CharlieJ
Puritan Board Junior
An acquaintance of mine wrote an article defending credobaptism (anti-paedobaptism) from early church history. Have at it.
Baptism in History, Part 1 | SharperIron
Baptism in History, Part 1 | SharperIron
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Marie, Brandon has pretty much already answered the question, but the quote from Tertullian is used to show that infant baptism is an established practice within the church by c. 200 A.D. If it were not, there would be no need to argue against it.
Brandon, is there any way we could see a copy of your paper?
Marie, Brandon has pretty much already answered the question, but the quote from Tertullian is used to show that infant baptism is an established practice within the church by c. 200 A.D. If it were not, there would be no need to argue against it.
Marie, Brandon has pretty much already answered the question, but the quote from Tertullian is used to show that infant baptism is an established practice within the church by c. 200 A.D. If it were not, there would be no need to argue against it.
Dear Brother,
There are many things which great men in the church in every age have argued against that were never anywhere close to being "established practice." There is no reason to believe that infant Baptism was at that time any thing more than growing trend that Tertullian felt compelled to challenge. Much like the errors of today (NPP, FV, paedocommunion, etc.). None of these errors are "established practice" or even common place. But the trend they represent warrants stringent opposition on our parts.
And NO, I'm not comparing paedobaptism to the NPP or FV. I was using them only for the sake of illustration.
Marie, Brandon has pretty much already answered the question, but the quote from Tertullian is used to show that infant baptism is an established practice within the church by c. 200 A.D. If it were not, there would be no need to argue against it.
Dear Brother,
There are many things which great men in the church in every age have argued against that were never anywhere close to being "established practice." There is no reason to believe that infant Baptism was at that time any thing more than growing trend that Tertullian felt compelled to challenge. Much like the errors of today (NPP, FV, paedocommunion, etc.). None of these errors are "established practice" or even common place. But the trend they represent warrants stringent opposition on our parts.
And NO, I'm not comparing paedobaptism to the NPP or FV. I was using them only for the sake of illustration.
Rev. Sheffield,
You do raise a valid point. I think we can agree that this issue cannot be established based upon the historical arguments alone
I do think that you overstate your case though that, "There is no reason to believe that infants baptism was at that time any thing more than (a) growing trend that Tertullian felt compelled to challenge"
I try to demonstrate this in my paper, but if Tertullian was reacting to a practice he deemed as a development, he would have certainly raised this issue in his treatise (as he did with other things, such as the wearing of royal wreaths). The fact that he does not, along with other corroborating evidence, indicates that Tertullian did not see it as a growing trend. Instead, he appears against to argue against it as an established practice.
This is just part 1 so perhaps he will hit some of these issues and questions yall brought up. In fact perhaps it will be helpful to him if he sees this thread... I'll put a link to it on the comments for him.
When Tertullian argues against infant baptism however, he does not cite these things (as many baptist historians have). Instead he argues that it is putting too much responsibility on infants and their sponsors and therefore shouldn't be practiced. Tertullian's argument should give pause to those who think those qualifications rule out infants.
If you apply this hermeneutic to the other fathers, let Hippolytus, like your friend cites, it makes me very skeptical of his conclusions. Instead having Tertullian's argument inform our hermeneutic, I believe this passage is strong support for a paedo position. At best, consulting the other sources we come out uncertain on whether or not infants are baptized or not. I think analysis of the early sources in light of Tertullian (Origen, Cyprian, Eusibius, etc) lends much more weight to a paedo position.
Dear Brother,
There are many things which great men in the church in every age have argued against that were never anywhere close to being "established practice." There is no reason to believe that infant Baptism was at that time any thing more than growing trend that Tertullian felt compelled to challenge. Much like the errors of today (NPP, FV, paedocommunion, etc.). None of these errors are "established practice" or even common place. But the trend they represent warrants stringent opposition on our parts.
And NO, I'm not comparing paedobaptism to the NPP or FV. I was using them only for the sake of illustration.