# Infant Baptism: History in Early Church



## Romans922

Anyone know some resources or articles or just quotes that you might have on hand to share here about the earliest citings of infant baptism or the practice of infant baptism from the 1st century to, let's say, 4th century?


----------



## Skyler

Welcome to the Christian Classics Ethereal Library! | Christian Classics Ethereal Library has some of the early church fathers' writings online; I've had some success searching with creative Google queries. It's worth a shot.


----------



## Marrow Man

Here are a couple:

Tertullian (ca. 200 A.D.), "On Baptism" in Ante-Nicene Fathers III, 678, argues against infant baptism on grounds of not prematurely receiving forgiveness of sins and then incurring some post-baptismal sins afterward.

Cyprian (ca. 250 A.D.), Letter # 58 (ANF, V, 353), argues that the church ought not delay baptism until the 8th day (after the model of Jewish circumcision) but baptize a newborn immediately.


----------



## dannyhyde

Chapter Seven: A Brief History of Infant Baptism in [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Loves-Little-Children-Baptize/dp/0965398196/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239207020&sr=8-1"]Jesus Loves the Little Children: Why We Baptize Children (Grandville: Reformed Fellowship, 2006)[/ame].


----------



## Romans922

I have the book, thanks.


----------



## lynnie

One day I googled Irenaeus and Polycarp on this and read a lot of links. Polycarp was discipled by John the Apostle and in turn discipled Irenaeus, who was an early writer. Irenaeus apparently wrote that Polycarp said John the Apostle referred to baptizing infants.

Now there are links about how Irenaeus also refers to the adult convert as a babe in Christ, and the credos will go on an on about how Irenaeus' use of the term babe refers to adults. The paedos will then go on endlessly exegeting Irenaeus to conclude that Polycarp and John the Apostle did refer to physical infants. You could spend a week just reading the blog debates.

I found the implications of Irenaeus to be weighted heavier on the paedo side. Not wanting to argue with Polycarp and John the Baptist I backed off from my former credo position. Now I am the only paedo-credo in the world  ; I don't think either side is wrong or sinning or has a clear monopoly on scripture or history when it comes to this. But anyway, do an Irenaeus google and you'll find plenty.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Baptism-Early-Church-H-Stander/dp/0952791315/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239211092&sr=1-2]Amazon.com: Baptism in the Early Church: H. F. Stander, J. P. Louw: Books[/ame]

Here is where we discussed the book I link to above. It is a pretty good discussion. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/baptism-early-church-stander-louw-21849/


----------



## Davidius

A lot of evidence of baptism being withheld comes from the development of the practice of waiting to be baptized until late in life, or even not until death, because of the notion that sins were forgiven by the sacrament. St. Augustine is an example of this; his mother did not have him baptized because she didn't want him to risk losing the state of grace. The practice was obviously corrected.


----------



## DMcFadden

Romans922 said:


> Anyone know some resources or articles or just quotes that you might have on hand to share here about the earliest citings of infant baptism or the practice of infant baptism from the 1st century to, let's say, 4th century?



"citings of infant baptism"??? Do you mean as a product of corrupt Roman Catholicism or as a errant and sinful carryover into Reformed practice? 

Actually, I have been working through the issue over my time on the PB and find myself quite sympathetic to the paedo arguments. I agree with the books cited so far. PB's Danny Hyde should be consulted. However, in my opinion, the primary case for infant baptism will be a theological/covenantal one; the primary case for believer's baptism will be a "common sense" biblical one. That doesn't decide which one is correct, only that they typically argue past each other due to finding their essential strength in different areas.


----------



## Rich Koster

Isn't it great that we are saved by God's unmerited favor by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone and not if/when we are baptized? I see merits on both sides of the argument, and as we all see it goes waaaaaaaaay back. The whole immersion=baptize from NT Greek is what sways me to my side.oops:


----------



## Hebrew Student

Hey Everyone!

I agree with Davidius:



> A lot of evidence of baptism being withheld comes from the development of the practice of waiting to be baptized until late in life, or even not until death, because of the notion that sins were forgiven by the sacrament. St. Augustine is an example of this; his mother did not have him baptized because she didn't want him to risk losing the state of grace. The practice was obviously corrected.



The problem with a lot of these discussions is that many of the main elements of the Presbyterian/Reformed Baptist discussion were not yet fully developed at the time of the early church. Most of what I have seen is this platonic idea that Baptism forgives sins, and hence, it is a discussion as to whether or not to regenerate them early or just before they die.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## A.J.

The Prevalence and Theology of Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, East and West

Infant Baptism in Early Church History by Dennis Kastens

Omnia ad Dei Gloriam: Five Smooth Stones: The Historical Case for Infant Baptism

I've read Rev. Hyde's book, and I have Stander and Louw's. They provide the relevant quotes on the subject.


----------



## A.J.

In another baptism thread, Cesar Proenca (discipulo) has a link to a fine article on the history of infant baptim prior to Augustine. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/526535-post5.html


----------

