# Opposition to Infant Baptism Prior to the 16th Century



## BradyC (Jan 23, 2009)

Hey PB,

Does anyone here who is well educated in church history know if there was any opposition to paedo-baptism prior to the Anabaptists in the 16th century? If it is not too much trouble, I was hoping you could give a brief survey of such oppositions (if any).

In Christ,
Brady


----------



## timmopussycat (Jan 23, 2009)

BradyC said:


> Hey PB,
> 
> Does anyone here who is well educated in church history know if there was any opposition to paedo-baptism prior to the Anabaptists in the 16th century? If it is not too much trouble, I was hoping you could give a brief survey of such oppositions (if any).
> 
> ...



See: Amazon.com: Did the Early Church Baptize Infants?: Kurt Aland: Books


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 23, 2009)

Tertullian objected due to the association of baptism with the forgiveness of sins. In brief, he maintained it was better to baptize later in life because it would be more beneficial in that capacity.


----------



## BradyC (Jan 23, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Tertullian objected due to the association of baptism with the forgiveness of sins. In brief, he maintained it was better to baptize later in life because it would be more beneficial in that capacity.



Hey Rich, I am familiar with the Tertullian objection. Are there any others you are aware of?

In Christ,
Brady


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 23, 2009)

I'm not aware of any outright objections. This was one of my issues from another thread where we discussed this. Even Tertullian doesn't technically object to infant baptism but finds baptism later in life to be preferable. I'm not a historian so perhaps somebody else will be able to provide a quote.


----------



## A.J. (Jan 23, 2009)

BradyC said:


> Hey PB,
> 
> Does anyone here who is well educated in church history know if there was any opposition to paedo-baptism prior to the Anabaptists in the 16th century? If it is not too much trouble, I was hoping you could give a brief survey of such oppositions (if any).
> 
> ...



See Prof. Samuel Miller's Infant Baptism Scriptural and Reasonable's first discourse. After providing the Biblical evidence for infant baptism, he gives a historical case for the practice. The discourse deals with Baptist objections which apparently were being propagated during his time.


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Jan 24, 2009)

BradyC said:


> Hey PB,
> 
> Does anyone here who is well educated in church history know if there was any opposition to paedo-baptism prior to the Anabaptists in the 16th century? If it is not too much trouble, I was hoping you could give a brief survey of such oppositions (if any).
> 
> ...



Try the New Testament.


----------



## semperveritas (Jan 24, 2009)

Bettensons Documents of the Christian Church comments a bit on it. It is significant too that nobody in the church held to anything similar to the covenantal view of infant baptism. All that Iam aware of held to a baptismal regeneration in one form or another. The reformed were the first to espouse infant baptism without salvation. I too would like to know if the Waldenses or other groups were credo-baptists.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 24, 2009)

semperveritas said:


> Bettensons Documents of the Christian Church comments a bit on it. It is significant too that nobody in the church held to anything similar to the covenantal view of infant baptism. All that Iam aware of held to a baptismal regeneration in one form or another. The reformed were the first to espouse infant baptism without salvation. I too would like to know if the Waldenses or other groups were credo-baptists.



http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/ancient-ness-our-beliefs-proof-their-truth-paedo-credo-issues-42378/


----------



## BradyC (Jan 26, 2009)

A.J. said:


> BradyC said:
> 
> 
> > Hey PB,
> ...



Thank you for this A.J. This helps greatly.

In Christ,
Brady


----------



## TsonMariytho (Jan 31, 2009)

Two answers...

1. Gregory of Nazianzus (330-389 AD) opposed infant baptism [1]. He argued that a child younger than about 3 years old shouldn't be baptized, because such a one couldn't yet "listen and answer something about the sacrament".

However, he was careful to clarify that an infant should be baptized without qualms if any "danger presses", i.e. the clinical baptism they believed made the difference between Heaven and Hell for a dying infant. (Hey, I would have done the same thing in their shoes.)


2. The very baptismal rite handed down from antiquity presumes all the attributes of a disciple (basic knowledge, belief, and resolve to follow the Master) in the recipient of baptism. Even when an child was spoken for by a sponsor, the priest would address the questions to the baptized, not to the sponsor: "Do you reject the Devil and all his pomp?" or if speaking to the sponsor, "Does he reject..." -- and so forth. Then the sponsor would answer, on behalf of the baptized, as if it were the child speaking.

We can be thankful that Reformed paedobaptistic churches dropped that aspect of the rite like a hot potato. As Gill points out, who wants a potentially false statement like that made so publicly before God and the Church on his conscience? While you will find a Reformed denomination here and there that will still ask questions similar to the ancient liturgy (one of the Continental Reformed denoms, if I recall correctly), they make it clear that the questions are addressed to the parent, not to the child. I believe Lutheran and Anglican churches, on the other hand, still retain the old form. And of course Baptist Churches retain the same old idea as the ancient liturgy, if not in the same words.

Boniface, bishop of Rome wrote to Augustine asking about the propriety and implications of asking infants such specific questions about their personal faith, really raising the question of whether we could say a baptized infant has faith at all in the proper sense. Augustine's answer left a lot to be desired. [2]


----------------------
[1] Baptism in the Early Church by Stander & Louw, p. 139.

[2] Infant Baptism & the Covenant of Grace by Paul Jewett, pp. 177-178.


----------



## Hippo (Jan 31, 2009)

It is also interesting that Augustine himslef was not baptised as a child even though his mother was scrupulously orthodox. This is often put down to the strange paractice of opposing infant baptism for no other reason than baptism being seen as a once and for all forgivness of past sin, subsequent sins potentially resulting in damnation, resulting in a baptism as near death as possible.


----------



## TsonMariytho (Jan 31, 2009)

Yep, that doctrinal error made for some weird situations. Augustine's mentor (and baptizer of both Augustine and his son Adeodatus) Ambrose of Milan was actually in an unbaptized state when he was called to be a bishop! Needless to say, Ambrose had to get that taken care of before assuming office. :^)


----------

