Baptism from a historian's point of view

[Michael]

***pretty much wincing at the idea of starting this thread, but here goes***​

The debate of Christian baptism has a tumultuous history as we all know. From a theological standpoint both paedo and credo sides make poignant arguments as to how we are to understand God's covenants. But what I would like to bring up for discussion is baptism from the viewpoint of the historian.

Credos and paedos do not see the same amount of continuity between circumcision and baptism, but at the root of it all both sides at least recognize that circumcision and baptism are similar in that they symbolically represent the sign and seal of entry into God's covenant(s). So for the sake of agreement, let us take the theology of the matter no further than that.

Ok, enter the arena of the historian.

For thousands of years in the Old Testament the people of God circumcised their children into the covenant. Then a New Covenant is made and we have a new sign and seal in baptism. The credobaptist holds that this now belongs only to those who profess faith in Christ. The paedobaptist also believes that it is for those who profess faith in Christ--but also for their children.

Of course there is an avalanche of theological implications around each system of belief...but again, let us leave that aside.

From a purely historical perspective, it would seem a very reasonable question to ask where the documentation is for specifically withholding children from the symbolic entry into the covenant since, again, it had been the practice for millennia to include them. Furthermore, a serious matter exists that if indeed it was explicitly taught in the early church that Christians were not to baptize their children, the historian would expect that era to reveal an outpouring of questions raised as to why and subsequent contemporary instruction directed specifically to answer these questions.

Now the credo position may very well ask for historical proof of the opposite, namely documentation of explicit infant baptism in the NT. But the historian must no doubt deal with precedent here. There was always a precedent of including children in the covenant so it would seem, all theological arguments aside, that the burden of proof lies on the removal of children from the practice rather than the inclusion of children.

Secondly, on the other side of the cannon being closed we must travel well over 1000 years after the institution of the New Covenant to find any solid examples of exclusive practice of credobaptism in the church. This again, carries a historical weight that must be dealt with.

At the end of the day both sides connect the dots of God's covenants different ways and make very intriguing theological arguments. I think it perfectly reasonable to be able to respect and understand the basis that either has for their convictions. But I'm not as sure that the objective historian can see the documentation available as being equally as favorable to both sides.

Please share your thoughts (as opposed to a laundry list of recommended further reading material)...peacefully and without condescension if at all possible.

 

[steadfast7]

Thanks for the post Michael. Some thoughts: I'm no historian, but I think the early church might have had different reasons for baptizing infants, such as belief in cleansing from original sin and the like (now reflected in eastern and roman thought). Also, there was a short period, that infant baptism was challenged and number of people (like the Cappodocian fathers, was it?) were baptized as adults.

But on the whole you're spot on. the juggernaut of historical data does incline toward the paedo position.

 

[Austin]

Well said, Michael. I too have asked this question, and have found the lack of historical evidence for credo-baptism to be astonishing IF the credo position is correct.

To my knowledge, none of the Church Fathers or ecumenical councils mention credo-baptism. The possible exception is the fact that in the 4th century there was a move (based upon the false view that baptism erases sins previously committed) to delay baptism until death so as to remove as many sins as possible, and to limit the number that would endanger the soul. (Constantine I is an example.) but of course, this was based on a seriously flawed sacramentology which arose from a misunderstanding of the mediatorial sacrifice of Christ.

Of course, this problem was 'resolved' by creating (ex nihilo) the 'sacrament' of Extreme Unction to act as a sort of 2nd baptism to 'forgive' sins at the point of death. But (and this is important, I think), the Church's unified response was to enjoin Christians to be baptized as early as possible, and to baptize children as close to birth as reasonable.

But that aside (and I'm sure that our credo brethren would find much to say about this case), there is no clear evidence of credo-baptism being enjoined by the early Church. Of course, the argument could be made by the credo camp that the silence regarding believer-only baptism is due to its ubiquity, with subsequent changes to paedo-baptism being part and parcel of the general slide toward heterodoxy in the early-mid Medieval period.

But (and again this seems important to me), with the emphasis on Christology and sacramentology in the early Church, wouldn't it stand to reason that the general hermeneutical principle of divergence between the OT & NT that credo-baptism requires would have had SOME discussion? That is, if the "sign & seal of the Covenant of Grace" was changed from being administered to children (in the OT) to being solely administered to adult professors of Christ (in the NT), wouldn't one expect there to be SOME mention of the reasons in the patristic literature? And how much more the case in the early disputations with the Jews? Wouldn't one expect that the early Jewish antagonists of the Church would have made some hay out of the Covenantal sign's timing being changed? (Perhaps not, one might say, if they didn't see Baptism replacing circumcision in the Church...)

We know from our own experience, as well as reading the literature the question of credo- vs paedo-baptism in the Reformation era through the modern era, that the debate over credo- vs paedo-baptism is a hot topic. Why then would there not have been at least SOME documentation of such a debate in the patristic period? If, as our credo brothers contend, credo-baptism was the majority report of the early Church, where's the literature regarding the debate when the Church abandoned the "true" application of the sacrament to believers only to the "errant" application to children? Surely, if our Baptist brethren are correct, SOMEONE fought the good fight for truth against the paedo-baptists? But alas, there is to my knowledge, no such evidence.

it is not enough to simply state (as many of the Baptists do) that paedo-baptism is but one more place where the purity of the early Church fell to Romish error and Medieval heterodoxy. One must supply the evidence of the debate-- positive evidence in the historical record of Baptist "truth" fighting its losing battle against paedo-baptistic error. If anyone can present such evidence, then historical silence would seem to lend its weight to the paedo-baptistic position.

Michael: thanks again for raising this important topic.

Soli Deo Gloria,

 

[steadfast7]

Very interesting, I found this book on the amazon site. Baptism in the Early Church, Hennie Stander, J. P. Louw. A book, written by paedos, arguing that credobaptism was the norm in the early church. Here is a quote from an anonymous amazon reviewer:

The authors come from a paedo baptist theological bent. I am not sure why they wrote the book because it doesn't seem to support their view. They even use a lot of quotes from other Paedo-Baptists and show that they have misquoted or misunderstood the context of the Early Church Fathers. Maybe they are just illuminating the Early Church Father's beliefs concerning baptism for conscience sake. From the outset the Early Church seemed to link water baptism very closely to the remission and cleansing of sin. If one wasn't baptized by water they had no forgiveness of sin. This theological theme continued but grew in different directions concerning its efficacy and benefits during the next four centuries. According to the authors the connection between baptism and modern day covenant theology is proven to be almost non-existent in the writings of the Early Church. They link infant baptism's induction into the church because of necessity. In other words the deathbed was the reason infant baptism was introduced into the church. The book was very illuminating and I agreed with part of its conclusion. "The symbol became the actual means. The rite of baptism itself, rather than Christ, became the guarantee of eternal salvation."

this might be worth a read!

 

[Pergamum]

While we are on the subject of histroy, I would love to trace the development of those hokey paintings of the River Jordan in all their myriad permutations throughout the centuries. Me and my wife's favorite thing to do upon entering an unfamiliar baptist church is to check out their baptistry and compare their River Jordan with the so many others we've seen.

 

[LawrenceU]

This is an interesting question. But, one thing must be remembered: we tread on iffy ground when we look at history to interpret Scripture. If the Reformers had used 'obvious' historical practice to interpret Scripture then the Reformation would not have occurred. Please note, I am not using this to shore up my position on baptism. I am merely stating a principle.

 

[Austin]

RE: using history to interpret Scripture.

I like Vincent of Lerin's quote: "Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum sum." "What has always, what has everywhere, what has by all been believed."

While we shouldn't use historical theology to be our sine qua non of biblical interpretation, to fail to listen to Church history as it relates to theology is to fall into the error of reading Scripture in a vacuum. And don't forget that the Reformers relied on the patristic authors for their interpretation. Very little new theology came out of the early days of the Reformation. Luther, Calvin, Beza, Melancthon, etc all relied on the Church Fathers to direct their thinking-- most especially Augustine.

I still believe that if there is no positive proof of credo-baptism as the majority report of the early Church in the historical record, then we are on extremely shaky ground if we assert that credo-baptism is normative in Scripture. Silence is no basis for an argument.

Just my 2 cents...

 

[Michael]

I'm no historian, but I think the early church might have had different reasons for baptizing infants, such as belief in cleansing from original sin and the like (now reflected in eastern and roman thought).

I doubt that this is heavily contested. However, misuse of the sacrament does not seem to help either side of the issue, historically speaking. There where Jews who counted their circumcision as righteousness, yet that error does not undermine the historical validity of the practice of circumcising.

 

[Michael]

Nova,

You do bring up something interesting by proxy: historically speaking, it's not that we only lack "theologically correct" credobaptistic teachings of keeping children from visible entry into the covenant, but we actually seem to lack any such teachings at all--even of a heretical substance.

 

[steadfast7]

I still believe that if there is no positive proof of credo-baptism as the majority report of the early Church in the historical record, then we are on extremely shaky ground if we assert that credo-baptism is normative in Scripture. Silence is no basis for an argument.

It was a minority position, no one's doubting that. Remember, in those days, there was only one visible church so dissenting voices were few and far between. But to be historically even-handed, we cannot say that discussions were utterly absent. Apparently Stander and Louw published a good sized book citing patristic discussion on the matter. The coolest thing is that they are paedo-baptists even so. they must think that the theological support is overwhelming in favour of paedobaptism.

 

[Brandon1]

The practice in the early church is unclear (though I argue in a paper that Tertullian gives us an interpretative paradigm which precludes some "baptistic" arguments).

Interestingly, one's biblical exegesis (in regards to who was baptized) really determine's how you interpret the historical data. Both sides have interesting points to make, and the man who just wrote a huge book on the subject, Everett Ferguson, questions how ancient infant baptism really is. He remains an agnostic of sorts who isn't really comfortable with either position. All this to say, it is more complicated than some paedo's make it out to be.

HOWEVER, I found Louw and Stander's book to be unpersuasive and my paper largely attacks their, and Bruce McKinnion's underlying assumptions on how to read things like the Didache and other early writings. I'm a littler biased but I think my paper demonstrates their views are not tenable, regardless of how one comes down on the issue (these men are more brilliant historians than I though, so I'm certainly open to correction!).

I will say that there are sociological reasons that the baptist can posit for why infant baptism became so popular, especially after the third century (where the wealth of the evidence comes from). We (paedo's) need to be careful with how we use the historical data against our credo brothers. I think the historical arguments tilt our way, but we must admit that it is not a knockdown case.

 

[Iconoclast]

N
You do bring up something interesting by proxy: historically speaking, it's not that we only lack "theologically correct" credobaptistic teachings of keeping children from visible entry into the covenant, but we actually seem to lack any such teachings at all--even of a heretical substance.

Michael,
Acts 15 answers your question. No more circumcision is required,just saving belief. Credobaptism is all through Acts. No where is water baptism taught to be a replacement "sign". There is no visible entry by a carnal sign now. There is spiritual entry by the Spirit now. Your making an assumption that the new covenant is just like the old,when scripture says not like the old.

 

[Porter]

Silence is no basis for an argument.

That's cute: that statement, generally speaking, coming from a paedobaptist. Too bad you don't apply that same principle to the textual witness of Holy Writ, (legitimate usage of 'good and necessary consequence' in this case not a rejoining aid).

RE: using history to interpret Scripture.

I like Vincent of Lerin's quote: "Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum sum." "What has always, what has everywhere, what has by all been believed."

While we shouldn't use historical theology to be our sine qua non of biblical interpretation, to fail to listen to Church history as it relates to theology is to fall into the error of reading Scripture in a vacuum. And don't forget that the Reformers relied on the patristic authors for their interpretation. Very little new theology came out of the early days of the Reformation. Luther, Calvin, Beza, Melancthon, etc all relied on the Church Fathers to direct their thinking-- most especially Augustine.

I still believe that if there is no positive proof of credo-baptism as the majority report of the early Church in the historical record, then we are on extremely shaky ground if we assert that credo-baptism is normative in Scripture. Silence is no basis for an argument.

Just my 2 cents...

As Reformed Baptist's we most certainly do not repudiate historical theology, but given the fact of contemporaneous influences (such as, for example, the horrors of the Roman Catholic papacy and its influence upon a protestant exegetical approach to "the Antichrist" interpretation in Chapter 26:4 of the confession), as well as the certainty of human fallibility, the testimony of the church must bend the knee to Scripture - even given the longevity of adherence to a given doctrine or practice. (I am sure you wouldn't use this same argument with respect to the legitimacy of an episcopalian ecclesiology, nor do I think you would - again, by this same argumentation - deny the Reformed view of justification [see Reymond quote below]).

There is wholesome utility of historical theology, and then there is over-compensatory misuse. An argument for the propriety of paedobaptism is such misuse because, in one sense, it is tantamount to the Roman Catholic's argument from the history of the church for their doctrine of transubstantiation (I am not comparing the two with regards to the gravity of error - not at all - just with regards to the process of defending from the early church). They take their particular approach to the Lord's Supper and project it upon the early church language of "real presence", then say "see, we are simply engaging in the same practice as the early church". As we know, transubstantiation is a far cry from "real presence", and it is anachronistic violation to interpret the history of the church in light of that doctrine. In your case, or in the case of many paedobaptists, they will take their current practice of infant baptism, project it upon the early church witness to the practice, and claim longevity of that tradition. But which paedobaptism are they talking about? Is it the version that brings salvation to the infant (regeneration)? Is it to wash away original sin? Is it due to a perceived ethical holiness? Is it due to the faith of the church, the faith of the parents, the faith of the infant? Is it because of the infant's identity with "the man Christ Jesus"(1)?

I think Dr. Robert Reymond's conclusion against the Roman Catholic charge that Protestant justification calls into question the salvation of millions throughout history (an RC misuse of argument from historical theology) is fitting (and, here again, I am not paralleling paedobaptism with RC denial of biblical justification - I am simply bringing out the principle of the clear testimony of scripture trumping an argument from historical theology):

"As for the four church fathers named above (Augustine, Athanasius, Anselm, Aquinas) - and many others like them - it is neither my nor their defenders' place to assure the Christian world that surely God justified them by faith alone even though they themselves did not hold to a sola fide view of justification. To judge an individual's salvation is God's province and His alone. Therefore I will not speculate one way or the other about their salvation. But I will say that our attitude should, with Paul, ever be: "Let God's truth be inviolate, though every man becomes thereby a liar". What I mean by this in the present context is that the clear teaching of the Word of God should be upheld and we should not look for reasons to avoid it, even if the alternate would force us to conclude that these fathers - and all others like them - were not saved". (A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith)
​

Peace!

_____________________________________________________
(1) variations of historic paedobaptism paraphrased from Crampton's new book

 

[Brandon1]

But which paedobaptism are they talking about? Is it the version that brings salvation to the infant (regeneration)? Is it to wash away original sin? Is it due to a perceived ethical holiness? Is it due to the faith of the church, the faith of the parents, the faith of the infant? Is it because of the infant's identity with "the man Christ Jesus"(1)?

I think Dr. Robert Reymond's conclusion against the Roman Catholic charge that Protestant justification calls into question the salvation of millions throughout history (an RC misuse of argument from historical theology) is fitting (and, here again, I am not paralleling paedobaptism with RC denial of biblical justification - I am simply bringing out the principle of the clear testimony of scripture trumping an argument from historical theology):

"As for the four church fathers named above (Augustine, Athanasius, Anselm, Aquinas) - and many others like them - it is neither my nor their defenders' place to assure the Christian world that surely God justified them by faith alone even though they themselves did not hold to a sola fide view of justification. To judge an individual's salvation is God's province and His alone. Therefore I will not speculate one way or the other about their salvation. But I will say that our attitude should, with Paul, ever be: "Let God's truth be inviolate, though every man becomes thereby a liar". What I mean by this in the present context is that the clear teaching of the Word of God should be upheld and we should not look for reasons to avoid it, even if the alternate would force us to conclude that these fathers - and all others like them - were not saved". (A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith)
​

Peace!

_____________________________________________________
(1) variations of historic paedobaptism paraphrased from Crampton's new book

Mr. Porter

It seems to me the question is not one of the theology behind a practice, but the practice itself. If I tried to argue that no one was baptized, I couldn't say, well they don't agree with your theology of baptism, so you can't use them as evidence.

JBFA, the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or even a theology of baptism matter when we speak to the content of a belief system. So when we're arguing for a particular theological position regarding baptism, then it matters if our theology matches with those we cite.

But we're speaking of a practice in the church, not the theology behind it. The fact that they did it and cited the history of the church for its practice (very early) is interesting, though as I mentioned earlier not definitive. I'm not sure that arguing the way Crampton does though resolves the tension.

 

[Iconoclast]

Everyone speaks against baptists taking a look at the "trail of blood". Perhaps even for good reason as many associated with it had erratic and false theology. One common theme was they sought to oppose roman error.
Yet sometimes I see posts that indicate almost a willingness to align with the roman church,ie, "church fathers", all of whom held to the heresy of baptismal regeneration. is this because infants were involved so it becomes easy to say that the church has always baptised infants? [even if it was the heretical roman church?]
Michael, do you know of any who held to the reformers padeo view? before the reformers came up with it? The historical trail is one i am not so sure of.
Pastor King [DTK] seems well schooled in this.I wonder how he views the early Years, the fathers , this common history where the Roman church had not gotten way off the track doctrinally.

 

[Marrow Man]

The practice of baptizing infants is mentioned by Tertullian c. 200 A.D. and Cyprian c. 250 A.D. -- long before the Edict of Milan or Constantine or Christendom or the rise of the primacy of the bishop of Rome, etc. In short, there was no so-called "Roman Catholic Church" in the 3rd century.

A distinction also needs to be made between the Early Church Fathers (some of whom may have held to some form of baptismal regeneration, but who are generally not considered to be heretics -- e.g., Augustine) and the various groups which comprised the
"Trail of Blood," many of whom could not be remotely considered to be Christian. And at least some groups on the Trail (Novatians and Paulicians) also held to baptismal regeneration! The Bogomils and Cathers were dualists, the former denying the incarnation and that Christ had a real physical body, the latter were anti-Trinitarians. Baptists (and other Protestants for that matter) actually have more in common with Roman Catholics than with these "Trail of Blood" sects.

 

[Pergamum]

Can we begin quoting from primary sources? I would love to have useful links or extended quotes from Tertullain and others themselves.

---------- Post added at 05:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:49 AM ----------

I will begin:

Now about baptism, baptize this way: after first uttering all of these things, baptize "into the name of the Father and of the son and of the holy Spirit" in running water. But if you do not have running water, baptize in other water. Now if you are not able to do so in cold water, do it in warm water. Now if you don't have either, pour water three times on the head, "into the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the holy Spirit." Now before the ritual cleansing, the baptizer and the one being baptized should fast, and any others who are able. Now you will give word for the one who is being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand.

But do not let your fasts be with the hypocrites. For they fast on the second day of the week and on the fifth. But you fast on the fourth day and the day of preparation. Neither should you pray like the hypocrites, but as the Lord gave word in his good message, pray like this: "Our Father, the one who is in Heaven, your name has been made holy. Let your kingdom come. Let what you want also be done on earth, as in Heaven. Give us the bread we need today and forgive us our debts as we also forgive our debtors. And don't carry us into trial, but rescue us from the evil one. For yours is the power and the glory for the age." Pray this way three times daily.

From the Didache, Translated from the Greek text published
by Roswell D. Hitchcock in 1884.


It seems immmersion in a running river is the preferred method, but sprinkling suffices if this is unavailable. Not sure why the temp of the water matters theologically though.

 

[Grimmson]

Thanks for the post Michael. Some thoughts: I'm no historian, but I think the early church might have had different reasons for baptizing infants, such as belief in cleansing from original sin and the like (now reflected in eastern and roman thought). Also, there was a short period, that infant baptism was challenged and number of people (like the Cappodocian fathers, was it?) were baptized as adults.

But on the whole you're spot on. the juggernaut of historical data does incline toward the paedo position.

Two of the three were baptized as adults, yet being born to Christian parents, and they were to my knowledge inclined towards the paedo position.

Also on a side note of consideration, I think it is interesting to look at the development of paedocommunion (a particular important aspect of this discussion historically in relation to sacramental theology and practices); which in my opinion there is evidence of debate on the issue around the mid-third century. Cyprian was against it due to the holiness of the elements (see On the Lasped section 25 I think, section 9 also shows his distaste for it). However Augustine was for it and thought it was a tradition from the apostles themselves. As a majority here on this board, Credobaptists (who by default would be in disagreement with it) and Paedos are both in agreement against it on biblical grounds.

 

[Marrow Man]

Can we begin quoting from primary sources? I would love to have useful links or extended quotes from Tertullain and others themselves.

From Tertullian (from ch. 18 of On Baptism):

But they whose office it is, know that baptism is not rashly to be administered. "Give to every one who begs you," has a reference of its own, appertaining especially to almsgiving. On the contrary, this precept is rather to be looked at carefully: "Give not the holy thing to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine;" Matthew 7:6 and, "Lay not hands easily on any; share not other men's sins." If Philip so "easily" baptized the chamberlain, let us reflect that a manifest and conspicuous evidence that the Lord deemed him worthy had been interposed. Acts 8:26-40 The Spirit had enjoined Philip to proceed to that road: the eunuch himself, too, was not found idle, nor as one who was suddenly seized with an eager desire to be baptized; but, after going up to the temple for prayer's sake, being intently engaged on the divine Scripture, was thus suitably discovered— to whom God had, unasked, sent an apostle, which one, again, the Spirit bade adjoin himself to the chamberlain's chariot. The Scripture which he was reading falls in opportunely with his faith: Philip, being requested, is taken to sit beside him; the Lord is pointed out; faith lingers not; water needs no waiting for; the work is completed, and the apostle snatched away. "But Paul too was, in fact, 'speedily' baptized:" for Simon, his host, speedily recognized him to be "an appointed vessel of election." 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 asks." 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.

From Cyprian (the subject itself was debated at the Council of Carthage in 254):

"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Cyprian, Letters 64:2, A.D. 253).

"If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (ibid., 64:5).

Also, Hippolytus (c. 215 A.D.):

"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).

 

[timmopussycat]

For thousands of years in the Old Testament the people of God circumcised their children into the covenant. Then a New Covenant is made and we have a new sign and seal in baptism. The credobaptist holds that this now belongs only to those who profess faith in Christ. The paedobaptist also believes that it is for those who profess faith in Christ--but also for their children.
...
From a purely historical perspective, it would seem a very reasonable question to ask where the documentation is for specifically withholding children from the symbolic entry into the covenant since, again, it had been the practice for millennia to include them. Furthermore, a serious matter exists that if indeed it was explicitly taught in the early church that Christians were not to baptize their children, the historian would expect that era to reveal an outpouring of questions raised as to why and subsequent contemporary instruction directed specifically to answer these questions.

Now the credo position may very well ask for historical proof of the opposite, namely documentation of explicit infant baptism in the NT. But the historian must no doubt deal with precedent here. There was always a precedent of including children in the covenant so it would seem, all theological arguments aside, that the burden of proof lies on the removal of children from the practice rather than the inclusion of children.

The problem is complicated by another factor which I have not often seen recognized (and I don't think I've seen it mentioned in the PB discussions I have seen on the topic). That is the question of whether or not the earliest Jewish converts continued to circumcise their male children according to their status as heirs of the Abrahamic covenant even though the Mosaic covenant had now been superseded by Christ. I think they did, for if they did not continue to do so, it is hard to see how the Judaizers of Galatians and Acts 15 would have been taken seriously for a second. But if the Jewish converts continued to circumcise children, the question becomes did they baptise those children at the same time as they circumcised them, or did they reserve the administration of baptism for those somewhat older children who had professed faith?

Unless we presume that the early church misunderstood the Apostles at every point they taught (a clearly incorrect presumption as the sub-Apostolic literature is, in fact, Scriptural at a number of points), we may not necessarily conclude that IB was the early church practice because of silence in the apostolic literature. If the New Covenant entailed a change in the administration of the covenant sign, - and John 1:12 and Gal. 3:7 may be legitimately read as hints that such a change did occur - that change would have been taught by the apostles directly to their first hearers as one of the foundational teachings of the church.

It is because there are hints such as the abovementioned texts in the historical Apostolic record that cb's cannot presume that IB simply replaced circumcision for the infant children of Gentile converts, nor accompanied circumcision for the infant children of Jewish converts.

Secondly, on the other side of the cannon being closed we must travel well over 1000 years after the institution of the New Covenant to find any solid examples of exclusive practice of credobaptism in the church. This again, carries a historical weight that must be dealt with.

Not quite correct. Tertullian advocated exclusive credobaptism around 200. And the mere mention of IB earlier in the record is meaningless unless we want to advocate for the early church's theology of IB. If we reject their theological understanding of IB, perhaps IB is nothing more than an early arising error.

 

[Marrow Man]

Tertullian was a lone voice in the early church (and for most of the history of the church, at least among the orthodox -- and some would question his own orthodoxy) with regard to infant baptism, and he also advocated having the unmarried wait upon baptism. So he appears to have also rejected credobaptism, at least among some recipients, as well.

 

[Iconoclast]

Tim,
Thanks for these quotes,but I have two follow up questions; in the first quote in post 19;

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?

1]Is he saying to delay baptism[in the case of little children] is preferable?
2] When he speaks of "sponsors" this sounds like the Roman teaching of "godparents". Do you think he is suggesting this idea?

Tim , at what point does the roman church really go off the rails with its teaching? 325? 400? 500? Is there a definable moment early on when people identified a massive departure from the 1st century church?
I know that some of those groups who opposed Rome were heretics. I just am not certain that somehow God did not preserve a remnant of faithful servants who served him despite a lack of systematic teaching,like we have been priveleged to have since the reformation days.
I think that when someone is given a bible, the simple reading of it shows a credo view throughout Acts.
The language of the apostles is simple and to the point.Repent and be baptized. Believe and be baptized.
To pour the OT. system into the new and make it the model that NT saints are locked into, when we are told that Christ has fulfilled the law for those who believe,and we are circumcised with the circumcision of Christ, circumcision being fulfilled In HIM, It seems as if that which was preparatory has now passed away,and given way to the New Covenant reality since the cross is a finished work.
If it spoken of in any NT verse clearly as it was in the OT law, we would,or could all be in agreement.

3For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

10And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

12Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

13And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

also in the second quote;

For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (ibid., 64:5).

Is this quote suggesting baptismal regeneration in an abstact form the "infant receiving remission of Adamic sin" If so ,does that cast some doubt on the effectiveness of this quote?

 

[Marrow Man]

Anthony, to answer your questions:

1) The delay is because of what appears to be a view of baptismal regeneration. Therefore, to delay the baptism would be to delay to a point later in life when various temptations, etc., would have been experienced and the baptism be more "effective" (boy, that is really a poor way to put it, but I think you get the gist). Notice that he makes the same argument for the unmarried. He is not opposed to infant baptism as a theological construct (i.e., it is unbiblical to baptize babies -- if he were it would be analogous to saying he was also saying it was unbiblical to baptize unmarried folks as well), but seems to oppose it for pragmatical reasons, based on a faulty view of baptism.

2) I am not certain exactly what he is referring to, but something akin to "godparents" is one possible interpretation. It is also possible that he is simply referring to the parents or guardians of the child. I suspect at this time there were a lot of rescued children by Christians who may have been presented for baptism by the adoptive parents. I am only speculating, however.

3) The point of the quotation from Tertullian is to show that infant baptism shows up very early in the post-apostolic church (and apparently w/o much dissension). It is certainly not because I agree with Tertullian's baptismal theology!

You also asked:

Tim , at what point does the roman church really go off the rails with its teaching? 325? 400? 500? Is there a definable moment early on when people identified a massive departure from the 1st century church?

That may be the $64,000 question. First, understand that there was no "Roman Church" per se, not until much later (the Roman bishop, for instanced did not even attend the Council of Nicaea, as he was too old and frail, though I do believe he sent representatives). What happened were historical developments that gradually led to the Rome being the primary center of Christianity and the Roman bishop being seen as the primary bishop of all the churches. But that took several centuries. There were bishops in many cities (e.g., Augustine of Hippo), but gradually the bishops of the major cities (Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Rome) became more prominent. What happened? You had an East-West schism that eventually separated Rome and Constantinople, and a nasty religion called Islam that essentially wiped out major Christian centers. But these things did not happen for many centuries. Some historians will point to Pope Gregory I as the one who began the downward spiral of the church (his interpretation of Scripture, his assertion of the primacy of the bishop of Rome, his establishment of private penance and the doctrine of Purgatory, etc.), and some will date the beginning of the Middle Ages at around his death (c. 600 A.D.).

 

[Iconoclast]

Thanks for the helpful replies Tim. I think Michael in the original post was hoping to see in the historical record a clear cut and decisive timeline, or facts that would lean one way or another. It seems as if God in His providence has chosen and ordered the events in the historical record in such a way that it forces us back to the scripture after all as the only clear rule of faith and practice.
I have heard sermons dealing with many of the events you outlined,religious and political changes affecting the church. Have a hard time still sort out all the players involved,but try to get an overall view,that can be helpful in seeing how we have come to where we are now.
The good thing is it keeps us going back and forth over the scriptures and how God has promised and delivered a complete redemption for the sheep.