# Question of historical argument for paedobabtism?



## jwright82 (Dec 15, 2019)

Is there an argument to made if children of believers are no longer involved in the initiation rite of the covenant, which they were before. Wouldn't we expect to have read about it being a problem in the early church? The apostle's would have had to deal with it in the epistles. But as far as I know they didn't.
So if children were involved in these rites before and all of a sudden that changed, they would have had to explicitly deal with it.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Dec 15, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> Is there an argument to made if children of believers are no longer involved in the initiation rite of the covenant, which they were before. Wouldn't we expect to have read about it being a problem in the early church? The apostle's would have had to deal with it in the epistles. But as far as I know they didn't.
> So if children were involved in these rites before and all of a sudden that changed, they would have had to explicitly deal with it.


Yes, this has been discussed my various authors. I have seen it brought up on the PB a few times.

Briefly, children received the sign of the covenant, then were suddenly excluded from the sign awaiting a profession of faith at some later date. If that were so, it is astonishing that there is no hint of controversy in the NT.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Dec 15, 2019)

It's a helpful point to consider since we're often left on the defensive with statements like, "the burden of proof lies on you to demonstrate that infants were baptized." The statement itself contains the presupposition that the household principle was altered/abrogated in Christ. Rather, the assertion should be, "the burden of proof lies on you (the credo) to demonstrate that the household principle was altered/abrogated." Unless a change in the household can be verified, the first assertion carries no weight.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## jwright82 (Dec 15, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> Yes, this has been discussed my various authors. I have seen it brought up on the PB a few times.
> 
> Briefly, children received the sign of the covenant, then were suddenly excluded from the sign awaiting a profession of faith at some later date. If that were so, it is astonishing that there is no hint of controversy in the NT.


Yeah you'd think they would have had to deal with such a sudden change. I'm no expert but I believe even the Greeks included their children in at least some rites? Not sure though.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Dec 15, 2019)

Not to go into attack mode. But I would appreciate to hear how a Baptist would respond to this in a thoughtful way. Maybe it would just be: It wasn't as bit of an issue as the other things going on? Would appreciate thoughts.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Dec 16, 2019)

@jwright82

The early church had to be told years after Pentecost that circumcision doesn't save, that it was okay to eat unclean animals, and that the ceremonial laws were no longer binding. There's no way they would have given up the covenantal status of children without a fight.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 16, 2019)

RPEphesian said:


> @jwright82
> 
> The early church had to be told years after Pentecost that circumcision doesn't save, that it was okay to eat unclean animals, and that the ceremonial laws were no longer binding. There's no way they would have given up the covenantal status of children without a fight.


They would have though, since the Apostles themselves would have revealed to the early Church that right now the sign of the Covenant relationship with God was based upon faith in Christ as Lord Messiah and having the promised Holy Spirit of Jeremiah 31. Water baptism external sign of that already having been established by God under the NC.


----------



## Tom Hart (Dec 16, 2019)

"OK, any questions? Yes, you, the Jewish fellow in the... third row... with the brown tunic. Oh, you were just scratching your nose? My apologies, I thought you were about to object to the mandate to exclude your child from the sign of the covenant until he makes a credible profession of faith. Well, we'll just move on, then, to the next slide: grape juice."

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 3


----------



## jwright82 (Dec 16, 2019)

RPEphesian said:


> @jwright82
> 
> The early church had to be told years after Pentecost that circumcision doesn't save, that it was okay to eat unclean animals, and that the ceremonial laws were no longer binding. There's no way they would have given up the covenantal status of children without a fight.


Yes a fight the apostle's would have had to write about. Yet as far as I know no record of such a fight.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Dec 16, 2019)

Maybe, just maybe, the Early church did a good job in explaining the difference between Baptism and Circumcision. A difference which, when well understood, makes this issue moot and makes one a Baptist.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Dec 16, 2019)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Maybe, just maybe, the Early church did a good job in explaining the difference between Baptism and Circumcision. A difference which, when well understood, makes this issue moot and makes one a Baptist.



Or maybe they baptized whole households because they assumed the church would operate as it had since Abraham, and no one said anything different

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Dec 16, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> Yes a fight the apostle's would have had to write about. Yet as far as I know no record of such a fight.



It took a synod just to clear up a circumcision controversy.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Dec 16, 2019)

RPEphesian said:


> Or maybe they baptized whole households because they assumed the church would operate as it had since Abraham, and no one said anything different



The likelihood of that is approximately zero, so no.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 16, 2019)

RPEphesian said:


> Or maybe they baptized whole households because they assumed the church would operate as it had since Abraham, and no one said anything different


Well, they would have had it explained that under this new and better Covenant relationship, baptism sign of one having already eternal life in Christ.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 16, 2019)

RPEphesian said:


> It took a synod just to clear up a circumcision controversy.


Paul by himself could have explained how water baptism now function under new economy.


----------



## Phil D. (Dec 16, 2019)

Paul makes it very clear, in numerous places, to Jew and Gentile alike, that outward circumcision has become “nothing”. (1 Cor. 7:19; Rom. 2:25-29; Gal. 5:6, 6:15; Col. 3:11). So it seems the better question is, if water baptism carries over the particular aspect of physical circumcision that it must be given to all of one’s physical offspring, shouldn’t such find explicit command somewhere?

Even if one supposes Jewish Christians would have “automatically” assumed such a continuation, what about Gentile believers? Apart from explicit instruction from the Apostles to do so (and this preserved in holy writ for the sake of future Gentile converts, who in a few short years would constitute the vast majority of the church), how could such an inference be certainly known?

It’s also been pointed out that there is no indication whatsoever in the writings of the early church fathers conveying that any of them understood baptism was to be given to infants on the basis of continuing that particular aspect of circumcisional practice. Origen was one of the earliest advocates of infant baptism, but he makes no reference to covenantal inclusion as the reason for it. Rather, he specifically appeals to apostolic tradition, claiming they passed along the teaching that infants need to be so cleansed from original sin (_Commentaries on Romans_, 5.9). While by no means definitive in establishing proper theology or church practice, this is extremely inauspicious from a historical perspective.

The biblical references to household baptisms are at best inconclusive on this point.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 16, 2019)

Phil D. said:


> Paul makes it very clear, in numerous places, to Jew and Gentile alike, that outward circumcision has become “nothing”. (1 Cor. 7:19; Rom. 2:25-29; Gal. 5:6, 6:15; Col. 3:11). So it seems the better question is, if water baptism carries over the particular aspect of physical circumcision that it must be given to all of one’s physical offspring, shouldn’t such find explicit command somewhere?
> 
> Even if one supposes Jewish Christians would have “automatically” assumed such a continuation, what about Gentile believers? Apart from explicit instruction from the Apostles to do so (and this preserved in holy writ for the sake of future Gentile converts, who in a few short years would constitute the vast majority of the church), how could such an inference be certainly known?
> 
> ...


Paul states that he thanked God water batized few, strange admission for him to make if infants were to get batized still!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 16, 2019)

It is essentially an argument from silence, and for that reason cannot be regarded as probative.

Arthur Conan Doyle, meaning his detective Sherlock Holmes, solved a case by a noticing a potentially relevant omission: "the dog that didn't bark" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_Silver_Blaze). It led him to follow an eventually fruitful line of inquiry.

Attending to "things one might expect to find but are absent" invites investigation for possible causes. This cause may end up entirely in the head of the expectant person.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (Dec 16, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> It is essentially an argument from silence, and for that reason cannot be regarded as probative.
> 
> Arthur Conan Doyle, meaning his detective Sherlock Holmes, solved a case by a noticing a potentially relevant omission: "the dog that didn't bark" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_Silver_Blaze). It led him to follow an eventually fruitful line of inquiry.
> 
> Attending to "things one might expect to find but are absent" invites investigation for possible causes. This cause may end up entirely in the head of the expectant person.


Good point but that's an extraordinary kind of silence. We know he was having trouble with judeizers and they most certainly would have pitched a fit. But nothing.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 16, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> Good point but that's an extraordinary kind of silence. We know he was having trouble with judeizers and they most certainly would have pitched a fit. But nothing.


It seems that every mention of water baptism in NT States or implies one has already received Jesus as Lord.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Dec 16, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> Good point but that's an extraordinary kind of silence. We know he was having trouble with judeizers and they most certainly would have pitched a fit. But nothing.



Acts 15 also has a huge extraordinary kind of "silence" that is harmful to your case.

Nowhere does Paul or anyone else oppose the demands for Gentiles to be circumcised by explaining that baptism has replaced circumcision (in the manner in which Covenant Paedobaptists argue that it is). That's a very glaring omission. That's the one place in all of the New Testament where I would expect such an argument to be made, but it is not.

However, that is (as Rev. Buchanan said above) an argument from silence and also apropos of nothing.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 16, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> It is essentially an argument from silence, and for that reason cannot be regarded as probative.
> 
> Arthur Conan Doyle, meaning his detective Sherlock Holmes, solved a case by a noticing a potentially relevant omission: "the dog that didn't bark" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_Silver_Blaze). It led him to follow an eventually fruitful line of inquiry.
> 
> Attending to "things one might expect to find but are absent" invites investigation for possible causes. This cause may end up entirely in the head of the expectant person.


How would you tie together water baptism and making disciples of the Lord Jedus, or do you see them totally separate?
Asking as Jesus at end of Gospel of Matthaw seems to apply them together as to whom should Receive water baptism under the NC .


----------



## deleteduser99 (Dec 16, 2019)

Phil D. said:


> Paul makes it very clear, in numerous places, to Jew and Gentile alike, that outward circumcision has become “nothing”. (1 Cor. 7:19; Rom. 2:25-29; Gal. 5:6, 6:15; Col. 3:11). So it seems the better question is, if water baptism carries over the particular aspect of physical circumcision that it must be given to all of one’s physical offspring, shouldn’t such find explicit command somewhere?
> 
> Even if one supposes Jewish Christians would have “automatically” assumed such a continuation, what about Gentile believers? Apart from explicit instruction from the Apostles to do so (and this preserved in holy writ for the sake of future Gentile converts, who in a few short years would constitute the vast majority of the church), how could such an inference be certainly known?
> 
> ...



All the baptism passages are inconclusive without covenantal context.

Far as early church goes, when I took historical theology with Sam Waldron he said in reference to the early church , "I expect baby talk." They don't argue from covenants, but neither did they get that baptism doesn't wash away your original sins. In fact, such superstition caused them to place baptism a long distance from the profession. They never called the Lords Day as the Sabbath. And I'll bet if you had said to Origen that the three members of the Trinity are of one substance, equal in power and glory, distinguished by their personal properties you would get this response --->

I dont put much faith in the early church for these reasons. I dont think they run against me, yet neither an LBC or WCF subscriptionist is going to find their own theology adequately (or in some cases, at all) expressed. I attribute that as intentional by Christ in Eph 4.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 16, 2019)

RPEphesian said:


> All the baptism passages are inconclusive without covenantal context.
> 
> Far as early church goes, when I took historical theology with Sam Waldron he said in reference to the early church , "I expect baby talk." They don't argue from covenants, but neither did they get that baptism doesn't wash away your original sins. In fact, such superstition caused them to place baptism a long distance from the profession. They never called the Lords Day as the Sabbath. And I'll bet if you had said to Origen that the three members of the Trinity are of one substance, equal in power and glory, distinguished by their personal properties you would get this response --->
> 
> I dont put much faith in the early church for these reasons. I dont think they run against me, yet neither an LBC or WCF subscriptionist is going to find their own theology adequately (or in some cases, at all) expressed. I attribute that as intentional by Christ in Eph 4.


Some of them received teaching first hand from Apostles and stayed sound in doctrine, but others like Origen seemed to stray off the scripture pathway.


----------



## Phil D. (Dec 16, 2019)

RPEphesian said:


> Far as early church goes, when I took historical theology with Sam Waldron he said in reference to the early church , "I expect baby talk." ...I don't put much faith in the early church for these reasons.


First, I am not in any way, shape or manner putting my faith in the early church. However, it can't be said that church history is totally irrelevant to the question at hand.

Second, there are substantial differences between cases like the Trinity and baptismal practice. While the doctrine of the Trinity didn't find full, unified expression for centuries, there are innumerable statements in the ECFs on various attributes and relationships concerning the persons of the Godhead that are fully consistent with orthodox theology. There is no analogous treatment of baptism.

In other words, many of the individual components pertaining to the full-orbed, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity find immediate and continuing expression among the ECFs. Conversely, from the very earliest writings and continuing for centuries later there is virtually no trace of covenant/circumcision thinking in the ECFs various expressions concerning baptismal doctrine.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew35 (Dec 16, 2019)

RPEphesian said:


> All the baptism passages are inconclusive without covenantal context.
> 
> Far as early church goes, when I took historical theology with Sam Waldron he said in reference to the early church , "I expect baby talk." They don't argue from covenants, but neither did they get that baptism doesn't wash away your original sins. In fact, such superstition caused them to place baptism a long distance from the profession. They never called the Lords Day as the Sabbath. And I'll bet if you had said to Origen that the three members of the Trinity are of one substance, equal in power and glory, distinguished by their personal properties you would get this response --->
> 
> I dont put much faith in the early church for these reasons. I dont think they run against me, yet neither an LBC or WCF subscriptionist is going to find their own theology adequately (or in some cases, at all) expressed. I attribute that as intentional by Christ in Eph 4.


Theology, no. However, when I was investigating the historical case for infant baptism, it struck me that a _practice_ is going to be more robust than a theology (hence baptism and the Lord's Supper are nigh universally practiced throughout Christian time and space, though their various and contradictory theological rationales abound). And (here comes another argument from silence) it seemed to me that convincing the whole church--including remote, rural ones--from one end of the Roman Empire to the other to _begin _the practice of infant baptism without a squeak of protest would have been quite the undertaking. 

We should expect to see at least some resistance given the same freakout that was occasioned over a _practice_ (again) so simple as the date of Easter. Even just one note or quotation from an early father: "The Warbsquiblers of Morinthia refuse to practice the baptism of all but mature believers, saying this is the _true_ teaching of the apostles."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Phil D. (Dec 16, 2019)

Andrew35 said:


> it seemed to me that convincing the whole church--including remote, rural ones--from one end of the Roman Empire to the other to _begin _the practice of infant baptism without a squeak of protest would have been quite the undertaking.


The first _explicit_ mention of infant baptism comes from Tertullian in the early 3rd century. He opposed it and treats it as an innovation.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Andrew35 (Dec 16, 2019)

Phil D. said:


> The first _explicit_ mention of infant baptism comes from Tertullian. He opposed it and treats it as an innovation.


As I recall, he opposes it on very different grounds from what a modern Baptist would. His rationale is pragmatic, not based on an appeal to tradition or the practice of the apostles. To say he treats it as an "innovation" is going rather too far, to my mind.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Phil D. (Dec 16, 2019)

Andrew35 said:


> To say he treats it as an "innovation" is going rather too far, to my mind.


Fair enough. For myself, I would agree with several authors, including at least one paedobaptist, who have perceived it in that manner.

Also, I haven't seen any compelling answers to the fact that the Didache, seen by most textual scholars as the oldest church writing apart from the New Testament (late 1st - early 2nd century), makes no mention of or accommodation for baptizing infants in its extended instructions on how and to whom baptism should be administered.


----------



## Tom Hart (Dec 16, 2019)

Phil D. said:


> The first _explicit_ mention of infant baptism comes from Tertullian in the early 3rd century. He opposed it and treats it as an innovation.


Could you provide a quotation, or at least name the source? I think I've read the words you are referring to, and I don't recall anything about "innovation".


----------



## OPC'n (Dec 16, 2019)

Paedobaptists and Credobaptists alike treat their children in the same manner. They teach them the ways of God, they expect them to behave in a Christian manner, they take them to church to worship God, they do private devotions as a family, they teach their children to read the Bible and pray, they catechize them, etc. This type of treatment of children is covenantal treatment. The only difference between paedo and credo is that paedo acknowledges what we are doing and we give them the sign of that covenant. God never intended for families to be separated having some inside the covenant and others outside the covenant. That would be disjointed and chaotic. To the Jew, it was second nature to have covenant children. The only change they needed to learn was how the sign changed from circumcision to baptism. Credobaptism is a form of dispensationalism.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 16, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> Good point but that's an extraordinary kind of silence. We know he was having trouble with judeizers and they most certainly would have pitched a fit. But nothing.


It's only "extraordinary" silence if your frame of reference leads you to think it would be as certain as the sunrise, that failed to come. Sherlock's non-barking dog only serves his interest because of its standard behavior evidenced to all. Furthermore, any other cause for the dog's silence must be rigorously excluded. But in the end, the silence is still not dispositive. It merely serves as a stimulus to focus on one area of investigation to the exclusion of others.



SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Acts 15 also has a huge extraordinary kind of "silence" that is harmful to your case.
> 
> Nowhere does Paul or anyone else oppose the demands for Gentiles to be circumcised by explaining that baptism has replaced circumcision (in the manner in which Covenant Paedobaptists argue that it is). That's a very glaring omission. That's the one place in all of the New Testament where I would expect such an argument to be made, but it is not.
> 
> However, that is (as Rev. Buchanan said above) an argument from silence and also apropos of nothing.


This post quoted above is (correctly) demonstrative of a parallel case. A Baptist frame of reference is often taken as a firm basis for doubting the reasonableness of NT-baptism-in-place-of-OT-circumcision. But once again, it is merely a case built on an expectation, not evidence. There are other reasons that can be offered as to why baptism does not appear in the Acts record of the Jerusalem Council.

************************
Because I am deliberately undermining confidence in _arguments from silence, _now let me offer an argument from silence. This argument has the advantage of _not being _Scriptural but historical. It is an advantage, in the sense that we can skip debates about exegesis. It is still an argument from silence, and as such nothing may properly be deduced from it. The best it can do is call on our own minds to suggest explanations for it.

Where are the historical debates and outrage from the early centuries over the (supposed) late-invention of "infant" baptism? Where is the counter-claim to Tertullian's (or some other) allegation that IB is "apostolic" in origin? There is record of arguments over the date Easter should be celebrated, and other petty matters, to go along with more serious and weighty doctrinal and practical concerns. The church fought against the introduction of images, even if the correct _iconoclastic _side lost. How much more would we expect a freak out over the introduction of so curious a practice as IB?

I don't happen to think there's a better explanation for this lacuna than that the practice was, in fact, apostolic as claimed. However, I do not doubt that from an alternate frame of reference the silence of the father's record can be reasonably explained _to another's satisfaction.
_
Do I think the Apostles *would have* done more or differently if they meant to put the NT church on a different footing (as to membership) than the OT church? Yes, inasmuch as my frame of reference promotes that theory. But I don't expect a Baptist (or a RomanCatholic for that matter) to grant my primary assumptions.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Tom Hart (Dec 16, 2019)

Phil D. said:


> The first _explicit_ mention of infant baptism comes from Tertullian in the early 3rd century. He opposed it and treats it as an innovation.


Is this the quotation you are thinking of? This is from the 18th chapter of Tertullian's _On Baptism_ (found here).

_And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children._​
There is nothing in the surrounding context to suggest any "innovation" of infant baptism.

In the same work, Tertullian treats baptism as literally sin-remitting, and he also names the most suitable times for being baptized (Passover taking first place).

As an aside, I'd recommend that anyone be cautious reading Tertullian. He has his idiosyncrasies.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 16, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> How would you tie together water baptism and making disciples of the Lord Jedus, or do you see them totally separate?
> Asking as Jesus at end of Gospel of Matthaw seems to apply them together as to whom should Receive water baptism under the NC .


The short answer is that Mt.28:19-20 (the institution of Christian baptism) gives me a very clear mandate as to how disciples are made. "Make disciples" is the fundamental action of the sentence, the essential command. "Baptizing" and "teaching" are accompanying participles, which I take to be participles of means; i.e. they are the _procedure_ for the production of disciples. They help answer the question, "HOW do we go about making those disciples?"

The order of the participles is a rational order: the first proper step is baptism, bringing the one baptized into recognized membership of the church, separating him visibly from the world and putting God's mark of ownership or claim on him. The second, ongoing step is teaching the fullness of Jesus' doctrine. Disciples are (or ought to be) embarked on a lifetime of learning the truth as it is in Jesus (Eph.4:21).

In this interpretation of Mt.28:19-20, age is simply not determinative of who is a disciple, only affecting the manner (age appropriate) of instruction. Discipling begins immediately, concurrent with every other form of instruction for a person at any stage of life. I don't believe "make disciples" stands alone in Christ's Great Commission, being a distinct exercise of Christ's authority, _added to which _is baptizing (a second exercise) and teaching (a third exercise). In other words, I don't believe a "made disciple" (past-perfect tense) is the description of a successful evangelistic encounter.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Dec 16, 2019)

Phil D. said:


> The first _explicit_ mention of infant baptism comes from Tertullian in the early 3rd century. He opposed it and treats it as an innovation.



This a false statement. Tertullian treats it as a present reality. He nowhere explicitly condemns it rather, he states that it is preferable to wait. 

_God’s approbation sends sure premonitory tokens before it; every “petition” may both deceive and be deceived. And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary—if (baptism itself) is not so necessary—that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, “Forbid them not to come unto me.” Let them “come,” then, while they are growing up; let them “come” while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the “remission of sins?” More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to “ask” for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given “to him that asketh.” For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred—in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom—until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation._

Tertullian. (1885). On Baptism. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), S. Thelwall (Trans.), Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian (Vol. 3, p. 678). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

The text below is from Cyprian, who was alive around the same time as Tertullian. Cyprian clearly affirms infant baptism. He mentions that an entire council supports infant baptism.

_But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, *we all thought very differently in our council.* For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man. For as the Lord says in His Gospel, “The Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them,” as far as we can, we must strive that, if possible, no soul be lost. For what is wanting to him who has once been formed in the womb by the hand of God? To us, indeed, and to our eyes, according to the worldly course of days, they who are born appear to receive an increase. But whatever things are made by God, are completed by the majesty and work of God their Maker._

Cyprian of Carthage. (1886). The Epistles of Cyprian. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), R. E. Wallis (Trans.), Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix (Vol. 5, pp. 353–354). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Phil D. (Dec 16, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> Could you provide a quotation, or at least name the source? I think I've read the words you are referring to, and I don't recall anything about "innovation".


I believe it's in his _De Baptismo_. Tertullian was apt to appeal to apostolic practice in many of his apologetic works. So while his counsel against infant baptism proves it was in fact occurring, his general modus operandi suggests he believed it had post-apostolic origins. As Dr. John Hey (18th century Anglican) commented, "It seems odd that he [Tertullian] would not know, along with Origen, of the tradition, that infant baptism had been ordained by the apostles." (_Lectures in Divinity_) Kurt Aland (nominally Lutheran) went into this issue in some depth in his _Did the Early Church Baptize Infants?, _and characterized Tertullian's remarks as a reaction to the "development" of infant baptism.


----------



## Phil D. (Dec 16, 2019)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> This a false statement.


Seems unnecessarily harsh given the subjectiveness involved, as evinced by the way various historians have understood the matter. See my post above. Pax.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Dec 16, 2019)

_Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. ...And if it should seem necessary to do so, there may be added to the aforementioned consideration the fact that in the Church, Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, *Baptism is given even to infants.* And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism would seem superfluous. _-Origen. Homilies on Leviticus.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Dec 16, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> Could you provide a quotation, or at least name the source? I think I've read the words you are referring to, and I don't recall anything about "innovation".


See post #35.


----------



## Phil D. (Dec 16, 2019)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> Origen. Homilies on Leviticus.


Origen also said, “The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (_Commentaries on Romans _5:9 [A.D. 248]).


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Dec 16, 2019)

Phil D. said:


> Origen also said, “The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (_Commentaries on Romans _5:9 [A.D. 248]).


Which would further debunk your claim about infant baptism being an "innovation" around the time of Tertullian. This quote along with the ones I provided nowhere reflects that these Early Church theologians were reacting to infant baptism as being a new innovation.


----------



## Phil D. (Dec 16, 2019)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> Which would further debunk your claim about infant baptism being an "innovation" around the time of Tertullian.


I said Tertullian "treated" it as an innovation. That's an important distinction. See posts 36 and 37.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Dec 16, 2019)

Phil D. said:


> I said Tertullian "treated" it as an innovation. See post 36.


And I said "This quote along with the ones I provided nowhere reflects that these Early Church theologians were reacting to infant baptism as being a new innovation." Simply substitute "reacting" for "treating." It makes no difference. The substance of what I said remains unchanged.


----------



## Phil D. (Dec 16, 2019)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> And I said "This quote along with the ones I provided nowhere reflects that these Early Church theologians were reacting to infant baptism as being a new innovation." Simply substitute "reacting" for "treating." It makes no difference. The substance of what I said is not changed.


I understand that's your opinion, while other credible church historians characterize it the way I have. See post 36. I also acknowledged that Origen advocated infant baptism way back in post 16. In your haste you are mischaracterizing and/or misunderstanding what I've said.


----------



## timfost (Dec 16, 2019)

Phil D. said:


> The first _explicit_ mention of infant baptism comes from Tertullian in the early 3rd century. He opposed it and treats it as an innovation.



Hippolytus in 215:

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them.” (_The Apostolic Tradition _21:16)

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Phil D. (Dec 16, 2019)

timfost said:


> Hippolytus in 215:


Tertullian's statement would slightly predate this (c. 202 AD). Also, dating the Apostolic Tradition that early is a matter of dispute, with some modern scholars concluding that Hippolytus was not the actual author.


----------



## Tom Hart (Dec 16, 2019)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> This a false statement. Tertullian treats it as a present reality. He nowhere explicitly condemns it rather, he states that it is preferable to wait.
> 
> _God’s approbation sends sure premonitory tokens before it; every “petition” may both deceive and be deceived. And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary—if (baptism itself) is not so necessary—that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, “Forbid them not to come unto me.” Let them “come,” then, while they are growing up; let them “come” while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the “remission of sins?” More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to “ask” for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given “to him that asketh.” For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred—in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom—until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation._
> 
> ...


Thank you for these.


Phil D. said:


> I believe it's in his _De Baptismo_.


Yes, I found it and quoted it above.

Do you still stand by your assertion that Tertullian was treating baptism as an innovation?


----------



## Phil D. (Dec 16, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> Do you still stand by your assertion that Tertullian was treating baptism as an innovation?


I tend toward that understanding, yes. See post 36.


----------



## Tom Hart (Dec 16, 2019)

Phil D. said:


> I tend toward that understanding, yes. See post 36.


Fascinating.


----------



## Phil D. (Dec 16, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> Fascinating.


Maybe read Aland's book before being too dismissive.


----------



## Phil D. (Dec 16, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> Fascinating.


Would you care to exegete what you believe indisputably shows that Terullian didn't see it as an innovation (i.e. that he certainly didn't see baptizing infants incapable of "coming" to the rite as having post-apostolic origins)? I would be genuinely interested in a thoughtful perspective. It is always possible writers like Hey and Aland, along with myself, have missed something crucial.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 16, 2019)

Phil D. said:


> I understand that's your opinion, while other credible church historians characterize it the way I have. See post 36. I also acknowledged that Origen advocated infant baptism way back in post 16. In your haste you are mischaracterizing and/or misunderstanding what I've said.


Water Baptism does not deal with remission of Original Sin, correct?


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Dec 16, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Water Baptism does not deal with remission of Original Sin, correct?



Why don't you tell us? Also, how does this pertain to the OP's question. If you want to learn the nuances of the biblical doctrine of baptism, I would be happy to recommend some books.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## W.C. Dean (Dec 16, 2019)

Reverend Buchanan is correct, this is an argument from outside exegesis, and like evidences of creation, should be secondary compared to a Scriptural, exegetical basis. To the paedobaptist (like myself) I am comforted by the historical argument and obviously our Baptist brothers have thought through it and are not noticeably harmed by it. I have to make sure for myself to never base what I believe on something outside Scripture, and this is difficult for me, particularly in this case. Doctrinal issues like this shouldn't (and won't) be settled by extra-Scriptural proofs. Once again, and as Rev. Buchanan said, this is a helpful comfort to the paedobaptist. It shouldn't be the primary reason for being one however. I'm not saying this to admonish anyone but I constantly need to remind myself of it.


----------



## jwright82 (Dec 16, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> It's only "extraordinary" silence if your frame of reference leads you to think it would be as certain as the sunrise, that failed to come. Sherlock's non-barking dog only serves his interest because of its standard behavior evidenced to all. Furthermore, any other cause for the dog's silence must be rigorously excluded. But in the end, the silence is still not dispositive. It merely serves as a stimulus to focus on one area of investigation to the exclusion of others.
> 
> 
> This post quoted above is (correctly) demonstrative of a parallel case. A Baptist frame of reference is often taken as a firm basis for doubting the reasonableness of NT-baptism-in-place-of-OT-circumcision. But once again, it is merely a case built on an expectation, not evidence. There are other reasons that can be offered as to why baptism does not appear in the Acts record of the Jerusalem Council.
> ...


Oh I agree it's not a solid deductive argument but an inductive historical argument. It is mere evidence not proof. Solid post.


----------



## jwright82 (Dec 16, 2019)

W.C. Dean said:


> Reverend Buchanan is correct, this is an argument from outside exegesis, and like evidences of creation, should be secondary compared to a Scriptural, exegetical basis. To the paedobaptist (like myself) I am comforted by the historical argument and obviously our Baptist brothers have thought through it and are not noticeably harmed by it. I have to make sure for myself to never base what I believe on something outside Scripture, and this is difficult for me, particularly in this case. Doctrinal issues like this shouldn't (and won't) be settled by extra-Scriptural proofs. Once again, and as Rev. Buchanan said, this is a helpful comfort to the paedobaptist. It shouldn't be the primary reason for being one however. I'm not saying this to admonish anyone but I constantly need to remind myself of it.


Your right. It's not proof but evidence. It should be decided by scripture. But this is historical in nature meaning it took place at a time and a place.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Dec 17, 2019)

Phil D. said:


> First, I am not in any way, shape or manner putting my faith in the early church. However, it can't be said that church history is totally irrelevant to the question at hand.
> 
> Second, there are substantial differences between cases like the Trinity and baptismal practice. While the doctrine of the Trinity didn't find full, unified expression for centuries, there are innumerable statements in the ECFs on various attributes and relationships concerning the persons of the Godhead that are fully consistent with orthodox theology. There is no analogous treatment of baptism.
> 
> In other words, many of the individual components pertaining to the full-orbed, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity find immediate and continuing expression among the ECFs. Conversely, from the very earliest writings and continuing for centuries later there is virtually no trace of covenant/circumcision thinking in the ECFs various expressions concerning baptismal doctrine.



No intention to say you put all your faith in them. I just mean that I'm cautious. What exposure I have has taught me that their proximity to the apostles doesn't guarantee a whole lot. 

But as for there being in the ECFs virtually no connection between circumcision and baptism, the council quoted below in this post seems to say otherwise. Obviously, someone thought of it. If this guy did, then so did others likely. I admit I find Cyprian's word to be painful to read and understand, and it sounds more like reasoning from an auto-efficacy of baptism.



Reformed Bookworm said:


> This a false statement. Tertullian treats it as a present reality. He nowhere explicitly condemns it rather, he states that it is preferable to wait.
> 
> _God’s approbation sends sure premonitory tokens before it; every “petition” may both deceive and be deceived. And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary—if (baptism itself) is not so necessary—that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, “Forbid them not to come unto me.” Let them “come,” then, while they are growing up; let them “come” while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the “remission of sins?” More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to “ask” for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given “to him that asketh.” For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred—in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom—until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation._
> 
> ...


----------



## deleteduser99 (Dec 17, 2019)

Andrew35 said:


> Theology, no. However, when I was investigating the historical case for infant baptism, it struck me that a _practice_ is going to be more robust than a theology (hence baptism and the Lord's Supper are nigh universally practiced throughout Christian time and space, though their various and contradictory theological rationales abound). And (here comes another argument from silence) it seemed to me that convincing the whole church--including remote, rural ones--from one end of the Roman Empire to the other to _begin _the practice of infant baptism without a squeak of protest would have been quite the undertaking.
> 
> We should expect to see at least some resistance given the same freakout that was occasioned over a _practice_ (again) so simple as the date of Easter. Even just one note or quotation from an early father: "The Warbsquiblers of Morinthia refuse to practice the baptism of all but mature believers, saying this is the _true_ teaching of the apostles."



Thanks for this insight. And hearing the word "warsquiblers" was a nice way to help decompress from the stress of the day


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 17, 2019)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> Why don't you tell us? Also, how does this pertain to the OP's question. If you want to learn the nuances of the biblical doctrine of baptism, I would be happy to recommend some books.


All of us experienced the effects of the Fall, of Original Sin, but the cure is not found when water baptized, but when received forgiveness and cleansing by blood of Jesus when received through faith. I was just suggesting that since it seemed some of the Ecf linked infant baptism to remission of sins, they had misunderstood from scriptures on what water baptism is and what it meant.


----------



## User20004000 (Dec 17, 2019)

Phil D. said:


> Paul makes it very clear, in numerous places, to Jew and Gentile alike, that outward circumcision has become “nothing”. (1 Cor. 7:19; Rom. 2:25-29; Gal. 5:6, 6:15; Col. 3:11). So it seems the better question is, if water baptism carries over the particular aspect of physical circumcision that it must be given to all of one’s physical offspring, shouldn’t such find explicit command somewhere?
> 
> Even if one supposes Jewish Christians would have “automatically” assumed such a continuation, what about Gentile believers? Apart from explicit instruction from the Apostles to do so (and this preserved in holy writ for the sake of future Gentile converts, who in a few short years would constitute the vast majority of the church), how could such an inference be certainly known?
> 
> ...



Phil,

Your post presupposes a command was needed. What was needed was not a command to baptize infants but rather a proper understanding that baptism was to be administered (once) to those who were to be considered part of the church. 

Your point that household baptisms are inconclusive would seem to miss the point of _corroborating_ evidence. When we come to the NT we should expect to see household baptism. We should also _not_ expect to see a child from a covenant home undergo baptism after coming of age. Both expectations are met, as anticipated. They serve to corroborate covenant baptism.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 17, 2019)

RWD said:


> Phil,
> 
> Your post presupposes a command was needed. What was needed was not a command to baptize infants but rather a proper understanding that baptism was to be administered (once) to those who were to be considered part of the church.
> 
> Your point that household baptisms are inconclusive would seem to miss the point of _corroborating_ evidence. When we come to the NT we should expect to see household baptism. We should also _not_ expect to see a child from a covenant home undergo baptism after coming of age. Both expectations are met, as anticipated. They serve to corroborate covenant baptism.


Those considered to be in Church per the NT are those actually i in the body of Christ, placed in it by the Holy Spirit when faith was placed into the work and person of Christ..
Passages such as Ephesians 4 and when Paul stated that we have now been sealed in and by the promised Holy Spirit in the New Birth.


----------



## Tom Hart (Dec 17, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Those considered to be in Church per the NT are those actually i in the body of Christ, placed in it by the Holy Spirit when faith was placed into the work and person of Christ..
> Passages such as Ephesians 4 and when Paul stated that we have now been sealed in and by the promised Holy Spirit in the New Birth.


I hate to seem rude, but what does this even mean? The last bit isn't even a sentence.


----------



## User20004000 (Dec 17, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Those considered to be in Church per the NT are those actually i in the body of Christ, placed in it by the Holy Spirit when faith was placed into the work and person of Christ..
> Passages such as Ephesians 4 and when Paul stated that we have now been sealed in and by the promised Holy Spirit in the New Birth.



When you say that “Those *considered* to be in the church are those actually in the body of Christ... by the Holy Spirit,” what you’re saying is that we are to _consider_ only those who are truly united to Christ as part of the church. Since you don’t know who is regenerate, who might you consider (treat or regard) as Christians in the church other than possibly yourself?

When Paul told the children in Ephesus to obey their patents in Lord, he was considering (treating or regarding) the three year olds who were paying attention “saints” who had received “every spiritual blessing in Christ Jesus.” In fact, he was even considering (treating or regarding) as saints unregenerate adults who were deceived into thinking they were Christians. Even omniscient Jesus regarded Judas as an apostle.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 17, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Those considered to be in Church per the NT are those actually i in the body of Christ, placed in it by the Holy Spirit when faith was placed into the work and person of Christ..
> Passages such as Ephesians 4 and when Paul stated that we have now been sealed in and by the promised Holy Spirit in the New Birth.


David, this is an assertion you’re making and also a departure from the topic of the thread. Please stay on point with that topic and if you do post on the OP’s topic please take time to form your sentences well, check spelling and grammar.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## User20004000 (Dec 17, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> David, this is an assertion you’re making and also a departure from the topic of the thread. Please stay on point with that topic and if you do post on the OP’s topic please take time to form your sentences well, check spelling and grammar.



If I may add, it’s even a departure from the London Baptist Confession to which he subscribes.

“Those considered to be in Church per the NT are those actually i in the body of Christ... by the Holy Spirit...”

That’s neither a descriptor of the invisible church nor the visible saints by confessional Baptist standards.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 17, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> I hate to seem rude, but what does this even mean? The last bit isn't even a sentence.


Paul explained to us that those who are part of the Church are members of the body of Christ, placed into it by the baptism of the Holy Spirit, as described iñ Ephesians 4.That happened when we were reborn.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 17, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Jesus regarded Judas as being a devil, as being a false Apostle from the beginning.


David is this comment in keeping with the moderator request? You don’t have to respond to others’ replies to you when the request has been made to stick to the OP.


----------



## Tom Hart (Dec 17, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> as described iñ Ephesians 4.


Sorry, I don't speak Spanish.

Reactions: Funny 4


----------



## Howard the Reformer (Dec 17, 2019)

I am of a firm belief that those baptized as infants and those who are baptized after confession, and chosen by God before the foundation of the world, are both true believers and are part of the invisible church. In my opinion Pedo and Credo will both be in heaven. We can celebrate this with our brothers and sisters in Christ and fellowship with God's children. We all believe and assert that baptism in and of itself saves no one. If my post offends that is not my intent. I merely celebrate our communion with Christ in this world and the next. Peace to you my brothers and sisters.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 17, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> David is this comment in keeping with the moderator request? You don’t have to respond to others’ replies to you when the request has been made to stick to the OP.


My mistake, will delate.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 18, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Please stay on point with that topic and if you do post on the OP’s topic please take time to form your sentences well, check spelling and grammar.



I am calling out your failure to use the Oxford comma.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 18, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I am calling out your failure to use the Oxford comma.


It’s a long story.


----------

