Infant Baptism in the Ante-Nicene Period

[dsanch1120]

In an earlier post, I mentioned that I was rethinking my views on infant baptism. In order to better understand the topic (and hopefully come to a conclusion) I decided to start writing a paper on infant baptism. I recently finished a draft of the first section, which is on infant baptism in the ante-Nicene period. I'd be curious to hear people's thoughts, as well as if there's anything else that should be considered.
Here is the link to the paper: http://blog.dssanchez.net/2023/04/18/paper-on-infant-baptism-part-1/
The next section is on infant baptism in scripture. This (obviously) is a much larger and more important section, so it'll likely take a while. If people are interested, I can post the second section when it's finished.
Press on brethren.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

I'm guessing you're already doing this, but I'll just add that as you study the issue of baptism, make sure to spend a lot of time on the nature of the biblical Covenants. I recently moved the other direction (paedo to credo) as a result of my deeper study of covenant theology. Wherever you land, understanding where you stand on issues of covenant theology will help you get there much more clearly and solidly.

 

[dsanch1120]

I'm guessing you're already doing this, but I'll just add that as you study the issue of baptism, make sure to spend a lot of time on the nature of the biblical Covenants. I recently moved the other direction (paedo to credo) as a result of my deeper study of covenant theology. Wherever you land, understanding where you stand on issues of covenant theology will help you get there much more clearly and solidly.

That’s good to know, I’ve been trying To figure out what specifically to study, and I’ll make sure I’m focusing on that

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

I recommend this:

The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant, and His Kingdom: Renihan, Samuel: 9781943539154: Amazon.com: Books

The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant, and His Kingdom [Renihan, Samuel] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant, and His Kingdom

www.amazon.com

It's important to understand that as Covenants are positive institutions from God, each Covenant stands or falls based on its own terms.

You can't apply the rules / terms of one Covenant to another Covenant.

Oh, and the New Covenant really is new.

 

[dsanch1120]

I recommend this:

The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant, and His Kingdom: Renihan, Samuel: 9781943539154: Amazon.com: Books

The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant, and His Kingdom [Renihan, Samuel] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant, and His Kingdom

www.amazon.com

It's important to understand that as Covenants are positive institutions from God, each Covenant stands or falls based on its own terms.

You can't apply the rules / terms of one Covenant to another Covenant.

Oh, and the New Covenant really is new.

Thanks, I'll look into that book, I don't have many reformed baptist books on covenant theology at the moment, so that'll be nice to have.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

Thanks, I'll look into that book, I don't have many reformed baptist books on covenant theology at the moment, so that'll be nice to have.

If you want a really good comparison of at least one version of Reformed Baptist covenant theology (commonly called 1689 Federalism) and Presbyterian covenant theology, I think this book does a great job of comparing the viewpoints as well.

The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology: Denault, Pascal, Wigfield, Mac &. Elizabeth: 9781599253251: Amazon.com: Books

The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology [Denault, Pascal, Wigfield, Mac &. Elizabeth] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology

www.amazon.com

 

[Phil D.]

I’m sure all here agree that patristic matters are secondary or even tertiary to those scriptural, though a careful consideration of them is often still a highly interesting and profitable exercise. Here are a few of my thoughts.

In the context of patristic history and their stated reasoning for infant baptism, I think the heart of the matter is the theology behind it, as you in fact mention in your article.

Many paedobaptists, specifically those who hold to reformed theology, would reject baptismal regeneration and hold to eternal security of believers. This would seem to clash with the church fathers who advocated for infant baptism, arguably on the grounds that it washes away original sin. The challenge for the reformed paedobaptist then, is that their view of baptism does not seem to be consistent with church history beyond the baptizing of children of believers.​

This was indeed the specific rationale used by the earliest source you quote affirming infant baptism, Origen (mid-3rd Century).

[The] Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must by [sic] washed away through water and the Spirit.​

This is essentially the same rationale, when expressed, as given by other patristic writers. The absence of any covenantal connection among them is quite significant. (As I noted in another recent thread, the several instances where early writers draw a loose analogy between the age of administering OT circumcision as a justification for Christians baptizing newborns, is not the same thing as basing the practice on a covenantal theology.*)

Zwingli was the first writer on record that put the practice on an appreciable covenantal foundation, and he expressly admitted he was taking a new approach over and against the historical basis of the practice.** As such, those claiming a NT basis for infant baptism must posits that while much of the early church was correct in practice, they were doing it for very much the wrong reason. This is a rather inauspicious and disconcerting proposition, and arguably poses a greater dilemma than one you associated with the Credo position.

If the credobaptist view of early church history is correct, it means that paedobaptism developed in many geographically diverse and important congregations over the first two centuries of the church…all of this without widespread controversy (Tertullian possibly being the sole exception), and early enough that there was likely little to no dissent in the congregations when they were visited by Origen.​

​

You similarly comment:

After Tertullian, there was not a significance push back against infant baptism until the rise of the Anabaptists in the 16th century. If the early church was quick to refute and fight against heresies in the first few centuries, why is it that so few (if any) voices were raised against infant baptism?​

First, I’m not sure comparing infant baptism with heresy is the best propositional context in which to consider any potential development of it in the early church, or that the patristics would have likely seen it in such stark terms, even by those who may have disagreed with it (like Tertullian). Indeed, there are many things attractive and appealing about paedobaptism, and it fits hand-in-glove with the general patristic theology of regeneration and original sin. Personally, I will even cede there is a certain plausibility to infant baptism, whether considered in terms of a regenerational or covenantal framework. I just don’t find either to stand up to a final scrutiny of all the relevant aspects of the topic, whether biblical or historical. In a similar vein you state,

It also is worth considering the question: why would God allow His church to falsely practice such an important ordinance for over 1000 years?​

Frankly, any Reform-minded person must conclude that many theological and practical errors on matters just as significant as baptism variously proliferated and flourished from patristic to late medieval times, often for lengthy periods of time. Transubstantiation, for instance.

Overall, I enjoyed your article, and thought is was well-balanced and solicitous. I look forward to seeing what you may further present on the topic.

________________________________________

*Seemingly the earliest as well as the most cited instance of comparing circumcision and infant baptism comes from Cyprian (mid 3rd Century). I've seen this passage also claimed as evidence of an early proto-covenantal connection between the two (by a Ph. D. nonetheless). But that is simply not the case. Cyprian not only says the council disagreed with the timing aspect of a claim they had considered, but he also makes clear that the only connection between the two as perceived by them was that baptism is the equivalent of spiritual circumcision, once again essentially relating it to baptismal regeneration and the remission of original sin. Adam is deemed to hold the key to relating the two, not Abraham.

As to what pertains to the case of [baptizing] infants: You [Fidus – another North African bishop] 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.​

​

[…] For because the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, was to be that on which the Lord should rise again, and should quicken us, and give us circumcision of the spirit, the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, and the Lord's day, went before in the figure; which figure ceased when by and by the truth came, and spiritual circumcision was given to us. For which reason we think that no one is to be hindered from obtaining grace by that law which was already ordained, and that spiritual circumcision ought not to be hindered by carnal circumcision, but that absolutely every man is to be admitted to the grace of Christ, since Peter also in the Acts of the Apostles speaks, and says, “The Lord has said to me that I should call no man common or unclean.”​

​

But if anything could hinder men from obtaining grace, their more heinous sins might rather hinder those who are mature and grown up and older. But again, if even to the greatest sinners, and to those who had sinned much against God, when they subsequently believed, remission of sins is granted — and nobody is hindered from baptism and from grace— how much rather ought we to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins— that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another.​

​

And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism and from the grace of God, who is merciful and kind and loving to all. Which, since it is to be observed and maintained in respect of all, we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons, who on this very account deserve more from our help and from the divine mercy, that immediately, on the very beginning of their birth, lamenting and weeping, they do nothing else but entreat. We bid you, dearest brother, ever heartily farewell. (Letters, 64 [58])​

________________________________________

**[Huldrick Zwingli] In the matter of baptism—if I may be excused for saying so—I must conclude that all teachers have been in error from the time of the apostles. This is a most serious and weighty allegation, and I make it with great reluctance, wishing I had not felt compelled to do so by contentious spirits [the Anabaptists], and I would have preferred to have kept silence and to simply proclaim the truth. But it will be seen that the allegation is true, for every teacher ascribed to the water an efficacy that it does not truly possess, and the holy apostles did not teach. They have also misappropriated the saying of Christ about water and the Holy Ghost, in John 3. So our current task is to look at what baptism truly is, though in many places we will have to travel a different path from the one taken by both ancient and more recent writers, or by our own contemporaries.​

​

Im touff—verzych mir alle menschen—kan ich mit anderst finden, denn das alle lerer etwa vil geirret habend syd der apostlen zyten har. Das ist ein groß, treffenlich wort, und reden es so ungern, daß ich's verschwigen hette min lebtag, und darnebend aber die warheit gelert, wo nit die zengkischen mich gezwungen hettind also ze reden. Es wirt sich aber erfinden in der warheit; dann sy habend allsamen dem wasser züggeben, das es nit hat, ouch die: heligen apostel nit gelert haben, und das wort Christi Jo. 3. vom wasser und heligen geyst nit recht verstanden. Darumb wellend ouch wir sehen, was doch der touff sye, warlich an vil orten einen anderen wäg, weder die alten, nüwen unnd yetzigen gethon habend.​

​

[Huldrich Zwingli, Von der Taufe, von der Wiedertaufe und von der Kindertaufe (May, 1525): Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, (Leipzig: Verlag von M. Heinsius Nachfolger, 1927), IV:216.]​

In this treatise Zwingli primarily tackled the prevailing historical notion of what would commonly be termed baptismal regeneration, but he also makes several basic comparisons between baptism and circumcision as covenantal signs. Shortly thereafter, Zwingli would go on to much more fully develop a covenantal basis for infant baptism, similar to the way modern Reformed paedobaptists do. (Antwort über Balthasar Hubmaiers Taufbüchlein; Nov. 1525; Ibid, 577ff.)

 

[dsanch1120]

I’m sure all here agree that patristic matters are secondary or even tertiary to those scriptural, though a careful consideration of them is often still a highly interesting and profitable exercise. Here are a few of my thoughts.

In the context of patristic history and their stated reasoning for infant baptism, I think the heart of the matter is the theology behind it, as you in fact mention in your article.

Many paedobaptists, specifically those who hold to reformed theology, would reject baptismal regeneration and hold to eternal security of believers. This would seem to clash with the church fathers who advocated for infant baptism, arguably on the grounds that it washes away original sin. The challenge for the reformed paedobaptist then, is that their view of baptism does not seem to be consistent with church history beyond the baptizing of children of believers.​

This was indeed the specific rationale used by the earliest source you quote affirming infant baptism, Origen (mid-3rd Century).

[The] Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must by [sic] washed away through water and the Spirit.​

This is essentially the same rationale, when expressed, as given by other patristic writers. The absence of any covenantal connection among them is quite significant. (As I noted in another recent thread, the several instances where early writers draw a loose analogy between the age of administering OT circumcision as a justification for Christians baptizing newborns, is not the same thing as basing the practice on a covenantal theology.*)

Zwingli was the first writer on record that put the practice on an appreciable covenantal foundation, and he expressly admitted he was taking a new approach over and against the historical basis of the practice.** As such, those claiming a NT basis for infant baptism must posits that while much of the early church was correct in practice, they were doing it for very much the wrong reason. This is a rather inauspicious and disconcerting proposition, and arguably poses a greater dilemma than one you associated with the Credo position.

If the credobaptist view of early church history is correct, it means that paedobaptism developed in many geographically diverse and important congregations over the first two centuries of the church…all of this without widespread controversy (Tertullian possibly being the sole exception), and early enough that there was likely little to no dissent in the congregations when they were visited by Origen.​

​

You similarly comment:

After Tertullian, there was not a significance push back against infant baptism until the rise of the Anabaptists in the 16th century. If the early church was quick to refute and fight against heresies in the first few centuries, why is it that so few (if any) voices were raised against infant baptism?​

First, I’m not sure comparing infant baptism with heresy is the best propositional context in which to consider any potential development of it in the early church, or that the patristics would have likely seen it in such stark terms, even by those who may have disagreed with it (like Tertullian). Indeed, there are many things attractive and appealing about paedobaptism, and it fits hand-in-glove with the general patristic theology of regeneration and original sin. Personally, I will even cede there is a certain plausibility to infant baptism, whether considered in terms of a regenerational or covenantal framework. I just don’t find either to stand up to a final scrutiny of all the relevant aspects of the topic, whether biblical or historical. In a similar vein you state,

It also is worth considering the question: why would God allow His church to falsely practice such an important ordinance for over 1000 years?​

Frankly, any Reform-minded person must conclude that many theological and practical errors on matters just as significant as baptism variously proliferated and flourished from patristic to late medieval times, often for lengthy periods of time. Transubstantiation, for instance.

Overall, I enjoyed your article, and thought is was well-balanced and solicitous. I look forward to seeing what you may further present on the topic.

________________________________________

*Seemingly the earliest as well as the most cited instance of comparing circumcision and infant baptism comes from Cyprian (mid 3rd Century). I've seen this passage also claimed as evidence of an early proto-covenantal connection between the two (by a Ph. D. nonetheless). But that is simply not the case. Cyprian not only says the council disagreed with the timing aspect of a claim they had considered, but he also makes clear that the only connection between the two as perceived by them was that baptism is the equivalent of spiritual circumcision, once again essentially relating it to baptismal regeneration and the remission of original sin. Adam is deemed to hold the key to relating the two, not Abraham.

As to what pertains to the case of [baptizing] infants: You [Fidus – another North African bishop] 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.​

​

[…] For because the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, was to be that on which the Lord should rise again, and should quicken us, and give us circumcision of the spirit, the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, and the Lord's day, went before in the figure; which figure ceased when by and by the truth came, and spiritual circumcision was given to us. For which reason we think that no one is to be hindered from obtaining grace by that law which was already ordained, and that spiritual circumcision ought not to be hindered by carnal circumcision, but that absolutely every man is to be admitted to the grace of Christ, since Peter also in the Acts of the Apostles speaks, and says, “The Lord has said to me that I should call no man common or unclean.”​

​

But if anything could hinder men from obtaining grace, their more heinous sins might rather hinder those who are mature and grown up and older. But again, if even to the greatest sinners, and to those who had sinned much against God, when they subsequently believed, remission of sins is granted — and nobody is hindered from baptism and from grace— how much rather ought we to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins— that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another.​

​

And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism and from the grace of God, who is merciful and kind and loving to all. Which, since it is to be observed and maintained in respect of all, we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons, who on this very account deserve more from our help and from the divine mercy, that immediately, on the very beginning of their birth, lamenting and weeping, they do nothing else but entreat. We bid you, dearest brother, ever heartily farewell. (Letters, 64 [58])​

________________________________________

**[Huldrick Zwingli] In the matter of baptism—if I may be excused for saying so—I must conclude that all teachers have been in error from the time of the apostles. This is a most serious and weighty allegation, and I make it with great reluctance, wishing I had not felt compelled to do so by contentious spirits [the Anabaptists], and I would have preferred to have kept silence and to simply proclaim the truth. But it will be seen that the allegation is true, for every teacher ascribed to the water an efficacy that it does not truly possess, and the holy apostles did not teach. They have also misappropriated the saying of Christ about water and the Holy Ghost, in John 3. So our current task is to look at what baptism truly is, though in many places we will have to travel a different path from the one taken by both ancient and more recent writers, or by our own contemporaries.​

​

Im touff—verzych mir alle menschen—kan ich mit anderst finden, denn das alle lerer etwa vil geirret habend syd der apostlen zyten har. Das ist ein groß, treffenlich wort, und reden es so ungern, daß ich's verschwigen hette min lebtag, und darnebend aber die warheit gelert, wo nit die zengkischen mich gezwungen hettind also ze reden. Es wirt sich aber erfinden in der warheit; dann sy habend allsamen dem wasser züggeben, das es nit hat, ouch die: heligen apostel nit gelert haben, und das wort Christi Jo. 3. vom wasser und heligen geyst nit recht verstanden. Darumb wellend ouch wir sehen, was doch der touff sye, warlich an vil orten einen anderen wäg, weder die alten, nüwen unnd yetzigen gethon habend.​

​

[Huldrich Zwingli, Von der Taufe, von der Wiedertaufe und von der Kindertaufe (May, 1525): Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, (Leipzig: Verlag von M. Heinsius Nachfolger, 1927), IV:216.]​

In this treatise Zwingli primarily tackled the prevailing historical notion of what would commonly be termed baptismal regeneration, but he also makes several basic comparisons between baptism and circumcision as covenantal signs. Shortly thereafter, Zwingli would go on to much more fully develop a covenantal basis for infant baptism, similar to the way modern Reformed paedobaptists do. (Antwort über Balthasar Hubmaiers Taufbüchlein; Nov. 1525; Ibid, 577ff.)

Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful reply, and for taking the time to read my paper. There’s a lot of very good things to consider. It might be good to add a section on the link between baptismal regeneration and infant baptism, and to keep in mind what you mentioned about Cyprian.

 

[RamistThomist]

Paedobaptist here and amateur expert (emphasis on amateur) on the church fathers. Even though I think paedobaptism is great, and I think the fathers were largely paedobaptist, their reasons for being so were not always very good, as others have noted above. The fathers function as a negative historical case: they can show that credobaptism was not widespread. Beyond that, I would not go to them for a theology of baptism.

 

[Phil D.]

amateur expert

Isn't that a textbook oxymoron..?

 

[dsanch1120]

Paedobaptist here and amateur expert (emphasis on amateur) on the church fathers. Even though I think paedobaptism is great, and I think the fathers were largely paedobaptist, their reasons for being so were not always very good, as others have noted above. The fathers function as a negative historical case: they can show that credobaptism was not widespread. Beyond that, I would not go to them for a theology of baptism.

Having read through them, I would definitely agree with that. The point of the paper was to show if the early church baptized infants rather than why. If anything, studying the church fathers on infant baptism just made me more convinced that scripture, not church history, needs to be that which determines our views on baptism (and indeed everything else).

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Having read through them, I would definitely agree with that. The point of the paper was to show if the early church baptized infants rather than why. If anything, studying the church fathers on infant baptism just made me more convinced that scripture, not church history, needs to be that which determines our views on baptism (and indeed everything else).

If the Church Fathers were baptizing infants, isn't the why important?

 

[dsanch1120]

If the Church Fathers were baptizing infants, isn't the why important?

Absolutely. The point of this section of the paper (it’s an ongoing project) was just to answer the question of “did they baptize infants?” I’m very likely going to be looking at the why in a future section

 

[Northern Crofter]

It's important to understand that as Covenants are positive institutions from God, each Covenant stands or falls based on its own terms.

You can't apply the rules / terms of one Covenant to another Covenant.

Oh, and the New Covenant really is new.

But what does the Old Covenant refer to in your system? Adamic? Noahic? Abrahamic? Mosaic? Davidic? I agree that each Covenant stands or falls based on its own terms, which is why some are broken and void, some are expired and replaced, and some continue. It may not be that some systems are applying the rules / terms of one Covenant to another Covenant as much as they are seeing the continuation of another alongside the New. For example, the Noahic covenant is in force as long as the earth remains (Gen.8.22), and it would seem from Romans 9 and elsewhere that the Abrahamic covenant continues in a new way. So what do you do with the fact that circumcision was part of the Abrahamic covenant (Gen.17.11/Acts 7.8), the Abrahamic covenant continues through Isaac not according to the flesh (Romans 4.9-12; 9.6-7), and true circumcision which makes one a son of Abraham is not longer an external sign ("he is a Jew which is one within, and the circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God." Romans 2.29)? From the beginning a covenant requires a sign (see Gen.9.13 and 7.11, for example), so if the Abrahamic covenant continues, but external circumcision does not, what is the visible sign of that covenant in the New Covenant era?

 

[Solparvus]

In an earlier post, I mentioned that I was rethinking my views on infant baptism. In order to better understand the topic (and hopefully come to a conclusion) I decided to start writing a paper on infant baptism. I recently finished a draft of the first section, which is on infant baptism in the ante-Nicene period. I'd be curious to hear people's thoughts, as well as if there's anything else that should be considered.
Here is the link to the paper: http://blog.dssanchez.net/2023/04/18/paper-on-infant-baptism-part-1/
The next section is on infant baptism in scripture. This (obviously) is a much larger and more important section, so it'll likely take a while. If people are interested, I can post the second section when it's finished.
Press on brethren.

Hi brother. I was a Reformed Baptist up until early 2018 when it was Scripture itself that supplanted my view. I encourage you, make Scripture primary. Spare nothing in examining these. Visit good books on the matter, but feed on the Scriptures. Without deprecating the value of church history, the Holy Spirit through the Scriptures ultimately judges the rightness or wrongness of every theological movement that ever comes afterward whether early or late (WCF 1.10).

 

[Spurge]

Paedobaptist here and amateur expert (emphasis on amateur) on the church fathers. Even though I think paedobaptism is great, and I think the fathers were largely paedobaptist, their reasons for being so were not always very good, as others have noted above. The fathers function as a negative historical case: they can show that credobaptism was not widespread. Beyond that, I would not go to them for a theology of baptism.

Ramist,
What role does "the Great Tradition" play in interpreting scripture on various theological issues such as baptism? In this "Bibilicist"/Great Tradition scruple I lean away from the "biblicist" group, but I do struggle to understand how the "Great Tradition" as an interpretive grid functionally plays out. We can use Nicene fathers and their debates extensively and give heavy creedance to them in interpreting scripture in regards to theology proper and the Trinity, but how does this play out with something like baptism, in which we seem to cast them aside. Appreciate any insight you have as I navigate this topic!

 

[RamistThomist]

Ramist,
What role does "the Great Tradition" play in interpreting scripture on various theological issues such as baptism? In this "Bibilicist"/Great Tradition scruple I lean away from the "biblicist" group, but I do struggle to understand how the "Great Tradition" as an interpretive grid functionally plays out. We can use Nicene fathers and their debates extensively and give heavy creedance to them in interpreting scripture in regards to theology proper and the Trinity, but how does this play out with something like baptism, in which we seem to cast them aside. Appreciate any insight you have as I navigate this topic!

The Great Tradition does not directly inform this debate. I have tried to show that the Great Tradition is more of a conversation than a database of pre-interpreted doctrines. To be sure, there is more weight on the doctrine of God and Christ than on Baptism.

The Great Tradition aims more at the question: "Given what they believe about reality, why did they see the text or doctrine this way?"

The only real insight that it would bring would be a rejection of some proto-dispensational reading of the covenants. Beyond that, I would not make the Great Tradition do more than is warranted.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I was thinking about this thread today and contemplating about how ironic it is when people say: "Well don't trust the early Church on the baptism of infants because many Church Fathers believe in baptismal regeneration..." The irony is owed to the fact that there are American credo-Batptist traditions that hold to the same thing and they only took a few years to develop.

what one "sees" in the early Church regarding Baptism is a kind of Rorschach test. If one is convinced that the Church once taught believers-only baptism then one sees a nearly instantaneous departure from that practice. The reasons are inferred to be bad theology. If early Church writers were somehow aware of believers-only baptism and that the Church had decided to turn its back on something so perspicuous, they don't even hint at it.

Jacob hints at this, but there just isn't controversy around baptism like there are other issues. It's just happening in the background. Perhaps in all the fights over Gnosticism, the Trinity, and the person of Christ, the Church was too tired to fight for believers-only baptism. Maybe, even though everyone was willing to go to their death to preserve believers-only baptism in the 16th century, nobody had that kind of courage in the early Church as forces quickly changed the accepted practice of the Church.

 

[dsanch1120]

I was thinking about this thread today and contemplating about how ironic it is when people say: "Well don't trust the early Church on the baptism of infants because many Church Fathers believe in baptismal regeneration..." The irony is owed to the fact that there are American credo-Batptist traditions that hold to the same thing and they only took a few years to develop.

what one "sees" in the early Church regarding Baptism is a kind of Rorschach test. If one is convinced that the Church once taught believers-only baptism then one sees a nearly instantaneous departure from that practice. The reasons are inferred to be bad theology. If early Church writers were somehow aware of believers-only baptism and that the Church had decided to turn its back on something so perspicuous, they don't even hint at it.

Jacob hints at this, but there just isn't controversy around baptism like there are other issues. It's just happening in the background. Perhaps in all the fights over Gnosticism, the Trinity, and the person of Christ, the Church was too tired to fight for believers-only baptism. Maybe, even though everyone was willing to go to their death to preserve believers-only baptism in the 16th century, nobody had that kind of courage in the early Church as forces quickly changed the accepted practice of the Church.

The idea of the "Rorschach" test became very clear as I studied while writing my paper. I noticed while reading different books on early church history that credo-baptists and paedo-baptists tend to look at church history through the lens of what they already believe scripture commands. There's no neutral view of history, especially when it comes to the baptism practices of the early church.

 

[John The Baptist]

The idea of the "Rorschach" test became very clear as I studied while writing my paper. I noticed while reading different books on early church history that credo-baptists and paedo-baptists tend to look at church history through the lens of what they already believe scripture commands. There's no neutral view of history, especially when it comes to the baptism practices of the early church.

Perhaps it’s best, when it comes to history, to accept that the case can be made from either side.

 

[Phil D.]

Insofar as church history can be helpfully informative, here's my totally unprejudicial analysis...

I don't think anyone disputes that infant baptism was present at an early point in church history. If they do, then for me they become irrelevant to the discussion. Yet pre-Nicene patristic writings are a mixed bag. Some don't mention baptism at all. Among the ones that do, some talk about infant baptism, others don't. The earliest, the Didache, gives a very detailed account of the practical issues involved in preparing for and administering the ordinance without mentioning or making accommodation for infants. There are actually only a few writers from this era that unquestionably do talk about infant baptism (Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, and possibly Hippolytus - the dating, and authorship of the Apostolic Tradition is not a settled matter, and some among those who do ascribe an early date question if the three lines that address infant baptism were a later interpolation). A few other pre-Nicene sources sometimes claimed to "allude" to infant baptism require a highly subjective reading-between-the-lines.

Notably, with the exception of Hippolytus, all of the above writers were North African. Moreover, one reason there is increasing doubt that at least some parts of the Apostolic Tradition were written by Hippolytus, a Roman, is that the earliest surviving copy - 5th Century - was discovered in Egypt in the late 20th Century, and is deemed to have drawn on an even earlier source in Greek, causing some scholars to even redub the liturgy The Egyptian Church Order. Of course, moving forward to the post-Nicene era there is no doubt the practice of infant baptism was, or became virtually universal, with some question being raised as to why some early church leaders who are known to have had Christian parentage were not baptized until later years, and what extrapolations might reasonably be made from that. Bottom line, all of these facts are wholly consistent with infant baptism having been a historical "development."

As I also said earlier, to me the much more intriguing and important issue is to consider the patristic theology behind infant baptism. Those that express themselves on the matter are strikingly uniform and consistent in deeming baptism to be instrumental in regeneration, as brought about by its cleansing of original and actual sin. Even in several cases were circumcision is brought into the discussion, it is very much peripheral, with the substantial theological argument still always couched in terms of regeneration. Again, Adam is the key OT link in the patristic perception of the need to baptize infants, not Abraham. As to how widespread infant baptism evidently was or became, I think it is important to admit that spiritual regeneration and the necessary cleansing from original sin is an obvious and alluring incentive for patristic churches to have begun baptizing babies, especially in a historical milieu where infant and early childhood mortality were prevalent.

So for me, the question of rationale poses a much bigger obstacle for Reformed paedos to overcome, than for credos to have to admit the mere existence of the practice. In other words, what is more improbable: that in logical concert with the increasingly prevalent theology of baptismal regeneration and original sin the practice of infant baptism quickly became widespread, or that an original, authentic, and apostolic reason for doing so was completely lost so quickly - so as to universally not ever have been reasoned along those lines?

Maybe just a couple of other relevant thoughts... First, there has been some buzz in certain Reformed circles about research that has shown many patristic writers expressed covenantal concepts and employed covenantal categories, which is certainly true. However, as far as I can tell they did not appreciably link their concepts of such to infant baptism. Augustine perhaps comes the closest, but even he doesn't quite get there. It is telling that no historical Reformed systematic or apologetical works seem to mention Augustine or other patristics in support of their covenantal basis for infant baptism, even while freely quoting these early sources when they align with them on other matters. Seemingly the primary work that disseminates patristic sources on this issue only mentions baptism three or four times, and then only once or twice in terms of proposing a possible, though in my reading unsatisfactorily vague connection between infant baptism and patristic concepts of covenant (Woolsey, The Covenant in the Church Fathers, 2003). If there are other relevant studies I'm not aware of that expand on this, I would be glad to consider them.

Secondly, I have seen some Reformed commentators almost eagerly point out the several places where patristic writers claim that infant baptism was a tradition directly handed down from the apostles (e.g. Origen, Augustine). Apart from this being rather curious on the face of it, how is this possibly a boon when Augustine also essentially claimed that paedo-communion was derived in the same manner, and Origen insisted that the apostles were also the source of the "secret" that baptism washes away original sin?

Anyway, I realize many here will disagree with my analysis, as I theirs, at which I can only ponder again with renewed wonderment how differently even godly and intelligent people can approach and process information...

 

[Semper Fidelis]

So for me, the question of rationale poses a much bigger obstacle for Reformed paedos to overcome, than for credos to have to admit the mere existence of the practice. In other words, what is more improbable: that in concert with the increasingly prevalent theology of baptismal regeneration and original sin the practice of infant baptism quickly became widespread, or that an original, authentic, and apostolic reason for doing so was completely lost so quickly - so as to universally not ever have been reasoned along those lines?

I'm not looking for the ante-Nicene period to look "identical" to a mature, Covenantal understanding of paedobaptism.

To me what is more "probable" is that a practice is more sticky than the rationale for it. The recipients or elements of a Sacrament are pretty difficult to change without people noticing it.

Assuming for instance, that the early Church departed from a solid rationale for the widespread belief/practice that only adults can be baptized, there would still be a memory of said practice. The fact that so many credo-Baptizers today believe in regeneration/salvation through water baptism has not created "pressure" upon any of these groups to consider baptizing infants.

The Reformed aren't looking to the Patristics in hopes of finding someone who has a fully developed CT. The pressure has never been to figure out why babies are baptized as much as to argue that a Covenantal grounding is not altogether novel.

In other words, when Bullinger was arguing for the idea of Covenant in early Church writings it was to try to show that the Covental concept in baptism was present and the Church was recovering something that went dormant. It wasn't that there was real pressure to prove that infants were the proper recipients of baptism. That was pretty much assumed. The question is why anyone is baptized.

In contrast, the cred-baptist looks to early Church history as you infer - that is trying to figure out why no clear affirmations of the practice exist and coming to the conclusion that the muddled thinking on baptismal regeneration and the washing of sins was what led to the Church adopting infant baptism.

Incidentally, the Federal Vision demonstrates that even an understanding of the Sacramental union of sign and seal can be confused and ostensibly "Refomed" folk can go in the direction (very quickly) of assuming that baptism regenerates and washes aways sins (that's, after all, what the Lutherns believe).

 

[Phil D.]

In contrast, the cred-baptist looks to early Church history as you infer - that is trying to figure out why no clear affirmations of the practice exist and coming to the conclusion that the muddled thinking on baptismal regeneration and the washing of sins was what led to the Church adopting infant baptism.

Muddled thinking? Seems to me the patristics that expounded on the matter were exceedingly plain and strikingly of one voice, with Augustine among the most emphatic on this point:

Likewise, whosoever says that those children who depart out of this life without partaking of that sacrament shall be made alive in Christ, certainly contradicts the apostolic declaration, and condemns the universal Church, in which it is the practice to lose no time and run in haste to administer baptism to infant children, because it is believed, as an indubitable truth, that otherwise they cannot be made alive in Christ. Now he that is not made alive in Christ must necessarily remain under the condemnation, of which the apostle says, that by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation (Romans 5:18). That infants are born under the guilt of this offense is believed by the whole Church.​

(Letters, 166.)​

Assuming for instance, that the early Church departed from a solid rationale for the widespread belief/practice that only adults can be baptized, there would still be a memory of said practice.

This seems to imply that arguments from silence are good in terms of exclusive credobaptism not being explicitly expounded by the ancients, but not when it comes to the absence of their mentioning the sole rationale used by Reformed paedobaptists. The fact is a good number of patristic writers exclusively wrote about baptism in terms that can only be understood as applying to those capable of making a profession of faith.

In other words, when Bullinger was arguing for the idea of Covenant in early Church writings it was to try to show that the Covental concept in baptism was present and the Church was recovering something that went dormant.

I think this is too loose an extrapolation. Does he ever say as much? Covenant is an extremely broad category, for Bullinger a virtually all-encompassing category. In his Exposition of the One Eternal Testament or Covenant of God, Bullinger breaks down the general concept of Covenant into many particular aspects, and does regularly call upon Augustine and other patristics for support on certain of those aspects. In the section where he expounds on the sacraments, patristic citations are conspicuously absent. As such I think a much more direct connection than actually exists would be necessary before it could credibly be supposed that Bullinger saw any similarity between his own position relating baptism and covenant, and anything found in the fathers. Bullinger's go-to patristic source for demonstrating covenantal precedent was Augustine, and we can see that father's express basis for infant baptism was not covenantal.

If any man, however, is still perplexed by the question why the children of baptized persons are baptized, let him briefly consider this: Inasmuch as the generation of sinful flesh through the one man, Adam, draws into condemnation all who are born of such generation, so the generation of the Spirit of grace through the one man Jesus Christ, draws to the justification of eternal life all who, because predestinated, partake of this regeneration. And the sacrament of baptism is undoubtedly the sacrament of regeneration.​

(On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants, 2.43)​

 

[Andrew35]

To me what is more "probable" is that a practice is more sticky than the rationale for it. The recipients or elements of a Sacrament are pretty difficult to change without people noticing it.

Precisely. I think it's pretty intuitive that practice tends to have a much longer shelf life than the conceptual apparatus behind it, particularly where there is a dearth of formal training and education. But anyone who's ever asked, "Why do we do it this way?" only to be met with a range of contradictory explanations--or even worse, shrugs--is well aware of this phenomenon.

 

[Eyedoc84]

Precisely. I think it's pretty intuitive that practice tends to have a much longer shelf life than the conceptual apparatus behind it, particularly where there is a dearth of formal training and education. But anyone who's ever asked, "Why do we do it this way?" only to be met with a range of contradictory explanations--or even worse, shrugs--is well aware of this phenomenon.

Isn’t this exactly what we see throughout scripture? The people “going through the motions”, that were in fact the right motions, but with wrong beliefs and motives attached to them?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Muddled thinking?

My point wasn't that they were not clear in what they were saying. I may have been imprecise in my selection of terms. I think that what I was trying to express was that they were not clearly apprehending some of the implications of the Covenant that were later developed as the Reformed Churches developed them. I can read some of the ways they expressed the importance of baptism in a charitable light. The Reformed view doesn't deny that water baptism is inexorably united to regeneration but that it is Sacramental rather than instrumental. It's not an unusual move in theological terms to confuse them because the subtlety in Scripture can be overlooked.

This seems to imply that arguments from silence are good in terms of exclusive credobaptism not being explicitly expounded by the ancients, but not when it comes to the absence of their mentioning the sole rationale used by Reformed paedobaptists. The fact is a good number of patristic writers exclusively wrote about baptism in terms that can only be understood as applying to those capable of making a profession of faith.

I'm not sure that follows. Again, I'm not arguing that anyone in the early Church may have had a fully developed sense of the CoG with Christ as Mediator and all the Sacramental connections to means of grace. I'll grant development because these things are profoundly interconnected. A Church doesn't need to have an exhaustive notion of the relationship of the Covenant to how Sacraments are means of grace in order to function under a general understanding that children either are or are not members of the Covenant until they give a profession. There are sort of very basic ideas that follow from one understanding over another and a practice attends that understanding. I think these discussions tend to underestimate the time/distance/communication issues across a geographically dispersed Church that might only occasionally know of or communicate via letter or some traveler. The idea of some coordinated activity to "flip the script" is highly improbable. Even if one congregation is increasingly convinced that baptismal regeneration is a way to save their kids then it still doesn't follow that a congregation elsewhere is going to just fall like a domino. The idea that everyone is once convinced that only those who profess ought to be baptized and there is not even a pocket of resistance in some regions when the script flips seems like a fantasy scenario to me. I'd love to see someone try to create a bit of historical fiction that makes a plausible case where that theological virus gains a foothold and spreads so rapidly that it's never mentioned.

If any man, however, is still perplexed by the question why the children of baptized persons are baptized, let him briefly consider this: Inasmuch as the generation of sinful flesh through the one man, Adam, draws into condemnation all who are born of such generation, so the generation of the Spirit of grace through the one man Jesus Christ, draws to the justification of eternal life all who, because predestinated, partake of this regeneration. And the sacrament of baptism is undoubtedly the sacrament of regeneration.(On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants, 2.43)

That's not Covenantal? What is your definition of Covenantal when Adam and Christ are mentioned? What are you looking for when you look for traces of things that later theologians can draw from? Are you looking for some sort of early Church Father that gets everything right and uses the exact terms "Covenant of works" and "Covenant of Grace" or is it sufficient that certain ideas of corporate solidarity exist as they are found in the Scriptures themselves and being worked out?

After all, as I noted above, the Reformed do believe that Baptism is the Sacrament of regeneration. It's not conferred instrumentally but Sacramentally.

I guess what I see is that certain ideas are being conflated or over-emphasized but that it's not pointing 180 degrees from the reality of the nature of the Sacraments themselves. It's why I also can understand the confusion over the Lord's Supper as well without denying that we feed on Christ and just seeing everything as completely off-base bu tin need of Reformation.