# Early Church Fathers and Baptism



## Bryan (Aug 28, 2004)

Can it be shown not only that the earliest clear records we have are in approval of Infant Baptism (Which I believe from what I have seen that they are), but also that they baptized infants becasue of it's corrospodance with circumcision as the Reformed churches now teach?


This question has been on my mind a lot of late  

Bryan
SDG


----------



## Bryan (Aug 28, 2004)

I should add, if it is shown that they did not baptize becasue of the stated corrospondance why did they then? 

Bryan
SDG


----------



## Radar (Aug 28, 2004)

I just listened again to the paedobaptism debate offered by James White. It was mentioned that although several early church fathers wrote of infant baptism, there is very little that correlates to reformed teaching on the subject...maybe more along the thought of a quasi baptismal regeneration...removing the stain of original sin...etc. It was offered that Irenaeus was the father of covenant theology "in seed form", but was rebutted that Irenaeus is claimed to be the father of many things "in seed form" nowadays. A lutheran present asked a question insinuating that the lutheran tradition is much closer to the fathers' view than that of the calvin/reformed/covenantal view.

White offered the point that if infant baptism is present back then but for all of the wrong reasons, then how can the Reformed claim this act of the fathers -- but offer reasonably new reasoning contrary to the fathers -- but then use the fathers' paedobaptismal practices as support for their own.

Interesting issue, this is.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 28, 2004)

Radar,
Much of the correlation today is based upon presuppositionalism. This in my opinion is why the credo has so much difficulty with the idea. The credo theology does not allow room for the theory; one must abandon all that lies in the mental archive in regards to this paedo doctrine as well as credo theology, else the quest be compromised. 

I don't blame J.W. for his ideas; they are presupositional. He believes that since there is no mention of infant baptism in scripture or historically (there is very little), that the concept then must be foreign. He disregards the implicit when in reality, some of his presups are just that. 

His statement that paedo baptism historically is 'for all the wrong reasons' is undermined by (again) his presups, and his illicit aligning with Rome. This is where much of the confusion lies; Just ask Dan!


----------



## Radar (Aug 28, 2004)

Scott,

I would agree that, as has been stated elsewhre by others here, that there is an attendant worldview that one has when approaching most any topic. I think it could be argued that the early church wrote of infant baptism because it was correct practise, yet the theology behind it among many fathers was not good at establishing the correct rationale for the correct practise. I have no problem with that possibility. Likewise, it could be argued that the early church was incorrect for accepting infant baptism at all. Not the point really, it was just, in response to the post, I noted that the reformed explanation of infant baptism may not have been prevalent in the early church, for better or for worse. 

As I have written long ago, my personal tendency is to view my kids covenantally, yet to offer baptism to them as a grace in return for their faith. I still am looking into the issue. I have definite sympathies with the emphases of both camps, and have yet to be compelled to fall on one side or the other yet.

My big problem is that in 25 years of believing, I've never been in a church interested in exposing the flock to these issues. Heck, for the longest time I thought the debate in eschatology was pre vs post trib. We're really dumbing down the masses, and thus we suffer from historical body detachment. Busily winning converts to a body unaware of the great cloud of witnesses that surround us.


----------



## Scott (Aug 30, 2004)

How would the Reformed view differ from the patristic view? Reformed do not view baptism as a sign empty of grace and power. See, e.g., LC 154:

[quote:755844eb45]Q. 154. What are the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation?
A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to his church the benefits of his mediation, are all his ordinances; especially the word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for their salvation.[/quote:755844eb45]

Note that sacraments are "made effectual to the elect for their salvation." They are not empty of grace, as baptists teach. You will note in the relevant sections on baptism, the Westminster standards teach that baptism conveys the grace it represents. 

In these respects, the Reformed view seems similar to patristic views. 

Scott


----------



## Scott (Aug 30, 2004)

BTW, you might check out Ambrose of Milan's "On the Mysteries." He explains that the power of baptism comes solely from the Holy Spirit, who is present in the sacrament. I think that this jives nicely with the Westminster standards on the topic.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm


----------

