Historical Support for Paedobaptism
- Thread starter Quatchu
- Start date
- Status
1. In the Scriptures ("early" Church history), the Scriptures are silent concerning any controversy over covenant inclusion of children. This is an argument from silence but if we assume the antipaedobaptist position was the default teaching of the Church, a "Judaizing" tendency would have been the inclusion of children even as they were attempting to circumcise adults. Paul (or any other Apostle) never once has to mention or explain to anyone in the early Church that children are no longer part of the visible Covenant.
2. By the second century when the issue of the baptism of infants is mentioned it is written about as the universal practice of the Church. There were those who argued against what was being practiced around the Church but the reasoning against the practice was for sub-Christian reasons. When you think about a universal practice, how could the antipaedobaptist position have completely disappeared from the scene given the arguments against paedobaptism that are presented by antipaedobaptists? This is such a huge departure from orthodoxy that not a single epistle or letter survives to this day recounting any institutional memory of the trouble the introduction of that practice would have caused?
3. This is related to the second point but in debates with Augustine, Pelagius is interacting with his opponent and notes that he has never even heard of anyone so impious as to suggest that infants should not be baptized. Nobody? Four centuries and absolutely no institutional memory that anybody in Church history had ever spoken against the practice?
The bottom line is that the antipaedobaptist position has to argue historically that its position disappeared so quickly from the scene of Church history that no shred of indignation over the novelty of infant baptism and its departure from orthodoxy survives to this day.
2. By the second century when the issue of the baptism of infants is mentioned it is written about as the universal practice of the Church. There were those who argued against what was being practiced around the Church but the reasoning against the practice was for sub-Christian reasons. When you think about a universal practice, how could the antipaedobaptist position have completely disappeared from the scene given the arguments against paedobaptism that are presented by antipaedobaptists? This is such a huge departure from orthodoxy that not a single epistle or letter survives to this day recounting any institutional memory of the trouble the introduction of that practice would have caused?
3. This is related to the second point but in debates with Augustine, Pelagius is interacting with his opponent and notes that he has never even heard of anyone so impious as to suggest that infants should not be baptized. Nobody? Four centuries and absolutely no institutional memory that anybody in Church history had ever spoken against the practice?
The bottom line is that the antipaedobaptist position has to argue historically that its position disappeared so quickly from the scene of Church history that no shred of indignation over the novelty of infant baptism and its departure from orthodoxy survives to this day.
Not quite.
At his martyrdom, when asked to deny Christ, Polycarp stated: "Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury. How can I blaspheme my King and Savior?"
Polycarp was a disciple of John and, assuming he was 86, there is an implied assumption that he would have been baptized as an infant in order to claim to have served Christ for all of his 86 years.
Bottom line, however, is that Polycarp never claimed that John performed infant baptism.
steadfast7
Puritan Board Junior
But doesn't this assume that the theology behind the practice itself was biblical and pristine from its earliest inception in the 1st or 2nd century church? Isn't it a fallacy to assume that just because it's early, that it's right? What if (and I'm not saying anything definitive, just food for thought) baptismal regeneration and mystical sacramentalism creeped in very early on, allowing paedobaptism to make a lot of sense and be practiced without controversy?
Given the problems which were evident in apostolic times it is fallacious to assume "early" equates to "right." That is not the argument, however. Given point 1 -- that there is no revelation to the effect of excluding infants from church membership in the NT (which is important to note in the light of Ephesians 2, 3, and the direct revelation required to include Gentiles) -- the universal practice of the early church in favour of infant inclusion is the more persuasive.
steadfast7
Puritan Board Junior
Might there also be some weight in the fact that the didache, an early text, does not have any details regarding infant baptism in its section on how baptism ought to be performed?
It carries no weight because it doesn't make any statement with respect to inclusion or exclusion.
steadfast7
Puritan Board Junior
but as Rich commented above,
I'm not sure if this is being used as an argument, if not, forgive my rebuttal here. But if this is an argument, then how is it that the absence of controversy regarding paedobaptism has weight, while the absence of positive instruction to paedobaptise bears no weight?
if silence is a non-argument for any statement concerning infant baptism, then ought we not dispense with ALL arguments based on silence? just trying to keep the playing field level.
It creates a lop-sided playing field to read a controversy into the primary source material which is not there. You have to suppose (1) an early church controversy over the subjects of baptism for which you have no evidence, then (2) suppose the primary source document is addressing that controversy in some way, when it doesn't. Suppose someone wanted to prove that "slaves" were excluded. Does the Didache prove it? Of course not. The Diache says nothing about the subjects of baptism. The same applies to infants.
The argument is, that there is no dispute. Do you have evidence of a dispute?
steadfast7
Puritan Board Junior
No, there doesn't seem to be a dispute. At the same time, there does not seem to be a positive instruction for the procedure of baptizing infants. I see these as equal silences, which perhaps cancel each other out. Or, could it not have been that there was no dispute because in the earliest of earliest apostolic recollection, it was adult baptism and not infant baptism that was practiced universally? Is there evidence that that wasn't the case? The only evidence posited is that there is no controversy later on when infant baptism is in full swing. Both the credo and paedobaptist have a legitimate way of owning the earliest tradition is all I'm saying.
---------- Post added at 09:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:31 AM ----------
---------- Post added at 09:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:31 AM ----------
this is not true. The obvious assumption in the didache is that the subject be able to fast, speak, etc. (ie. adult).
If the Didache is as early as some claim it is, then it is earlier than the second century and can obviously be owned by virtually anyone. That leaves the first century precisely where NT scholarship leaves it. The Didache, then, is irrelevant to the point being made. If the evidence is taken in connection with second century testimony, archaeological discovery, etc., the antipaedobaptist "ownership" becomes less credible.
You say, "this is not true" in relation to what the Didache "says," and then argue what the Didache "assumes." It still "says" nothing about subjects.
With respect to your assumption, the same could be concluded of acknowledged paedobaptist liturgies which prescribe actions for adult baptisms on the basis that these were quite regular. Further, it is likely sickly persons would not have been required to fast; so it is at best only an "ordinary" rule, not an exclusive one upon which an universal assumption can be made.
steadfast7
Puritan Board Junior
just realized that I've been posting on an paedoanswers only forum. My deep apologies. Bowing out now. thanks for the kind interaction Rev. Winzer. I'll think over your comments.
Quatchu
Puritan Board Sophomore
I understand, thank you for the clarification.
The post asked for historical arguments for paedobaptism. I pointed out that it was a universal practice by the time anyone mentions it. That does not mean that, by the second century, their theology was pristine.
I don't think you really have reflected on why it is relevant that a visible sign is universal in a community of faith regardless of what people are doing with it at the time. Rituals have ways of continuing long after people have forgotten the theological or philosophical underpinnings to them. The feasts and sacrifices didn't stop or morph after the Israelites apostasized. It's pretty hard to forget that every kid is getting circumcised or that, three times a year you have to go to Jerusalem, when it is happening all the time around you. The drift is always away from proper understanding of what's going on even as the form of things continues.
As anyone going to Church would attest, some things become muscle memory after a while. Just try to get rid of the altar call in a Church that has practiced it for generations even if you can establish that it is un-Biblical. Habits die hard.
We have evidence in Church history of what happens when someone starts fiddling with the externals of a Sacrament within the past century and a half. As the temperance movement was sweeping across America, Churches were increasingly introducing grape juice instead of wine. The change did not go un-noticed nor does it to this day and, as much as I dislike the reasoning behind it, don't consider it nearly as crucial as the subjects of baptism.
Now, let's existentially assume that we're a first century Church who thinks like Baptists do today about the subjects of baptism. Even in the most nominal Baptist denominations, the very thought of baptizing an infant is inconceivable. To say that the silence in early Church documents could go either way doesn't answer the question as to how people who could not even conceive of an infant being baptized could suddenly witness a major innovation and there not be the slightest protest that survives to this day. Add to that it not only occurred once but became so prevalent as to become the universal practice of the Church?
Even in our own day (which hardly stands for Truth any more), find me a conservative Baptist church that does not struggle mightily with the idea that a person baptized as a child is really a Christian. Even as some Baptists have noted that when they look to their left and right in their fights against modernity they see their Presbyterian brethren, most still will not permit table communion to a person baptized as an infant.
I ask, seriously: That kind of conviction existed in the early Church but not a single shred of evidence survives to this day? Infants began to be baptized in a Church where nobody had ever seen them baptized before and it created no controversy? Infants began to be Church members in Churches that once considered it unthinkable?
Frankly, the historical case for antipaedobaptism stretches all credulity for me. The fundamental reason that I'm a paedobaptist is because of the Scriptural testimony but the very light of nature rails against any notion that paedobaptism was an innovation.
Nice summary.
Rich, strictly in the interest of historical precision and accuracy I must respectfully question the way a few things have been presented here.
First, would it be possible for you to substantiate the statement that “by the 2nd century when the issue of the baptism of infants is mentioned it is written about as the universal practice of the Church”, by providing one or two citations from that era which lead you to draw that conclusion? I am personally not aware of anything from that period which speaks very clearly on the matter, and I would genuinely be interested in knowing if in fact there may be. It has been my understanding that the very first patristic passage that all parties are agreed specifically speaks of infant baptism actually opposed the practice (Tertullian, On Baptism, 18; c.202 AD). The veracity of Tertullian’s argument is certainly questionable (and quite flimsy in my own opinion), but in simply historical terms it shows that there was in fact some disagreement in this area.
In addition, of the four major historical surveys done in the last 75 years that specifically focus on the subject of baptism in the early church (and that are available in English) - Jeremias, Aland, Stander and Louw, Ferguson – all but the first conclude that infant baptism likely originated in North Africa sometime in the late 2nd century. The first three studies are also similar in concluding that infant baptism didn’t become universal until the 5th century or so, citing among other things that there are a good number of church leaders through the 4th century - from both Eastern and Western Christendom and who are known to have been born to one or more Christian parents - who indicated they weren’t baptized until young adulthood (e.g. Gregory of Nazianzus, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine). May I ask if you are familiar with any of these works, and if so, might you outline a few points as to where and why you would dispute them (specifically with regard to the evidence from early post-apostolic sources)?
Jeremias largely builds his “theological” case for infant baptism as a New Testament practice on the premise that it was a replication of the infant baptism that was then (disputably) in use among Jewish proselytes. He also held the rather unconventional view that while baptism stood in the place of circumcision among the Gentiles, such must not have been the case in the “[non] Pauline territory” (i.e. Palestine, Syria and Egypt) of the apostolic church - although this diversity met with the apostle’s approval - since many Jewish Christians were clearly still circumcising their children without any indication of reprimand or redirection to baptism in the mid 50’s AD (Acts 21:17-26). Incidentally, Jeremias marks out Tertullian’s statement as the first time infant baptism is “expressly” mentioned as well.
The comprehensiveness of Ferguson’s volume is especially impressive (950 pages of fairly small print), as he interacts with almost every known reference to Christian baptism from the 1st through the 5th centuries. He also does a particularly good job of examining the theology of baptism that was laid out by these primary sources, and how it was related to both subjects and mode. While circumcision was occasionally cited as having some practical points of comparison with baptism (usually found in apologetics directed toward Judaism), he finds no mention let alone the formulation of an actual covenant concept relating to infant baptism (or with respect to adult baptism, for that matter) anywhere in patristic theology. This omission is also pointed out by Aland and Stander and Louw.
In any case, the reason uniformly given for carrying out the practice by early church writers themselves, when stated, was the belief that baptism erases sin (both original and actual) and/or is the agency of spiritual regeneration. It is notable in this regard that Zwingli, who in 1525 was the first theologian known to have proposed a full-orbed covenant theology as the proper basis for infant baptism (although conceptually it was less developed than that which Bullinger and then Calvin would later advance), readily acknowledged that he was treading a path “different from that taken either by ancient or more modern writers or by our own [Protestant – still mainly Lutheran at that time] contemporaries.” (Baptism, Rebaptism, and Infant Baptism)
I do agree, as you aptly point out, that the biblical reasons behind certain things may have been quickly forgotten or corrupted in the post-apostolic church (some obviously so), and that this state of affairs heavily underscores the necessity for us to base our theology and practices on Scripture alone. However, given the evidence that actually does exist, I believe the key word with respect to the discussion about infant baptism in the context of the OP still has to be “may have been”. That is, the actual statements that were indeed made by the early church fathers concerning the theology behind their practice of infant baptism simply have to be given their due weight if one wants to incorporate early church history into a consideration of its possible origins. As such, the way some things have been asserted with such certainty here seem to be overstatements to me.
Respectfully
First, would it be possible for you to substantiate the statement that “by the 2nd century when the issue of the baptism of infants is mentioned it is written about as the universal practice of the Church”, by providing one or two citations from that era which lead you to draw that conclusion? I am personally not aware of anything from that period which speaks very clearly on the matter, and I would genuinely be interested in knowing if in fact there may be. It has been my understanding that the very first patristic passage that all parties are agreed specifically speaks of infant baptism actually opposed the practice (Tertullian, On Baptism, 18; c.202 AD). The veracity of Tertullian’s argument is certainly questionable (and quite flimsy in my own opinion), but in simply historical terms it shows that there was in fact some disagreement in this area.
In addition, of the four major historical surveys done in the last 75 years that specifically focus on the subject of baptism in the early church (and that are available in English) - Jeremias, Aland, Stander and Louw, Ferguson – all but the first conclude that infant baptism likely originated in North Africa sometime in the late 2nd century. The first three studies are also similar in concluding that infant baptism didn’t become universal until the 5th century or so, citing among other things that there are a good number of church leaders through the 4th century - from both Eastern and Western Christendom and who are known to have been born to one or more Christian parents - who indicated they weren’t baptized until young adulthood (e.g. Gregory of Nazianzus, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine). May I ask if you are familiar with any of these works, and if so, might you outline a few points as to where and why you would dispute them (specifically with regard to the evidence from early post-apostolic sources)?
Jeremias largely builds his “theological” case for infant baptism as a New Testament practice on the premise that it was a replication of the infant baptism that was then (disputably) in use among Jewish proselytes. He also held the rather unconventional view that while baptism stood in the place of circumcision among the Gentiles, such must not have been the case in the “[non] Pauline territory” (i.e. Palestine, Syria and Egypt) of the apostolic church - although this diversity met with the apostle’s approval - since many Jewish Christians were clearly still circumcising their children without any indication of reprimand or redirection to baptism in the mid 50’s AD (Acts 21:17-26). Incidentally, Jeremias marks out Tertullian’s statement as the first time infant baptism is “expressly” mentioned as well.
The comprehensiveness of Ferguson’s volume is especially impressive (950 pages of fairly small print), as he interacts with almost every known reference to Christian baptism from the 1st through the 5th centuries. He also does a particularly good job of examining the theology of baptism that was laid out by these primary sources, and how it was related to both subjects and mode. While circumcision was occasionally cited as having some practical points of comparison with baptism (usually found in apologetics directed toward Judaism), he finds no mention let alone the formulation of an actual covenant concept relating to infant baptism (or with respect to adult baptism, for that matter) anywhere in patristic theology. This omission is also pointed out by Aland and Stander and Louw.
In any case, the reason uniformly given for carrying out the practice by early church writers themselves, when stated, was the belief that baptism erases sin (both original and actual) and/or is the agency of spiritual regeneration. It is notable in this regard that Zwingli, who in 1525 was the first theologian known to have proposed a full-orbed covenant theology as the proper basis for infant baptism (although conceptually it was less developed than that which Bullinger and then Calvin would later advance), readily acknowledged that he was treading a path “different from that taken either by ancient or more modern writers or by our own [Protestant – still mainly Lutheran at that time] contemporaries.” (Baptism, Rebaptism, and Infant Baptism)
I do agree, as you aptly point out, that the biblical reasons behind certain things may have been quickly forgotten or corrupted in the post-apostolic church (some obviously so), and that this state of affairs heavily underscores the necessity for us to base our theology and practices on Scripture alone. However, given the evidence that actually does exist, I believe the key word with respect to the discussion about infant baptism in the context of the OP still has to be “may have been”. That is, the actual statements that were indeed made by the early church fathers concerning the theology behind their practice of infant baptism simply have to be given their due weight if one wants to incorporate early church history into a consideration of its possible origins. As such, the way some things have been asserted with such certainty here seem to be overstatements to me.
Respectfully
Pilgrim Standard
Puritan Board Sophomore
Phil,
If attempting to argue from silence is allowed then were is the protest from the Jewish Christians who were told (according to credobaptist inference,) that their children were no longer able to bear the sign of the covenant? I mean to say, prior to baptism all as a whole household, including children, were brought into covenant with God, and consecrated to him by the symbol of circumcision. Therefore, where is the protest when they are to supposedly and suddenly put off their children, deny them the consecration by the new sacramental symbol of Baptism, somehow acknowledge that the children of believers were no longer eligible for this sign and seal that they before enjoyed the real benefits of, if indeed the Baptism of infants as the new Sign and Seal of the covenant was suddenly repudiated?
If attempting to argue from silence is allowed then were is the protest from the Jewish Christians who were told (according to credobaptist inference,) that their children were no longer able to bear the sign of the covenant? I mean to say, prior to baptism all as a whole household, including children, were brought into covenant with God, and consecrated to him by the symbol of circumcision. Therefore, where is the protest when they are to supposedly and suddenly put off their children, deny them the consecration by the new sacramental symbol of Baptism, somehow acknowledge that the children of believers were no longer eligible for this sign and seal that they before enjoyed the real benefits of, if indeed the Baptism of infants as the new Sign and Seal of the covenant was suddenly repudiated?
Benjamin, I am not trying to show what role arguing from silence may rightly or wrongly play in every context. A lot depends on the premise and intended scope of the argument. Nor am I addressing the veracity of the various arguments of current covenant theology relative to baptism, or those made against them.
Again, my main point concerning the question that was asked in the OP is that "the actual statements that were indeed made by the early church fathers concerning the theology behind their practice of infant baptism simply have to be given their due weight if one wants to incorporate early church history into a consideration of its possible origins." By this I mean that in such a case they would surely have to hold at least as much sway (and perhaps more) as a supposition that the original theology behind it was totally lost. But then I would also suggest that trying to figure out biblical theology by comparing it to, or combining it with patristic beliefs is a pretty unreliable approach to take in the first place.
Again, my main point concerning the question that was asked in the OP is that "the actual statements that were indeed made by the early church fathers concerning the theology behind their practice of infant baptism simply have to be given their due weight if one wants to incorporate early church history into a consideration of its possible origins." By this I mean that in such a case they would surely have to hold at least as much sway (and perhaps more) as a supposition that the original theology behind it was totally lost. But then I would also suggest that trying to figure out biblical theology by comparing it to, or combining it with patristic beliefs is a pretty unreliable approach to take in the first place.
Constantlyreforming
Puritan Board Sophomore
Didn't Jesus say something along the lines of "forbid the little children to come to me"....?? I may be mistaken....
Phil,
I was thinking of Tertullian which pushes it to the earliest part of the 3rd Century but doesn't change the point that scarcely a century after the apostolic age Tertulian is arguing against a widespread practice for reasons that do not even remotely resemble an antipaedobaptist view. Regarding other scholarship on the issue I don't take a lot of stock in educated speculation. The fact remains that (as noted) an unthinkable practice becomes universal with no hue and cry.
I was thinking of Tertullian which pushes it to the earliest part of the 3rd Century but doesn't change the point that scarcely a century after the apostolic age Tertulian is arguing against a widespread practice for reasons that do not even remotely resemble an antipaedobaptist view. Regarding other scholarship on the issue I don't take a lot of stock in educated speculation. The fact remains that (as noted) an unthinkable practice becomes universal with no hue and cry.
Fair enough Rich, and thanks for your reply. But I must say that I still fail to see how the fact that Tertullian opposed infant baptism comports with the idea that "by the [2nd or 3rd] century when the issue of the baptism of infants is mentioned it is written about as the universal practice of the Church." And by looking at the primary sources themselves, where it is indicated by numerous church leaders that they were not baptized as infants by their Christian parents, it is certainly factual to say that the practice did not "become universal" until at least the 5th century or so. So I still have a hard time seeing the point of much of your original argument. But then again, maybe I'm just too dense... 
(Oh, and I hereby grant permission for those who want to push the "helpful post" thingy here and mean it to only apply to the last sentence above...
)
(Oh, and I hereby grant permission for those who want to push the "helpful post" thingy here and mean it to only apply to the last sentence above...
)
The point is that Tertullian does not oppose it as an innovation. He doesn't argue that people are baptizing infants in contrast to apostolic instruction but argues for pushing off baptism not only for infants but for adults as well because he had a superstitious view of what was accomplished by it. Again, one will infer what they want by early writings that point to some who were not baptized by their parents but would you point me to a single source that points to the controversy over infant baptism that raged in the early Church?
The fact that there is even a need to speculate about how or when it originated by historians who are wont to prove that antipaedobaptism was the default view makes the point. We read early Church fathers railing against all the other major heresies throughout the period but nothing railing against the perverted innovation of infant baptism? Reading between the lines to try and guess that it must have started in North Africa is hardly credible to me. The writing on this issue among the ECF is not 900 pages of tiny print. That's what scholars fill books with interpreting the meaning and reading between the lines of the paucity of information we have surrounding this.
The fact that there is even a need to speculate about how or when it originated by historians who are wont to prove that antipaedobaptism was the default view makes the point. We read early Church fathers railing against all the other major heresies throughout the period but nothing railing against the perverted innovation of infant baptism? Reading between the lines to try and guess that it must have started in North Africa is hardly credible to me. The writing on this issue among the ECF is not 900 pages of tiny print. That's what scholars fill books with interpreting the meaning and reading between the lines of the paucity of information we have surrounding this.
Of course that is precisely the point in dispute.
This is technically true, in that he did not oppose infant baptism on the stated basis that it wasn't apostolic practice. He never specifically addressed that aspect of the issue that I know of. On the other hand he did appeal to some New Testament passages as the basis for his opposition to it.
According to the circumstances and nature, and also age, of each person, the delay of baptism is more suitable, especially in the case of small children [Latin: parvuli]. What is the necessity, if there is no such necessity, for the sponsors as well to be brought into danger, since they may fail to keep their promises [i.e. to raise the child to become a true Christian] by reason of death, or be deceived by an evil disposition which grows up in the child? The Lord indeed says “Do not forbid them to come unto me. [Matt. 19:14]” So let them indeed “come” then while they are growing up, while they are learning, while they are instructed why they are coming. Let them become Christians when they are able to know Christ...Should we act more cautiously in worldly matters, so that divine things are given to those to whom earthly property is not given? Let them learn to ask for salvation so that you may be seen to have given “to him who asks. [Luke 6:30]" (On Baptism, 18)
So if Tertullian did believe that it had been the practice of the Apostles, then it follows that he also believed that they acted contrary to the principles laid out in Christ's teaching. Tertullian certainly had his share of doctrinal problems, but this doesn't seem to have been one of them... In fact, he was actually known as a staunch defender of apostolic tradition.
Now here is where the early church's superstitious yet largely uniform theology of baptism properly comes into play. Most didn't oppose including infants because they indeed believed that baptism conferred, among other things, the forgiveness of original sin. How could this be denied to those among them who were so prone to dying in infancy? So, even though their theology was badly off here, it is certainly easy to see from their own statements why the vast majority of them wouldn't have opposed the practice.
As do we bloggers here on the PB...:
And so the early Church has to be treated as so imbecilic as to allow such a gross innovation to appear at the first without the shred of evidence that any controversy ensued. As I pointed out, we have examples in Church history where innovation with grape juice occurred for sub-Biblical reasons but superstition does not occur in one fell swoop. The antipaedobaptist has to invent implausible historical scenarios to account for the lack of controversy. Its a practice in search of a history of speculation to account for the silence of controversy. I will again reiterate that I'm Presbyterian out of Biblical convictions and scarcely care about the history of this but I would have a hard time suspending disbelief as a Baptist trying to accept your historical suggestion as to what might account for a lack of controversy.
In retrospect, my last post violates the 9th Commandment attributing motive instead of assuming the best. I repent. I do, however, maintain that I don't find the explanations of the "controversy gap" to be credible. The argument cuts both ways about "superstition". It would be just as easy to present Tertullian as a case where superstition about the saving effects of baptism would lead one to reasonably infer that delay of baptism is the best course rather than baptism at the youngest possible age. This superstition then led to the introduction not of paedobaptism but groups who delayed baptism, which would account for stories of some who did not get baptized until later in life so the maximal number of sins could be covered by the power of the sacrament.
In fact, to this very day, I've heard Roman Catholics speak in envy of those who convert to Roman Catholicism late in life because the sacrament is seen as cleansing the baptismal subject of all sin and the poor Roman Catholic who was baptized as an infant has to cooperate with infused grace and perform acts of contrition to pay for all the temporal punishment they have accrued for their venial sins that have pile up over the years. Thus, Tertullian is no more odd today than he was back then: another person who sees temporal benefit to delaying baptism until a person is finished "sowing their wild oats". This is, to me, an explantion for the pockets of Churches who may have started delaying baptism elsewhere to make the historical record appear uneven as the scholar is trying to determine a case for the antipaedobaptist position.
What I've never seen anyone really adequately deal with is the issue of controversy. Again, I return to my earlier point about visible ordinances and rituals that have much more "muscle memory" than doctrinal matters that slide with relative ease within a generation. Religious practices don't fade the same way and the silence on this issue screams for a more adequate explanation than Tertullian suggesting the delay of baptism for everyone while throwing infants in as an exceptional case.
Thanks for your gracious exit. This is a paedobaptist answer section of the board anyhow.
In fact, to this very day, I've heard Roman Catholics speak in envy of those who convert to Roman Catholicism late in life because the sacrament is seen as cleansing the baptismal subject of all sin and the poor Roman Catholic who was baptized as an infant has to cooperate with infused grace and perform acts of contrition to pay for all the temporal punishment they have accrued for their venial sins that have pile up over the years. Thus, Tertullian is no more odd today than he was back then: another person who sees temporal benefit to delaying baptism until a person is finished "sowing their wild oats". This is, to me, an explantion for the pockets of Churches who may have started delaying baptism elsewhere to make the historical record appear uneven as the scholar is trying to determine a case for the antipaedobaptist position.
What I've never seen anyone really adequately deal with is the issue of controversy. Again, I return to my earlier point about visible ordinances and rituals that have much more "muscle memory" than doctrinal matters that slide with relative ease within a generation. Religious practices don't fade the same way and the silence on this issue screams for a more adequate explanation than Tertullian suggesting the delay of baptism for everyone while throwing infants in as an exceptional case.
Thanks for your gracious exit. This is a paedobaptist answer section of the board anyhow.
- Status
