously, many who are claimed as "early advocates" of a true baptismal regeneration position do little more than quote and affirm Scriptural statements. Reception of the sign is taken matter-of-factly as an indicator of possession of the thing signified. There isn't much apparent effort to draw a hard distinction between the church's applicatory work and Holy Spirit's applicatory work, each in its own sphere. Because of this manner and attitude, it may be easy--but improper--to impose later developed views upon the earliest witnesses.

Confusing the sign and the thing signified is probably a general human failing. Plus, it has been pointed out on other occasions: that an amazing qualitative distinction appears in only a generation or two between the spiritual aptitude apparent in the apostles (by their writings), all taught by Christ; and the aptitude of the ECFs. There was also persecution--the killing off of many of the foremost leaders. There was also the loss of major connection to the Jews within this same short time-frame. NT religion stops being interpreted against the rich background OT expression of the same faith.

By the time we arrive at the 3rd and 4th centuries, the church also faces "competition" with the elaborate rites of the mystery-religions. Extravagances associated with Communion are usually recognized as developing in this time. Baptism suffers similarly. In both sacraments, the issue continues to be disentangling the primitive rite from all that was added upon it. How much, in fact, is original?

And what you also have, by the time many extravagances are added, is a need to supply theological justifications for _everything,_ which would be *both* primitive rites *and* the additions, being treated much the same by those who inherit the whole ball of wax.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## timmopussycat (Feb 25, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> As I think Rev.Winzer has pointed out previously, many who are claimed as "early advocates" of a true baptismal regeneration position do little more than quote and affirm Scriptural statements. Reception of the sign is taken matter-of-factly as an indicator of possession of the thing signified. There isn't much apparent effort to draw a hard distinction between the church's applicatory work and Holy Spirit's applicatory work, each in its own sphere. Because of this manner and attitude, it may be easy--but improper--to impose later developed views upon the earliest witnesses.
> 
> Confusing the sign and the thing signified is probably a general human failing. Plus, it has been pointed out on other occasions: that an amazing qualitative distinction appears in only a generation or two between the spiritual aptitude apparent in the apostles (by their writings), all taught by Christ; and the aptitude of the ECFs. There was also persecution--the killing off of many of the foremost leaders. There was also the loss of major connection to the Jews within this same short time-frame. NT religion stops being interpreted against the rich background OT expression of the same faith.
> 
> ...



Since the flawed theology of infant baptism (i.e., baptism=baptismal regeneration as the underlying basis for i.b.) was extant by 200, it would appear that the problem of disentangling accretions from biblical truth cannot be solved by appeals to tradition. Instead we are shut up to the witness of Scripture alone.


----------

