# Did Rome Add Infant Baptism?



## YXU

Does anyone know about the ground for such claim that infant baptism was added by Rome and was not the practise of the early churches before Rome.


----------



## Confessor




----------



## Whitefield

YXU said:


> Does anyone know about the ground for such claim that infant baptism was added by Rome and was not the practise of the early churches before Rome.



It would be helpful if you gave an approximate date(s) for BR (before Rome) and AR (after Rome).


----------



## toddpedlar

Whitefield said:


> YXU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone know about the ground for such claim that infant baptism was added by Rome and was not the practise of the early churches before Rome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be helpful if you gave an approximate date(s) for BR (before Rome) and AR (after Rome).
Click to expand...


The problem is that in most discussions I've had on this subject, the dates of AR and BR depend on how early the person giving those dates thinks the earliest examples of infant baptism exists... No offense to my baptist brethren here, none of whom I've actually discussed this particular question with. I'm merely reporting what has occurred in the several discussions with others that I've had who have brought this claim up.


----------



## OPC'n

YXU said:


> Does anyone know about the ground for such claim that infant baptism was added by Rome and was not the practise of the early churches before Rome.



It would be a wrong assumption since the apostles began this practice. The Roman church came after them as you know.


----------



## LadyFlynt

TranZ4MR said:


> YXU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone know about the ground for such claim that infant baptism was added by Rome and was not the practise of the early churches before Rome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be a wrong assumption since the apostles began this practice. The Roman church came after them as you know.
Click to expand...


Bingo! And we have a winner!


----------



## bug

TranZ4MR said:


> YXU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone know about the ground for such claim that infant baptism was added by Rome and was not the practise of the early churches before Rome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be a wrong assumption since the apostles began this practice. The Roman church came after them as you know.
Click to expand...


I would like to see the scriptural example of an apostle baptising an infant!


----------



## Blueridge Believer

bug said:


> TranZ4MR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YXU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone know about the ground for such claim that infant baptism was added by Rome and was not the practise of the early churches before Rome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be a wrong assumption since the apostles began this practice. The Roman church came after them as you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would like to see the scriptural example of an apostle baptising an infant!
Click to expand...


I'd like to see one proving immersion.


----------



## the particular baptist




----------



## caoclan

​


bug said:


> TranZ4MR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YXU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone know about the ground for such claim that infant baptism was added by Rome and was not the practise of the early churches before Rome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be a wrong assumption since the apostles began this practice. The Roman church came after them as you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would like to see the scriptural example of an apostle baptising an infant!
Click to expand...


Can you prove from the Scriptures they didn't?


----------



## Reluctantly Reforming

Thanks, everybody, for taking all the popcorn. Now what am I gonna munch while I enjoy this?


----------



## smhbbag

> Does anyone know about the ground for such claim that infant baptism was added by Rome and was not the practise of the early churches before Rome.



Any baptist worth his salt will acknowledge the existence of infant baptism before the Roman Catholic 'church' was formed as we know it.


----------



## Dragoon

"Scholars disagree on the date when infant baptism was first practiced. Some believe that first-century Christians did not practice it . Others believe that they did, understanding biblical references to individuals "and [their] whole household" being baptized (Acts 16:15, Acts 16:31-33, 1 Corinthians 1:16) as including small children and infants.

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

Some writers who believe that baptism of infants began to be practiced only after the first century - in the third century it was certainly the universal practice and was believed to be of apostolic origin - posit a link between it and the use of baptism by methods other than immersion, methods which, in spite of the evidence of the Didache, some claim did not at all exist in the first century.

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."


----------



## WaywardNowHome

caoclan said:


> ​
> 
> 
> bug said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TranZ4MR said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be a wrong assumption since the apostles began this practice. The Roman church came after them as you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to see the scriptural example of an apostle baptising an infant!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you prove from the Scriptures they didn't?
Click to expand...


This line of reasoning seems to conflict with the thought pattern behind the RPW. Are we going to be regulative regarding worship but normative regarding baptism? Or am I wrong in this observation?


----------



## Houston E.

WaywardNowHome said:


> caoclan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> bug said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to see the scriptural example of an apostle baptising an infant!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove from the Scriptures they didn't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This line of reasoning seems to conflict with the thought pattern behind the RPW. Are we going to be regulative regarding worship but normative regarding baptism? Or am I wrong in this observation?
Click to expand...


Now you've gone and done it! 
And here I was thinking it was going to be a relaxing weekend...

Better look out, they're coming...I can hear the quiet rumbling of tapping fingers even as I speak (err, type)....


----------



## caoclan

WaywardNowHome said:


> caoclan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> bug said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to see the scriptural example of an apostle baptising an infant!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove from the Scriptures they didn't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This line of reasoning seems to conflict with the thought pattern behind the RPW. Are we going to be regulative regarding worship but normative regarding baptism? Or am I wrong in this observation?
Click to expand...


I think this fits into the RPW, as I believe Scripture teaches that baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision, circumcision was performed on children, etc...


----------



## Ivan

Boy, oh boy....


----------



## PresbyDane




----------



## Whitefield

Grabbing the wife and kids and heading into the storm shelter.


----------



## jogri17

Presbyterians don't think in terms of infant baptism rather we think in terms of covenant baptism.


----------



## ExGentibus

Whitefield said:


> Grabbing the wife and kids and heading into the storm shelter.


----------



## WaywardNowHome

Houston E. said:


> WaywardNowHome said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caoclan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> Can you prove from the Scriptures they didn't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This line of reasoning seems to conflict with the thought pattern behind the RPW. Are we going to be regulative regarding worship but normative regarding baptism? Or am I wrong in this observation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you've gone and done it!
> And here I was thinking it was going to be a relaxing weekend...
> 
> Better look out, they're coming...I can hear the quiet rumbling of tapping fingers even as I speak (err, type)....
Click to expand...


Yikes! I didn't realize my comment would be so volatile.  I'm bracing myself now.


----------



## Berean




----------



## Marrow Man

WaywardNowHome said:


> This line of reasoning seems to conflict with the thought pattern behind the RPW. Are we going to be regulative regarding worship but normative regarding baptism? Or am I wrong in this observation?



The WCF (I.6) states:



> The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, *or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture*...



The "by good and necessary consequence" phrase is generally understood (under the RPW rubric) to allow for infant baptism. I say "generally understood," since the LBC expresses this statement differently:



> The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down *or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture*...



It would seem that the early Baptists understood the phrase in the WCF as entailing infant baptism and they desired to "close the loophole," so to speak.


----------



## Houston E.

WaywardNowHome said:


> Yikes! I didn't realize my comment would be so volatile.  I'm bracing myself now.



No prob...close to the weekend though, so you may be granted mercy.


----------



## Michael Doyle

Berean said:


>



WOW!!! 

Theres a storm a brewin


----------



## Semper Fidelis

WaywardNowHome said:


> caoclan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> bug said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to see the scriptural example of an apostle baptising an infant!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you prove from the Scriptures they didn't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This line of reasoning seems to conflict with the thought pattern behind the RPW. Are we going to be regulative regarding worship but normative regarding baptism? Or am I wrong in this observation?
Click to expand...


It would be incorrect in either case. The RPW, if applied in this case, would not be on basis of example but by command (i.e. Baptize only professors). We do not derive the basis for singing or prayer or the reading/preaching of the Word from narratives that describe these practices but from didactic teaching. The element of baptism is commanded. The baptism of disciples is commanded. The question is whether or not children of believers are disciples.

To the original point, YXU, the _basis_ for asserting that the Church added infant baptism is an _a priori_ commitment that they must have added it. There is certainly no historical evidence that includes any fervent objection to the practice when, if the credo-Baptist position was universal, it left no historical fingerprints in the writings of any ante-Nicene father. Iraneus was a disciple of Polycarp who claimed to be a disciple of John. At his death, he testified to being a Christian from birth.


----------



## Reluctantly Reforming

Berean said:


>



I'm a little rusty on my Python. Is this the Psychiatric Dairy sketch?


----------



## toddpedlar

Blueridge Believer said:


> bug said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TranZ4MR said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be a wrong assumption since the apostles began this practice. The Roman church came after them as you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to see the scriptural example of an apostle baptising an infant!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd like to see one proving immersion.
Click to expand...


Here we go again...


----------



## smhbbag

So are there any Baptists here who would assert that infant baptism originated in the Roman church?

If nobody is arguing it, why are we discussing it?

To quote what I'd said before: Any baptist worth his salt will acknowledge the existence of infant baptism before the Roman Catholic so-called church was formed as we know it.


----------



## Dragoon

Semper Fidelis said:


> WaywardNowHome said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caoclan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​Iraneus was a disciple of Polycarp who claimed to be a disciple of John. At his death, he testified to being a Christian from birth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nothing is really know about Iraneus's death so I think you are referring to Polycarp who said "Eighty and six years I have served him", but this may not be saying that he was a Christian from birth because many good historians basing their info on some secular evidence from that time points to him being in his late nineties when he was burned
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Houston E.

smhbbag said:


> So are there any Baptists here who would assert that infant baptism originated in the Roman church?
> 
> If nobody is arguing it, why are we discussing it?



My, someone's touchy today....


----------



## Dragoon

To try to answer simply the main point of this thread, No Rome did not add infant Baptism, the practice was around well before the papacy, but Rome did put into effect that all infants were to be baptized as a rule, and therefore forced all to go along with this practice.


----------



## JonathanHunt

Reluctantly Reforming said:


> Berean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a little rusty on my Python. Is this the Psychiatric Dairy sketch?
Click to expand...


No, this is the 'argument' sketch where one pays by the minute for the privilege of having an argument.

Rather appropriate...

*backs quietly away from the thread avoiding trip-wires*


----------



## R Harris

Dragoon said:


> Some writers who believe that baptism of infants began to be practiced only after the first century - in the third century it was certainly the universal practice and was believed to be of apostolic origin - posit a link between it and the use of baptism by methods other than immersion, methods which, in spite of the evidence of the Didache, some claim did not at all exist in the first century.
> 
> 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 problem of the baptistic position is that no one can come up with a _definitive_ person and/or date that the practice began. Therefore, since the history of the first three centuries is not clear, any such assignment of date and/or person is purely speculative.

Sadly, people such as John MacArthur and John Piper continue to make such ignorant assertions - that it is a "man made tradition", but never point to a conclusive source. It gets quite old and tiring.

Conversely, other than the unbiblical response of Tertullian, one cannot find intense objection to what was a universal practice by the early church. Surely if infant baptism was a gross heresy introduced early in the second century, _someone_ or some substantial group would have loudly objected to it and would have worked to put a stop to it before it became a universal practice. But we read of no such thing.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Dragoon said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaywardNowHome said:
> 
> 
> 
> nothing is really know about Iraneus's death so I think you are referring to Polycarp who said "Eighty and six years I have served him", but this may not be saying that he was a Christian from birth because many good historians basing their info on some secular evidence from that time points to him being in his late nineties when he was burned
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My sentence construction may have been rough but I was referring to Polycarp.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Javilo

*Infant Baptism*

There are only examples of adult baptism in the new testament.
Such as Acts 2 & Acts 8. There are no specific examples of infant 
baptism in the New Testament. Macarthur has a good summary of this in 
an article/sermon called "A Scriptural Critique of Infant Baptism"
It is easy to find on Google.


----------



## smhbbag

> Sadly, people such as John MacArthur and John Piper continue to make such ignorant assertions - that it is a "man made tradition", but never point to a conclusive source. It gets quite old and tiring.



Why must something have a specific, traceable starting point or originator to be called a man-made tradition?


----------



## YXU

Thanks for all of your replies. To those baptists brothers who affirm this claim, can any writing be provided so that I may have some resources to look at. 

I reason about this for a long time, if infant baptism is a practise added by the tradition of men later, then it had caused a big problem. For it will be an error persistently held by many people and has caused divisions among Christians and the majority of people have left the true Christian teaching of baptism by practising this. Therefore, infant baptism would be the greatest heresy and the greatest schism ever in the church history. 

So this statement is of heavy weight, for I will be a heretic if such statement is true. Please provide evidences other than assessment.

-----Added 5/28/2009 at 04:40:01 EST-----



Javilo said:


> There are only examples of adult baptism in the new testament.
> Such as Acts 2 & Acts 8. There are no specific examples of infant
> baptism in the New Testament. Macarthur has a good summary of this in
> an article/sermon called "A Scriptural Critique of Infant Baptism"
> It is easy to find on Google.



Please provide historical ground for the statement that infant baptism was added by Rome. This is the history forum, I think it is not allowed to discuss the doctrine itself. 

Stay on the point, provide historical evidence for your claim.


----------



## smhbbag

> Thanks for all of your replies. To those baptists brothers who affirm this claim, can any writing be provided so that I may have some resources to look at.



I've re-read the thread a few times, and I still have not seen a baptist affirm that the Roman 'church' originated infant baptism. 

However, there have been many baptists who say it is not true. Have you seen this claim on the board before? I have not.


----------



## LawrenceU

YXU,
Just so you know, any sane Baptist will not call a paedobaptist an heretic. In error, yes. An heretic, no.


----------



## Ivan

lawrenceu said:


> yxu,
> just so you know, any sane baptist will not call a paedobaptist an heretic. In error, yes. An heretic, no.



*never!*


----------



## YXU

smhbbag said:


> Thanks for all of your replies. To those baptists brothers who affirm this claim, can any writing be provided so that I may have some resources to look at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've re-read the thread a few times, and I still have not seen a baptist affirm that the Roman 'church' originated infant baptism.
> 
> However, there have been many baptists who say it is not true. Have you seen this claim on the board before? I have not.
Click to expand...


No, I have not seen such claim in the forum before, except you have claimed it in a different thread in one of your reply to Pastor Winzer where you said, we added the Roman infant baptism.

-----Added 5/28/2009 at 04:50:04 EST-----



Ivan said:


> lawrenceu said:
> 
> 
> 
> yxu,
> just so you know, any sane baptist will not call a paedobaptist an heretic. In error, yes. An heretic, no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *never!*
Click to expand...


A error persistently held by some, causing divisions among the holy and catholic church. What is it other than a heresy! it will not be deadly because infant baptism does not destroy your soul, but absolutely a heresy if it is a human tradition.


----------



## smhbbag

> No, I have not seen such claim in the forum before, except you have claimed it in a different thread in one of your reply to Pastor Winzer where you said, we added the Roman infant baptism.



I posed a hypothetical about the escalation of rhetoric, showing that saying "Baptists reject Christian (infant) baptism" as he did is inappropriate. Even if the statement is factual, the escalation of rhetoric is simply not helpful to conversation. Likewise, I said it is analogous to me saying "You add Roman (infant) baptism" which would also not be helpful.

First, I didn't even necessarily assert that was true, given the conversation's context.

Secondly, even if I did, those words only say that modern paedo's have added Roman baptism - which does not, in any way at all, imply that the Roman 'church' originated baptism.


----------



## toddpedlar

smhbbag said:


> Sadly, people such as John MacArthur and John Piper continue to make such ignorant assertions - that it is a "man made tradition", but never point to a conclusive source. It gets quite old and tiring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why must something have a specific, traceable starting point or originator to be called a man-made tradition?
Click to expand...


It's claimed by them to be an innovation. If it's an innovation, then there is a starting point to find, and if it's an innovation contrary to the practice of "the early church", contrary to the commands of Christ, as many Baptists claim, then there ought to be found writing against the innovation. This too is lacking. 

Something that is NOT an innovation, but represents the practice of the church from day 1 you would not necessarily expect to find much writing about, in an advocacy sense - since it's the practice the church already had, there isn't the need. 

Do you not see that innovations and regular practices would have two different documentary histories? This is why the objection to the claims of Piper and MacArthur that infant baptism is a later "man-made" addition fall flat. The situation is the reverse of what you'd expect from a documentary-historical standpoint, if infant baptism is a later man-made addition.


----------



## YXU

Secondly, even if I did, those words only say that modern paedo's have added *Roman baptism *- which does not, in any way at all, imply that the Roman 'church' originated baptism.[/QUOTE]

You called infant baptism Roman baptism, implying that the Roman Church originated. As you also don't give credit to this statement, this case should be closed, that it was not Rome who added infant baptism but by some early churches.


----------



## reformedminister

TranZ4MR said:


> YXU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone know about the ground for such claim that infant baptism was added by Rome and was not the practise of the early churches before Rome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be a wrong assumption since the apostles began this practice. The Roman church came after them as you know.
Click to expand...


 Acts 16:15, 33


----------



## smhbbag

> Secondly, even if I did, those words only say that modern paedo's have added Roman baptism - which does not, in any way at all, imply that the Roman 'church' originated baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You called infant baptism Roman baptism, implying that the Roman Church originated
Click to expand...


When I speak of Roman candles, does that mean the Romans invented candles? When I speak of the Roman Army...does that mean Rome invented armies?
The same goes with baptism. One can call infant baptism Roman, and yet that has no meaning whatsoever about who originated it.


----------



## toddpedlar

smhbbag said:


> Secondly, even if I did, those words only say that modern paedo's have added Roman baptism - which does not, in any way at all, imply that the Roman 'church' originated baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You called infant baptism Roman baptism, implying that the Roman Church originated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I speak of Roman candles, does that mean the Romans invented candles? When I speak of the Roman Army...does that mean Rome invented armies?
> The same goes with baptism. One can call infant baptism Roman, and yet that has no meaning whatsoever about who originated it.
Click to expand...


You may not like it, but when referring to infant baptism as Roman, you are doing more than just give it a name. It's not an arbitrary name that one can simply use without any implications. It is a choice which is patently unfair though it may certainly be ignorance of the facts that leads one do this rather than malice. However, to complete the original thought: to tar all infant baptism as "Roman" is to do many things, not least of which is to characterize the proper practice of infant baptism with the gross errors of Tridentine Romanism. The infant baptism of the early church cannot be so identified, nor can the infant baptism which faithful Presbyterians and Reformed practice.


----------



## Confessor

toddpedlar said:


> You may not like it, but when referring to infant baptism as Roman, you are doing more than just give it a name. It's not an arbitrary name that one can simply use without any implications. It is a choice which is patently unfair though it may certainly be ignorance of the facts that leads one do this rather than malice. However, to complete the original thought: to tar all infant baptism as "Roman" is to do many things, not least of which is to characterize the proper practice of infant baptism with the gross errors of Tridentine Romanism. The infant baptism of the early church cannot be so identified, nor can the infant baptism which faithful Presbyterians and Reformed practice.



He gave "Roman baptism" as an example of an unfair description in response to someone else who spoke of Baptists as denying "Christian baptism." He was aware of the unfairness as he was making his point.


----------



## MW

smhbbag said:


> One can call infant baptism Roman, and yet that has no meaning whatsoever about who originated it.



From an historical point of view it would be more accurate to say that postponement of baptism was distinctively "Romish," as it followed from the teaching that baptism washes away all sin.


----------



## smhbbag

> He gave "Roman baptism" as an example of an unfair description in response to someone else who spoke of Baptists as denying "Christian baptism." He was aware of the unfairness as he was making his point.



Boy, you defended my words better than I did, in half the time. I'll just ditto this 



> From an historical point of view it would be more accurate to say that postponement of baptism was distinctively "Romish," as it followed from the teaching that baptism washes away all sin.



This is also true. Just as not all infant baptism is Romish, in the same way not all delays of baptism are Baptist.


----------



## Whitefield

Javilo said:


> There are only examples of adult baptism in the new testament.
> Such as Acts 2 & Acts 8. There are no specific examples of infant
> baptism in the New Testament. Macarthur has a good summary of this in
> an article/sermon called "A Scriptural Critique of Infant Baptism"
> It is easy to find on Google.



Be careful of resting this totally on the absence of a specific example in Scripture, it might come back on you in the other sacrament.


----------



## MW

Whitefield said:


> Javilo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are only examples of adult baptism in the new testament.
> Such as Acts 2 & Acts 8. There are no specific examples of infant
> baptism in the New Testament. Macarthur has a good summary of this in
> an article/sermon called "A Scriptural Critique of Infant Baptism"
> It is easy to find on Google.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be careful of resting this totally on the absence of a specific example in Scripture, it might come back on you in the other sacrament.
Click to expand...


It is problematic even for the Baptist practice of baptism, because the fact is there is not a single example of a child brought up in a believing household who was baptised when he could speak for himself.


----------



## bug

Blueridge Believer said:


> bug said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TranZ4MR said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be a wrong assumption since the apostles began this practice. The Roman church came after them as you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to see the scriptural example of an apostle baptising an infant!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd like to see one proving immersion.
Click to expand...


But then I am not saying the scriptures prove immersion am I? I am asking those who claim that apsotles baptised infants to give me an example of it? I therefore fail to see the relevance of your post in regards to the question I asked.

-----Added 5/29/2009 at 06:48:40 EST-----



caoclan said:


> ​
> 
> 
> bug said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TranZ4MR said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be a wrong assumption since the apostles began this practice. The Roman church came after them as you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to see the scriptural example of an apostle baptising an infant!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you prove from the Scriptures they didn't?
Click to expand...


Nope, but I do not have to do I? For the assertion was that the apsotles did it, I just want someone to prove that very bold statement to me. Where in the bible do we read that, I am not asking where in the bible we necerssarily infer that they did it, for such inference is open to interpretation, I am simply asking were we read that they did it?


----------



## galactic reformer

Where are any ages given for recipients of baptism?


----------



## R Harris

Ivan said:


> lawrenceu said:
> 
> 
> 
> yxu,
> just so you know, any sane baptist will not call a paedobaptist an heretic. In error, yes. An heretic, no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *never!*
Click to expand...


Hmmmm . . . . have either one of you heard of "Landmarkism"? The Baptistic Landmarkians would beg to differ with you.


----------



## Ivan

R Harris said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lawrenceu said:
> 
> 
> 
> yxu,
> just so you know, any sane baptist will not call a paedobaptist an heretic. In error, yes. An heretic, no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *never!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmmm . . . . have either one of you heard of "Landmarkism"? The Baptistic Landmarkians would beg to differ with you.
Click to expand...


Of course I have. I am NOT a Landmark Baptist. *I* have never called a paedobaptist a heretic.


----------



## DTK

armourbearer said:


> From an historical point of view it would be more accurate to say that postponement of baptism was distinctively "Romish," as it followed from the teaching that baptism washes away all sin.



Personally, I would be very cautious about suggesting this from an historical perspective. It seems to have been a widespread practice in the early church, and not particularly peculiar to Rome. I would, however, agree that the belief that baptism "washes away all sin" was, to be sure, a misguided incentive for many to postpone baptism.

This incentive for the postponement of baptism seems to have been all the more powerful in the 2nd century due to the "current thought" then "that no remission was possible for sins deliberately committed after baptism" (Kelly, _Early Christian Doctrines_, p. 198), though at the same time period this view was offset by "a more lenient attitude" that "was widely adopted in practice" (p. 199), emphasizing God's mercy and His desire for repentance and confession.

DTK


----------



## jogri17

Sure, Paul was a Roman citizen and Pete had some rights being under Roman control.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Pastor King,

If I am not mistaken you are very well read in the early church. Have you ever picked up a little booklet that was published by the ARBCA called 'Baptism in the Early Church'? If I recall the book specifically states that infant baptism was first performed based upon the need of necessity and not based upon a construct of a theoligical covenant inclusion.

Here is a smalll part of a book review I got off line in the RBTR 2:1.

I did find the book a difficult read because the doctrine of baptism was so skewed in the early church fathers. It was really saddening. It truly didn't seem to represent either of our views of baptism. 

Anyways, I do want to know what your conclusion is concerning whether or not these guys were accurately presenting the early church fathers correctly.



> Book Reviews
> 
> 
> 
> Baptism in the Early Church, Hendrikus Stander and Johannes Louw (ARBCA and Carey Publications, 2004), reviewed by Michael T. Renihan
> 
> Professors Hendrikus Stander and Johannes Louw have provided an invaluable resource for students of the Patristic era of Church History. It is also a provocative volume for inquirers bold enough to look beyond their historical presuppositions regarding baptism. A word of warning: objectivity is required or this book will be a frustrating read.
> 
> Stander and Louw are both classical scholars in their own right. Each man’s work can be readily examined in the books, monographs, and articles he has published. Each is a world class scholar. Dr. Stander studied at Yale. On those occasions that took him to the libraries at Harvard, he would travel within a quarter mile of where I presently live. He is a kind and gracious man. Dr. Louw, along with Eugene Nida, is an editor of the acclaimed Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. The careers of Stander and Louw dovetailed at the University of Pretoria in South Africa. They have been associated with that institution for many years.
> 
> The denominational allegiance of the authors makes Baptism in the Early Church remarkable. They belong to churches that are paedobaptist and covenantal by confession and heritage. Yet, their desire was (and is) to be objective, honest, and thorough in their quest to understand how the Early Church understood and practiced baptism. In the end, they gently and graciously remove one of the three legs on which the three-legged stool of covenantal paedobaptism sat for many years; the other two being (from this writer’s perspective) theological necessity and eisogetical induction.
> 
> In the Twentieth Century, much work was done in the fields of archaeology and history with regard to baptism and the initiatory rites of the Early Church. It is sad that so much has been neglected or dismissed willfully with a few strokes on the keyboard. Everett Ferguson’s volume The Encyclopaedia of the Early Church (which contains articles by Prof. Stander) is a repository for many of these recent discoveries.
> 
> Baptism in the Early Church is comprised of twenty-five chapters of varying length. The final chapter contains conclusions that flow naturally from the research and study. There is very little extraneous material. The
> 
> RBTR 2:1 (January 2005) p. 160
> 
> style is compact, to the point, and engagingly thorough. The only drawback to the work is its slight Afrikaans flavor.
> 
> The work unearths many surprising early writers in order to present their views to a new generation. Individually and collectively, these works show that the history of infant baptism is not “An Unfinished Tragicomedy” as Peter J. Leithart recently styled the subject.1 In that essay, Leithart dismisses all that came before Tertullian with a sentence fragment. Stander and Louw don’t get to Tertullian until chapter seven. There is much to consider before this unique character ever wrote his treatise on baptism; a work that is highly allegorical and uses all the water passages of the Bible to say something about baptism. Leithart is partly right; Tertullian is the first to draw our attention to the baptism of those who were not adults. It is, however, not necessarily to infants that our attention is drawn, but to children. In the history of this debate, there is a difference. The words are not exactly convertible from one to the other. Infants are those who are nursing. A child is one who has...





DTK said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> From an historical point of view it would be more accurate to say that postponement of baptism was distinctively "Romish," as it followed from the teaching that baptism washes away all sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I would be very cautious about suggesting this from an historical perspective. It seems to have been a widespread practice in the early church, and not particularly peculiar to Rome. I would, however, agree that the belief that baptism "washes away all sin" was, to be sure, a misguided incentive for many to postpone baptism.
> 
> This incentive for the postponement of baptism seems to have been all the more powerful in the 2nd century due to the "current thought" then "that no remission was possible for sins deliberately committed after baptism" (Kelly, _Early Christian Doctrines_, p. 198), though at the same time period this view was offset by "a more lenient attitude" that "was widely adopted in practice" (p. 199), emphasizing God's mercy and His desire for repentance and confession.
> 
> DTK
Click to expand...


----------



## DTK

Randy,

I've heard of that work to which the article makes reference, but which I have not read. For the most part, I try to avoid discussing infant baptism on this board, not because I don't have a position or have no interest in the practice of the early church, but because I do not have the time it would require, and what time I do have I try to direct it to other specific areas of interest to me.

For my benefit I view this board as a resource pointing to other resources. From time to time I try to post things of interest to me that might be of interest to others. But the subject of infant baptism has, and continues to be here, a subject of hot controversy where, when dealing with it from an *historical* perspective, people are going to differ because practices in the early church differed from one location to another. I simply don't have the desire to enter into a discussion that would demand a long and drawn out effort on my part, especially for which my interest (historically) is limited.

DTK


----------



## nicnap




----------



## MrMerlin777

Whitefield said:


> Grabbing the wife and kids and heading into the storm shelter.


----------



## MW

DTK said:


> Personally, I would be very cautious about suggesting this from an historical perspective. It seems to have been a widespread practice in the early church, and not particularly peculiar to Rome. I would, however, agree that the belief that baptism "washes away all sin" was, to be sure, a misguided incentive for many to postpone baptism.



Thankyou, Pastor King; I placed "Romish" within quotation marks to indicate a connection with what has become a part of the teaching of Rome rather than a specific genealogical principle. I do not consider the Roman monstrosity to have existed in the early centuries of the church's history.


----------



## DTK

armourbearer said:


> Thankyou, Pastor King; I placed "Romish" within quotation marks to indicate a connection with what has become a part of the teaching of Rome rather than a specific genealogical principle. I do not consider the Roman monstrosity to have existed in the early centuries of the church's history.



Ah, my apologies, I spoke too soon.

DTK


----------



## MW

DTK said:


> Ah, my apologies, I spoke too soon.



No, I obviously needed to clarify what I meant. And we would certainly like you to speak a little more. Blessings!


----------



## Ivan

armourbearer said:


> DTK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, my apologies, I spoke too soon.
> 
> 
> 
> And we would certainly like you to speak a little more. Blessings!
Click to expand...


I concur.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

DTK said:


> Randy,
> 
> I've heard of that work to which the article makes reference, but which I have not read...... DTK



Thanks Pastor. I understand. I wasn't trying to pull you into a debate. I was merely just wondering what you thought of the authors and their reliability in understanding the historical context of baptism in the early church. 

I deeply appreciate ya DTK. It is always good to see you post here. 

Your admiring brother,


----------



## DTK

Thanks for your kind words, Randy. 

DTK


----------

