Ancient-ness of our beliefs as a proof of their truth? And paedo/credo issues....

[timmopussycat]

Speaking as a baptist who is open to continual reevaluation, I will say that the historical argument is the most powerful one that I've encountered. I can say that in 35 years of studying this issue, no one has been able to convince me from scripture of the paedobaptist position. I've got an M.Div. from Westminster, I've read John Murray, I'm in a PCA church now and I've had long discussions with my (very intelligent and well-read) pastor, and I'm just not convinced. You can talk about household baptisms, continuity with circumcision, I've heard them all; I may not be able to convince you, but you won't be able to convince me either.

But there is one argument that has really made me stop and think, and I'm still thinking it through and haven't been able to dismiss it. It's not so much the presence of early evidence of infant baptism, but the lack of any early evidence of any opposition to the practice. The argument goes, if the practice of the apostles was to baptize believers only, then whenever the practice of infant baptism was introduced, one would expect some sort of outcry against this non-apostolic innovation. But what we see in history is no controversy over infant baptism at all until, I think, the Anabaptists.

It's an argument from silence, but for me as a baptist, it's one I can't dismiss lightly.

I appreciate your honesty.

Speaking of an argument from silence, I [used to] bring one up all the time that is related to the bolded portion of your above comment. In the Scriptures, why do we not find "outcry" or even a little peep of an objection to the New Covenant administration now EXCLUDING the children of God's people from the sign and seal of the covenant of grace? I mean, in the Scriptures we find objections and confusions within the Jewish community about other things related to this *transition* from Old to New--but to have their children now considered OUTSIDE of and SEPERATED from the covenanted people of God--the visible Church?! The Jewish mind at the time would only understand this to mean that their children have been cut off from God. This is the worst possible news anyone of them could have received. One would expect to read of something...anything that would indicate something like this.

Yet, nothing. Not a word. Not an objection. Not a question.

The answer is that the Apostles would have taught the Jewish church that in the New Covenant the time to receive the covenant sign was after profession of faith. Since we do not have extant the complete writings of first century Jewish writings contra-Christianity nor the complete writings of the Judiaizers within the church, we simply don't know what was or wasn't said in reaction to such a teaching if in fact CB was taught.

 

[TimV]

The answer is that the Apostles would have taught the Jewish church that in the New Covenant the time to receive the covenant sign was after profession of faith.

Why didn't they just come out and say it? The household baptism verses mention it almost off handedly, as if it was assumed it was like the OT accounts of households getting circumcised. Otherwise it almost seems that those household verses were thrown in to confuse us.

It all comes back to the basic difference between the tiny portion of the church historically called Anabaptists and the rest, and that is the assumption of continuity.

Tim, you had the same position on the half sibling marriage thread. Going against both the OT and the almost unanimous teaching of the Church which has been that every jot and tittle of the law didn't need to be re-iterated in the NT for it to be valid.

Others have done the same defending Piper's opinion on divorce and re-marriage, which is that those Jews who heard Christ say "except" didn't automatically think of the law's detailed provision.

In all these cases the assumption is that there isn't continuity between the OT and NT, when it is so much more natural, when putting your feet in the other guy's shoes to assume that the authors understood the stories in the context of continuity.

 

[CDM]

Speaking as a baptist who is open to continual reevaluation, I will say that the historical argument is the most powerful one that I've encountered. I can say that in 35 years of studying this issue, no one has been able to convince me from scripture of the paedobaptist position. I've got an M.Div. from Westminster, I've read John Murray, I'm in a PCA church now and I've had long discussions with my (very intelligent and well-read) pastor, and I'm just not convinced. You can talk about household baptisms, continuity with circumcision, I've heard them all; I may not be able to convince you, but you won't be able to convince me either.

But there is one argument that has really made me stop and think, and I'm still thinking it through and haven't been able to dismiss it. It's not so much the presence of early evidence of infant baptism, but the lack of any early evidence of any opposition to the practice. The argument goes, if the practice of the apostles was to baptize believers only, then whenever the practice of infant baptism was introduced, one would expect some sort of outcry against this non-apostolic innovation. But what we see in history is no controversy over infant baptism at all until, I think, the Anabaptists.

It's an argument from silence, but for me as a baptist, it's one I can't dismiss lightly.

I appreciate your honesty.

Speaking of an argument from silence, I [used to] bring one up all the time that is related to the bolded portion of your above comment. In the Scriptures, why do we not find "outcry" or even a little peep of an objection to the New Covenant administration now EXCLUDING the children of God's people from the sign and seal of the covenant of grace? I mean, in the Scriptures we find objections and confusions within the Jewish community about other things related to this *transition* from Old to New--but to have their children now considered OUTSIDE of and SEPERATED from the covenanted people of God--the visible Church?! The Jewish mind at the time would only understand this to mean that their children have been cut off from God. This is the worst possible news anyone of them could have received. One would expect to read of something...anything that would indicate something like this.

Yet, nothing. Not a word. Not an objection. Not a question.

The answer is that the Apostles would have taught the Jewish church that in the New Covenant the time to receive the covenant sign was after profession of faith. Since we do not have extant the complete writings of first century Jewish writings contra-Christianity nor the complete writings of the Judiaizers within the church, we simply don't know what was or wasn't said in reaction to such a teaching if in fact CB was taught.

Thanks for the answer.

For the Apostles to directly use and quote the covenant language from the OT in their preaching and teaching, and considering we see no explanation, and consequently, no objections or confusion--this leads one to assume there is no issue for the Jews. I suppose, like you said, this could [only] be explained if that the Apostles taught the *Baptist* view of a change in the covenant community to the early Christians in other writings or sermons. But to have the Holy Spirit *only* preserve what we now have as a closed canon speaks volumes. To believe this is to believe God saw it fit to have no mention in the Scriptures of such a dramatic, radical shift from the Old to the New. Yet, things like eating or not eating blood, etc. merit significance to be inscripturated (I say this reverently).

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Gentlemen,

Please remain on topic. The question is about historical theology. I'm certainly not averse to discussing the Biblical theology in other threads but if we devolve into a dispute over the texts then we'll move very far afield.

 

[CharlieJ]

Perhaps I missed the answer to this question, so forgive me if that is so.


Why does the absolute lack of resistance to baptismal regeneration not present a "real problem" to evangelical theology, if the scant (but demonstrable) resistance to and spotty practice of infant baptism supposedly present a "real problem" to credobaptism?


Also, Rich, has it been shown to your satisfaction that Tertullian was in fact against infant baptism?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Also, Rich, has it been shown to your satisfaction that Tertullian was in fact against infant baptism?

It has been demonstrated that Tertullian suggested that infants should not be baptized but stating that something is not "preferable" is hardly the same thing as saying that it should not be done at all or that it has not been the universal practice of the Church. It's already established that a corruption of doctrine can occur and corrupt practice. Tertullian, however, cannot be brought to the rescue of any seeking to demonstrate there is any historical witness to the baptism of adult professors alone.

It is very clear why baptismal regeneration poses no issue here but you'll have to read more carefully because I'm not going to repeat myself. Also, I think it is a facile treatment of historical theology to "read into" everything a Church father says as having a full blown sense of baptismal regeneration. It's the same kind of carelessness that occurs with RC apologists who seek to state that the "Catholic Church has always believed X".

 

[CharlieJ]

It is very clear why baptismal regeneration poses no issue here but you'll have to read more carefully because I'm not going to repeat myself. Also, I think it is a facile treatment of historical theology to "read into" everything a Church father says as having a full blown sense of baptismal regeneration. It's the same kind of carelessness that occurs with RC apologists who seek to state that the "Catholic Church has always believed X".

I re-read your posts, but I must have not understood your point. Baptismal regeneration seems to be an issue to me. I find it difficult to believe that the Fathers really had any idea what the apostles taught about the proper subjects of baptism, when they were completely wrong about the effect of baptism and extra-biblical in the elements of the ceremony itself.

Rich, I'm a bit stunned by your language. It is "facile" to assume that the early Fathers unanimously taught baptismal regeneration? I wrote a paper for GPTS on baptismal regeneration in the early church. I encountered literally dozens of unambiguous primary source quotations confirming baptismal regeneration in Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Augustine, and others. I found no dissenting opinion in the primary sources. Also, I found no contrary opinion in the secondary literature (though I was not exhaustive). If you know of a dissenting opinion, I would be grateful to learn of it.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It is very clear why baptismal regeneration poses no issue here but you'll have to read more carefully because I'm not going to repeat myself. Also, I think it is a facile treatment of historical theology to "read into" everything a Church father says as having a full blown sense of baptismal regeneration. It's the same kind of carelessness that occurs with RC apologists who seek to state that the "Catholic Church has always believed X".

I re-read your posts, but I must have not understood your point. Baptismal regeneration seems to be an issue to me. I find it difficult to believe that the Fathers really had any idea what the apostles taught about the proper subjects of baptism, when they were completely wrong about the effect of baptism and extra-biblical in the elements of the ceremony itself.

If you cannot see the difference then, as I stated, I'll leave it to those that can figure out what the difference is. As I stated, admitting that corruptions in doctrine can take place is not an issue. The fact that there is monolithic practice without dissent for a visible practice that any unsophisticated lay-person would notice is much different than a change as to what the visible sign signifies. Just try introducing wine into a Southern Baptist Church and you'll see what I mean. I think Baptists must assume that people were so unsophisticated that there would be no historical uproar because the average man in the pew can't tell the difference between a baby and an adult. In fact, I suppose they're much smarter than current Southern Baptists who would go through the roof if an infant was baptized in their baptistry and heaven forbid that the baby is sprinkled! But Southern Baptists are much more sophisticated than those ancient folk who had smaller brains.

Rich, I'm a bit stunned by your language. It is "facile" to assume that the early Fathers unanimously taught baptismal regeneration? I wrote a paper for GPTS on baptismal regeneration in the early church. I encountered literally dozens of unambiguous primary source quotations confirming baptismal regeneration in Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Augustine, and others. I found no dissenting opinion in the primary sources. Also, I found no contrary opinion in the secondary literature (though I was not exhaustive). If you know of a dissenting opinion, I would be grateful to learn of it.

Your primary sources of those cited above used the same language and poured the same meaning into what occurs? Justin, Origen, and Augustine were monolithic in their theology on the subject of regeneration? All were "Augustinian"?

 

[CharlieJ]

Rich, I'm not trying to try your patience. I'm exploring Pergamum's question. I think I finally understand what you're saying. You believe that it is easier for doctrine attached to a practice to shift than the practice itself. I think there is some validity to that. I'm sorry it took so long for me to catch on.

Regarding "baptismal regeneration," I understand the possibility of equivocation on the precise term "regeneration." Suffice to say, they unanimously attest that the forgiveness of sins, granting of eternal life, entrance into the kingdom of God, and reception of the Holy Spirit occur at baptism. (Actually, as the baptismal rites became more complex, more efficacy came to be ascribed to the post-baptismal christening and the laying on of hands.) I am not aware of any scholarship that disputes this conclusion.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich, I'm not trying to try your patience. I'm exploring Pergamum's question. I think I finally understand what you're saying. You believe that it is easier for doctrine attached to a practice to shift than the practice itself. I think there is some validity to that. I'm sorry it took so long for me to catch on.

I not only believe that but we can see play out historically. The Lord's Supper has been corrupted by something as simple as changing what is consumed to signify Christ's blood. One version is fermented while the other is not. From the moment that began to happen (for theological reasons), people began objecting to it. It did not simply change without a historical witness to the practice. Doctrinal shifts are much easier. Honestly, most men in the pew have no idea what the Lord's Supper represents so I could walk into almost any Southern Baptist Church and corrupt the doctrine regarding what it signifies and virtually nobody would notice. Introduce wine and suddenly everybody notices.

Regarding "baptismal regeneration," I understand the possibility of equivocation on the precise term "regeneration." Suffice to say, they unanimously attest that the forgiveness of sins, granting of eternal life, entrance into the kingdom of God, and reception of the Holy Spirit occur at baptism. (Actually, as the baptismal rites became more complex, more efficacy came to be ascribed to the post-baptismal christening and the laying on of hands.) I am not aware of any scholarship that disputes this conclusion.

No doubt. I think we need to be careful not to "read in" too much because even Calvin can be brought to speak toward the idea that baptism confers all these benefits but the Sacramental understanding is key to connecting spiritual reality to administration as well as the Sovereign work of the Spirit. Given the language of Scripture about baptism, it is understandable that this would be misunderstood. We even see this repeated slide within our own Reformed ranks - the Federal Vision being a recent example. Even some Baptist sects tie regeneration to the act of baptism given the close connection between the word and the way Paul applies it to the benefits of union with Christ.

What I think, then, is that folks had to wrestle with that and they used the best language they knew how. They didn't go the route of "de-Sacramentalizing" the sign, which is actually another hit against an ancient Zwinglian view of the sign, but instead were variously imprecise. The bottom line for me is that I've never met a person that holds to this and holds to an Augustinian type of election that doesn't get a bit "squishy" over this notion and I think Calvin represents the historical solution to respecting that the sign is not bare but that the Holy Spirit (vice the Church) confers those benefits.

 

[timmopussycat]

The answer is that the Apostles would have taught the Jewish church that in the New Covenant the time to receive the covenant sign was after profession of faith.

Why didn't they just come out and say it? The household baptism verses mention it almost off handedly, as if it was assumed it was like the OT accounts of households getting circumcised. Otherwise it almost seems that those household verses were thrown in to confuse us.

When writing Acts, Luke is writing a historical narrative not a gospel or a systematics treatise. Moreover he is writing to a recipient who may already have heard Apostolic teaching on baptism (we have no idea of the extent of "the things you have been taught' Lk. 1:4). If the Apostles taught CB and Theophilus knew their teaching on the point, Luke would have no need to mention it in Acts. Then too, none of the households mentioned in Acts may have had infants in them at the time of the parental conversions. Both Cornelius and the Jailer held fairly responsible posts: Lydia was a travelling merchant, all of which argues that all of them could have been old enough that their children were beyond infancy when their parents were converted.

As far as the epistles are concerned, all of them arise out of particular concerns on the part of the writers and if there was no need to mention a subject when an Apostle was writing a letter, that subject didn't get mentioned. If Apostolic teaching had been that CB was the norm, and nobody challenged it, we can expect to find no mention of it.

Given the Jewish covenantal background, I think it likely that the Judaizers raised at least a question or two about the propriety of CB at some point, but perhaps Paul's point in Galatians 3:7 "it is those of faith are sons of Abraham" was a way of answering that objection without mentioning it.

Even if the matter had been raised, we might not know it. One possible scenario follows.

The matter may have been raised and settled as early the Jerusalem conference mentioned in Gal. 2 which seems to have had both Judaizers present and covenant entrance issues on the agenda (Titus not compelled to be circumcized), and if that was the case, no subsequent teacher from the Jerusalem church would have taught IB in the diaspora. Paul or his delegates could have simply drawn the attention of any travelling teacher who did so teach to the actions of Jerusalem in settling the question. Such squelches may have occurred in person or by letter. In person we have no record, and if by letter well, we know that we don't have everything the Apostle Paul wrote.

It all comes back to the basic difference between the tiny portion of the church historically called Anabaptists and the rest, and that is the assumption of continuity.

Neither numbers nor continuity is recognized as a valid way of setling disputes by any of the Reformed Confessions. If these were valid considerations in disputes over Christian theology, Luther would have had no right to separate from Rome.

Tim, you had the same position on the half sibling marriage thread. Going against both the OT and the almost unanimous teaching of the Church which has been that every jot and tittle of the law didn't need to be re-iterated in the NT for it to be valid.

You are not stating the matter accurately. While the church as a whole has never stated that every jot and tittle of the law didn't need to be re-iterated in the NT to remain valid, the church as a whole, including the Westminster Divines, are on record as teaching the abrogation of a large section of the law and the expiration of another large section save where the general equity may require.

I agree with you that in sexual sins the universal church has thought that the OT laws on the subject including the prohibited degrees remain valid, and the Westminster Divines seem to have thought that they remainded valid by general equity. But if we are going to be faithful both to Scripture and the reformed confessions then only Scripture or that which can be adduced from Scripture by good and necessary consequence thereof is required to be believed. Consequently, if it is shown by logical reasoning from Scripture that HSM is not necessarily forbidden outside Sinai, (or to put it in reverse that the general equity of that stipulation may not apply), then until and unless the demonstration proving the church worthies possibly wrong is itself proved unsound (by a demonstration proving by GNC that the general equity does apply in this case), we must presume the rest of the church is wrong in holding the prohibition of HSM to be biblically required.

As I believe I said in the original thread, I do not think we can biblically support the that if half siblings enter a marriage covenant ignorantly, their relationship is no marriage and must be ended, and I provided a reason for that position: that half sibling marriage occured befoure Sinai without divine condemnation. I asserted that given that background, we cannot automatically presume that the Sinai stipulation carries over outside that covenant unless the general equity can be shown to apply in such a way as to render that stipulation valid today. It is the showing that it does apply today that I would like to see.

That said I belive that modern genetics gives good and necessary grounds for legislating against half-siblings entering marriage.

Yet if the marriage is entered into ignorantly, is there biblical justification to end it once the circumstances are known? I don't know at this point. The couple has made promises to each other which they break if they end the marriage, they have entered into the "one flesh" that seems to follow all cases of heterosexual intecourse. All I said in the origninal thread iis that if we cannot demonstrate that our position is biblical, we will sin against the couple if we require them to separate. So if we require the couple to separate we must first demonstrate that biblical necessity of the separation and the first step to that must be proving that half sibling marriages are biblically prohibited outside Sinai.

Others have done the same defending Piper's opinion on divorce and re-marriage, which is that those Jews who heard Christ say "except" didn't automatically think of the law's detailed provision.

I'm not sure I get the point you are trying to make here. But I don't like assumptions on the table for either side as they say nothing either way.

In all these cases the assumption is that there isn't continuity between the OT and NT, when it is so much more natural, when putting your feet in the other guy's shoes to assume that the authors understood the stories in the context of continuity.

Assumptions are also not permitted by the confessions when settling disputes and for good reason. Whenever we make an assumption we must never forget the old doggerel that whenever "...we assume, we make a (snynonym of donkey) out of you and me."

-----Added 1/12/2009 at 04:11:44 EST-----

I appreciate your honesty.

Speaking of an argument from silence, I [used to] bring one up all the time that is related to the bolded portion of your above comment. In the Scriptures, why do we not find "outcry" or even a little peep of an objection to the New Covenant administration now EXCLUDING the children of God's people from the sign and seal of the covenant of grace? I mean, in the Scriptures we find objections and confusions within the Jewish community about other things related to this *transition* from Old to New--but to have their children now considered OUTSIDE of and SEPERATED from the covenanted people of God--the visible Church?! The Jewish mind at the time would only understand this to mean that their children have been cut off from God. This is the worst possible news anyone of them could have received. One would expect to read of something...anything that would indicate something like this.

Yet, nothing. Not a word. Not an objection. Not a question.

The answer is that the Apostles would have taught the Jewish church that in the New Covenant the time to receive the covenant sign was after profession of faith. Since we do not have extant the complete writings of first century Jewish writings contra-Christianity nor the complete writings of the Judiaizers within the church, we simply don't know what was or wasn't said in reaction to such a teaching if in fact CB was taught.

Thanks for the answer.

For the Apostles to directly use and quote the covenant language from the OT in their preaching and teaching, and considering we see no explanation, and consequently, no objections or confusion--this leads one to assume there is no issue for the Jews. I suppose, like you said, this could [only] be explained if that the Apostles taught the *Baptist* view of a change in the covenant community to the early Christians in other writings or sermons. But to have the Holy Spirit *only* preserve what we now have as a closed canon speaks volumes. To believe this is to believe God saw it fit to have no mention in the Scriptures of such a dramatic, radical shift from the Old to the New. Yet, things like eating or not eating blood, etc. merit significance to be inscripturated (I say this reverently).

If the shift was in fact God's teaching, it is not unmentioned. For what we have in Scripture are clear examples of believer's baptism and two strong statements that may imply the same: i.e., it is those with faith who have the right to become children of God (Jn 1:12) and who are the children of Abraham (Gal. 3:7). That is enough to establish credo baptism as default. If paedo baptism is to be established for children of believers (in addition to credo in the cases of pagan adult converts), it cannot be established by arguments from expectations: the confessions don't allow that. To establish paedo, its advocates must demonstrate by GNC reasoning that paedo is a necessary conclusion from one or more Scriptures. To date I have not found the attempts I have seen convincing.

 

[KMK]

I think the weight of church history in favor of the Paedo position must give the honest Baptist pause. It is one of their strongest arguments in my opinion.

I think the weight of church history must give all who are not chiliasts and who do not hold to baptismal regeneration pause.

I don't see these as the same at all. By the 'weight of church history' I am including not only the Fathers but the Reformers as well. Paedobaptism is in the realm of orthodoxy, baptismal regeneration is not.

 

[py3ak]

Gentlemen,

Please remain on topic. The question is about historical theology. I'm certainly not averse to discussing the Biblical theology in other threads but if we devolve into a dispute over the texts then we'll move very far afield.

[Moderator]: Did no one happen to notice Rich's post? This thread is supposed to be about one question: How much weight does the argument from antiquity have? If your comment does not relate to that, save it for another thread. [/Moderator]

 

[DTK]

[Moderator]: Did no one happen to notice Rich's post? This thread is supposed to be about one question: How much weight does the argument from antiquity have? If your comment does not relate to that, save it for another thread. [/Moderator]

Cyprian (c. 200-58): For custom without truth is the antiquity of error. ANF: Vol. V, The Epistles of Cyprian, Epistle 73, §9.
Latin text: Nam consuetudo sine veritate vetustas erroris est. Epistola LXXIV - Ad Pompeium, PL 3:1134.

I am aware that the quote from Cyprian isn't going to resolve the question, but it does indicate, to some extent, Cyprian's recognition that the appeal to antiquity, in and of itself, is not sufficient for the adjudication of truth.

DTK

 

[Barnpreacher]

Wow! At a time when I was really starting to burn out from what I perceived to be a recent lack of helpful posts concerning these matters I have found this thread to be refreshingly helpful. Thanks to all who have taken the time to post. Good arguments from both sides.

 

[Pergamum]

I think the weight of church history in favor of the Paedo position must give the honest Baptist pause. It is one of their strongest arguments in my opinion.

I think the weight of church history must give all who are not chiliasts and who do not hold to baptismal regeneration pause.

I don't see these as the same at all. By the 'weight of church history' I am including not only the Fathers but the Reformers as well. Paedobaptism is in the realm of orthodoxy, baptismal regeneration is not.

But in the lack of NT texts relating to paedobaptism, ancientness of belief and early church practice is often the strongest argument in favor of paedo-ism. I.e. church history helps to determine orthodoxy doesn't it?

Why do we throw out all the chiliast Fathers in favor of our own more recent interpretations of eschatology then?

-----Added 1/12/2009 at 09:03:32 EST-----

P.s. thanks to all participants on this thread. This has proved very helpful to me as well.

 

[KMK]

I think the weight of church history must give all who are not chiliasts and who do not hold to baptismal regeneration pause.

I don't see these as the same at all. By the 'weight of church history' I am including not only the Fathers but the Reformers as well. Paedobaptism is in the realm of orthodoxy, baptismal regeneration is not.

But in the lack of NT texts relating to paedobaptism, ancientness of belief and early church practice is often the strongest argument in favor of paedo-ism. I.e. church history helps to determine orthodoxy doesn't it?

Why do we throw out all the chiliast Fathers in favor of our own more recent interpretations of eschatology then?

-----Added 1/12/2009 at 09:03:32 EST-----

P.s. thanks to all participants on this thread. This has proved very helpful to me as well.

Do you consider the Reformation 'recent' or part of church history?

 

[Pergamum]

I don't know. The Reformation was recent in comparison to the church Fathers and Chiliasm had a long and early near monopoly on things before the possible heretic Origin championed more amil views.... and yet I am an amil....

The paedos appeal to history and this is appealing to me as well, but errors crept in pretty early it seems and most of the early church seemed even to hold to baptismal regeneration and chiliasm. Therefore, any argument advancing paedoism from the early church would also advance chiliasm, wouldn't it?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I think one of the points made in the thread was that practice should be differentiated from doctrine. To put it differently: the church lost a degree of clarity on a number of doctrines--be it justification or eschatology--in a short period of time. In some cases it is possible to even trace something of the decline.

"Chilliasm" is a particular reading of eschatology. "Paedo-baptism" (strictly speaking) is a practice. WHY someone might baptize an infant (or do X) could vary, however improperly, from one situation to the next.

But the question was, if you assume that the apostle's only taught believer's-baptism, HOW did paedo-baptism as a practice become practically universal without any evidence of resistance, I mean to the degree that literally no-one seems to know anyone in the past who opposed it? No one or no group falls under denunciation for claiming antiquity for credo-baptism?

It's one thing to say that a particular teaching (such as chilliasm) spreads through influential centers of learning or bishops.

It is another thing entirely (so it seems to me) to suppose that the "radical" move of baptism of infants--something that would have been a visible, shocking alteration, along the lines of changing bread-and-wine to cheese and milk--should have been meekly tolerated with no evidence of the shift rocking the culture.

Can you imagine parents who themselves had to wait until they were, I don't know, age 10 on average (?) to confess and be baptized, just like their parents had to wait to confess and be baptized, accompanied by doctrinal catechesis as to why, to be told to now bring their infant to be baptized?

"That's not how I was taught, or experienced it myself, or ever saw it done." Where are these complaints? Where are the church-officer's complaints? This is a psychological phenomenon common to humanity, one that we can relate to.

And, we can also relate to simple beliefs being challenged and overturned in short order. Lets use one of my favorite whipping-boys: global warming. I am still a young man, and I can remember the 70s when the phobia-du-jour was "a new ice age is coming! (give us money)" Twenty years later, kids in school are being taught "the polar caps are melting! (give us more money)." Now that those boondoggles are run out of steam, its morphing into generics "the climate is... Changing! aaaaah! (give us all your money)." And people just elect new pols who give these mongers the dough in exchanged for hefty campaign contributions.

What's the point? There is no "ritual" associated with these doctrines. Except maybe the voting booth, and you notice how that part doesn't change much at all. Radically change the manner in which we promote our official pickpockets to their "really important jobs (of taking your money to spend on their pet projects)" and there would be an outcry.

At least, there would be complaints, and letters to the editor in all the papers, and little movements to preserve the old habits of voting, and written justifications of it, and official apologists denouncing the holdouts.

 

[Pergamum]

I could imagine that distortions of baptism might happen under duress (i.e. no water available so sprinkling gains a foothold) or that baptismal regeneration creeping in and parents baptizing their children (easier done by sprinkling than dipping the child) so safeguard their very souls....the earlier the better.

Wasn't it shocking when baptismal regeneration gained a foothold? Where was the outcry over baptismal regeneration?

 

[Rocketeer]

Wasn't it shocking when baptismal regeneration gained a foothold? Where was the outcry over baptismal regeneration?

There would not have been one. It is a doctrinal shift, and the effects of a doctrinal shift are not visible for a long time.

Just like abandoning the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone does not produce gross changes in behavior at first - things stay the same through inertia - until people gradually start introducing works, and then Tetzels start rising, and then everything degenerates. The effects of doctrinal shifts are generally not obvious.

I will give you another example. Many churches have started embracing evolutionism, and on face value nothing changes. But it will change, as evolution is really not compatible to the doctrine of original sin, to the doctrine of eternal life, and even to the doctrine of a benevolent God. You do not notice it, until it starts working through in what you do.

A change to paedobaptism, on the other hand, would have been a change in practice and therefore everyone would have fallen over it, again, by cause of inertia.

Rich has pointed this out more eloquently in some of his posts in this thread.

 

[timmopussycat]

I think one of the points made in the thread was that practice should be differentiated from doctrine. To put it differently: the church lost a degree of clarity on a number of doctrines--be it justification or eschatology--in a short period of time. In some cases it is possible to even trace something of the decline.

"Chilliasm" is a particular reading of eschatology. "Paedo-baptism" (strictly speaking) is a practice. WHY someone might baptize an infant (or do X) could vary, however improperly, from one situation to the next.

But the question was, if you assume that the apostle's only taught believer's-baptism, HOW did paedo-baptism as a practice become practically universal without any evidence of resistance, I mean to the degree that literally no-one seems to know anyone in the past who opposed it? No one or no group falls under denunciation for claiming antiquity for credo-baptism?

It's one thing to say that a particular teaching (such as chilliasm) spreads through influential centers of learning or bishops.

It is another thing entirely (so it seems to me) to suppose that the "radical" move of baptism of infants--something that would have been a visible, shocking alteration, along the lines of changing bread-and-wine to cheese and milk--should have been meekly tolerated with no evidence of the shift rocking the culture.

Can you imagine parents who themselves had to wait until they were, I don't know, age 10 on average (?) to confess and be baptized, just like their parents had to wait to confess and be baptized, accompanied by doctrinal catechesis as to why, to be told to now bring their infant to be baptized?

"That's not how I was taught, or experienced it myself, or ever saw it done." Where are these complaints? Where are the church-officer's complaints? This is a psychological phenomenon common to humanity, one that we can relate to.

At least, there would be complaints, and letters to the editor in all the papers, and little movements to preserve the old habits of voting, and written justifications of it, and official apologists denouncing the holdouts.

Indeed so. But our problem is that we don't have exhaustive knowledge of what went on in the second century so we don't know what did or did not happen. In fact we know very little about 2nd century Christianity.

Your point that it is corrupt doctrine that leads to corrupt practice is well taken, but it may apply in this case too. We know that by 200 the doctrine of baptism had been corrupted to baptismal regeneration. We don't know when that corruption occurred or who led it, but if CB had been the previous norm, the corruption in the doctrine could have led to that error in practice without creating more than minor local fusses. Let's say that corruption began by 125 as some influential elder in a cosmopolitan setting went heterodox on the point and argued it well. Considering how fast and far Arianism spread a century or so later, we cannot presume it would take more than 10 years for the error to spread through the churches and the practice would change as the error was accepted. By 175 both the erring "doctrine" and the new practice would have been the norm.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Tim, Perg,

I have no problem with you or anyone making assumptions about the initial state of affairs, and then proposing solutions to explain a later state of affairs. This is exactly what those of us on this side of the aisle are doing.



I think that:

1) The Apostles and their pupils spread orthodox praxis (and doctrine) across 3000 miles (E-W) of Roman Empire.

2) It is necessary to reduplicate the Apostles' travels, in order to replace the baptismal practice they taught--to the extent that no one can even recall the former in as little as 100 years.

3) It is not necessary to reduplicate the Apostle's travels in order to effect change in understanding or doctrine over the course of 100 years, given the rise of influential bishoprics (call it "the Seminary Effect")

4) I see adult-or-infant-baptism sprinkling/pouring as simpler in mode or presentation than immersion practice. Not that such a practice could not also be corrupted.

5) Simplicity is opposite in direction from where the church actually went in its ritual observances. In competition with the Gnostics and pagan grandiosity, the church elaborated on its baptismal (even all its sacramental) rites--of the facts of this elaboration there is really no argument with the historical record. And it seems like the natural, humanistic course of events to me.

Obviously, what the extent and nature of those elaborations were, and what it all meant, is again a matter of interpretation, and we will end up on opposite sides.​

At the end of the day, its for the members of the body to judge the cogency of the different explanations.