Question of historical argument for paedobabtism?

[jwright82]

Is there an argument to made if children of believers are no longer involved in the initiation rite of the covenant, which they were before. Wouldn't we expect to have read about it being a problem in the early church? The apostle's would have had to deal with it in the epistles. But as far as I know they didn't.
So if children were involved in these rites before and all of a sudden that changed, they would have had to explicitly deal with it.

 

[Tom Hart]

Is there an argument to made if children of believers are no longer involved in the initiation rite of the covenant, which they were before. Wouldn't we expect to have read about it being a problem in the early church? The apostle's would have had to deal with it in the epistles. But as far as I know they didn't.
So if children were involved in these rites before and all of a sudden that changed, they would have had to explicitly deal with it.

Yes, this has been discussed my various authors. I have seen it brought up on the PB a few times.

Briefly, children received the sign of the covenant, then were suddenly excluded from the sign awaiting a profession of faith at some later date. If that were so, it is astonishing that there is no hint of controversy in the NT.

 

[timfost]

It's a helpful point to consider since we're often left on the defensive with statements like, "the burden of proof lies on you to demonstrate that infants were baptized." The statement itself contains the presupposition that the household principle was altered/abrogated in Christ. Rather, the assertion should be, "the burden of proof lies on you (the credo) to demonstrate that the household principle was altered/abrogated." Unless a change in the household can be verified, the first assertion carries no weight.

 

[jwright82]

Yes, this has been discussed my various authors. I have seen it brought up on the PB a few times.

Briefly, children received the sign of the covenant, then were suddenly excluded from the sign awaiting a profession of faith at some later date. If that were so, it is astonishing that there is no hint of controversy in the NT.

Yeah you'd think they would have had to deal with such a sudden change. I'm no expert but I believe even the Greeks included their children in at least some rites? Not sure though.

 

[JTB.SDG]

Not to go into attack mode. But I would appreciate to hear how a Baptist would respond to this in a thoughtful way. Maybe it would just be: It wasn't as bit of an issue as the other things going on? Would appreciate thoughts.

 

[Solparvus]

@jwright82

The early church had to be told years after Pentecost that circumcision doesn't save, that it was okay to eat unclean animals, and that the ceremonial laws were no longer binding. There's no way they would have given up the covenantal status of children without a fight.

 

[Dachaser]

@jwright82

The early church had to be told years after Pentecost that circumcision doesn't save, that it was okay to eat unclean animals, and that the ceremonial laws were no longer binding. There's no way they would have given up the covenantal status of children without a fight.

They would have though, since the Apostles themselves would have revealed to the early Church that right now the sign of the Covenant relationship with God was based upon faith in Christ as Lord Messiah and having the promised Holy Spirit of Jeremiah 31. Water baptism external sign of that already having been established by God under the NC.

 

[Tom Hart]

"OK, any questions? Yes, you, the Jewish fellow in the... third row... with the brown tunic. Oh, you were just scratching your nose? My apologies, I thought you were about to object to the mandate to exclude your child from the sign of the covenant until he makes a credible profession of faith. Well, we'll just move on, then, to the next slide: grape juice."

 

[jwright82]

@jwright82

The early church had to be told years after Pentecost that circumcision doesn't save, that it was okay to eat unclean animals, and that the ceremonial laws were no longer binding. There's no way they would have given up the covenantal status of children without a fight.

Yes a fight the apostle's would have had to write about. Yet as far as I know no record of such a fight.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Maybe, just maybe, the Early church did a good job in explaining the difference between Baptism and Circumcision. A difference which, when well understood, makes this issue moot and makes one a Baptist.

 

[Solparvus]

Maybe, just maybe, the Early church did a good job in explaining the difference between Baptism and Circumcision. A difference which, when well understood, makes this issue moot and makes one a Baptist.

Or maybe they baptized whole households because they assumed the church would operate as it had since Abraham, and no one said anything different

 

[Solparvus]

Yes a fight the apostle's would have had to write about. Yet as far as I know no record of such a fight.

It took a synod just to clear up a circumcision controversy.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Or maybe they baptized whole households because they assumed the church would operate as it had since Abraham, and no one said anything different

The likelihood of that is approximately zero, so no.

 

[Dachaser]

Or maybe they baptized whole households because they assumed the church would operate as it had since Abraham, and no one said anything different

Well, they would have had it explained that under this new and better Covenant relationship, baptism sign of one having already eternal life in Christ.

 

[Dachaser]

It took a synod just to clear up a circumcision controversy.

Paul by himself could have explained how water baptism now function under new economy.

 

[Phil D.]

Paul makes it very clear, in numerous places, to Jew and Gentile alike, that outward circumcision has become “nothing”. (1 Cor. 7:19; Rom. 2:25-29; Gal. 5:6, 6:15; Col. 3:11). So it seems the better question is, if water baptism carries over the particular aspect of physical circumcision that it must be given to all of one’s physical offspring, shouldn’t such find explicit command somewhere?

Even if one supposes Jewish Christians would have “automatically” assumed such a continuation, what about Gentile believers? Apart from explicit instruction from the Apostles to do so (and this preserved in holy writ for the sake of future Gentile converts, who in a few short years would constitute the vast majority of the church), how could such an inference be certainly known?

It’s also been pointed out that there is no indication whatsoever in the writings of the early church fathers conveying that any of them understood baptism was to be given to infants on the basis of continuing that particular aspect of circumcisional practice. Origen was one of the earliest advocates of infant baptism, but he makes no reference to covenantal inclusion as the reason for it. Rather, he specifically appeals to apostolic tradition, claiming they passed along the teaching that infants need to be so cleansed from original sin (Commentaries on Romans, 5.9). While by no means definitive in establishing proper theology or church practice, this is extremely inauspicious from a historical perspective.

The biblical references to household baptisms are at best inconclusive on this point.

 

[Dachaser]

Paul makes it very clear, in numerous places, to Jew and Gentile alike, that outward circumcision has become “nothing”. (1 Cor. 7:19; Rom. 2:25-29; Gal. 5:6, 6:15; Col. 3:11). So it seems the better question is, if water baptism carries over the particular aspect of physical circumcision that it must be given to all of one’s physical offspring, shouldn’t such find explicit command somewhere?

Even if one supposes Jewish Christians would have “automatically” assumed such a continuation, what about Gentile believers? Apart from explicit instruction from the Apostles to do so (and this preserved in holy writ for the sake of future Gentile converts, who in a few short years would constitute the vast majority of the church), how could such an inference be certainly known?

It’s also been pointed out that there is no indication whatsoever in the writings of the early church fathers conveying that any of them understood baptism was to be given to infants on the basis of continuing that particular aspect of circumcisional practice. Origen was one of the earliest advocates of infant baptism, but he makes no reference to covenantal inclusion as the reason for it. Rather, he specifically appeals to apostolic tradition, claiming they passed along the teaching that infants need to be so cleansed from original sin (Commentaries on Romans, 5.9). While by no means definitive in establishing proper theology or church practice, this is extremely inauspicious from a historical perspective.

The biblical references to household baptisms are at best inconclusive on this point.

Paul states that he thanked God water batized few, strange admission for him to make if infants were to get batized still!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

It is essentially an argument from silence, and for that reason cannot be regarded as probative.

Arthur Conan Doyle, meaning his detective Sherlock Holmes, solved a case by a noticing a potentially relevant omission: "the dog that didn't bark" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_Silver_Blaze). It led him to follow an eventually fruitful line of inquiry.

Attending to "things one might expect to find but are absent" invites investigation for possible causes. This cause may end up entirely in the head of the expectant person.

 

[jwright82]

It is essentially an argument from silence, and for that reason cannot be regarded as probative.

Arthur Conan Doyle, meaning his detective Sherlock Holmes, solved a case by a noticing a potentially relevant omission: "the dog that didn't bark" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_Silver_Blaze). It led him to follow an eventually fruitful line of inquiry.

Attending to "things one might expect to find but are absent" invites investigation for possible causes. This cause may end up entirely in the head of the expectant person.

Good point but that's an extraordinary kind of silence. We know he was having trouble with judeizers and they most certainly would have pitched a fit. But nothing.

 

[Dachaser]

Good point but that's an extraordinary kind of silence. We know he was having trouble with judeizers and they most certainly would have pitched a fit. But nothing.

It seems that every mention of water baptism in NT States or implies one has already received Jesus as Lord.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Good point but that's an extraordinary kind of silence. We know he was having trouble with judeizers and they most certainly would have pitched a fit. But nothing.

Acts 15 also has a huge extraordinary kind of "silence" that is harmful to your case.

Nowhere does Paul or anyone else oppose the demands for Gentiles to be circumcised by explaining that baptism has replaced circumcision (in the manner in which Covenant Paedobaptists argue that it is). That's a very glaring omission. That's the one place in all of the New Testament where I would expect such an argument to be made, but it is not.

However, that is (as Rev. Buchanan said above) an argument from silence and also apropos of nothing.

 

[Dachaser]

It is essentially an argument from silence, and for that reason cannot be regarded as probative.

Arthur Conan Doyle, meaning his detective Sherlock Holmes, solved a case by a noticing a potentially relevant omission: "the dog that didn't bark" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_Silver_Blaze). It led him to follow an eventually fruitful line of inquiry.

Attending to "things one might expect to find but are absent" invites investigation for possible causes. This cause may end up entirely in the head of the expectant person.

How would you tie together water baptism and making disciples of the Lord Jedus, or do you see them totally separate?
Asking as Jesus at end of Gospel of Matthaw seems to apply them together as to whom should Receive water baptism under the NC .

 

[Solparvus]

Paul makes it very clear, in numerous places, to Jew and Gentile alike, that outward circumcision has become “nothing”. (1 Cor. 7:19; Rom. 2:25-29; Gal. 5:6, 6:15; Col. 3:11). So it seems the better question is, if water baptism carries over the particular aspect of physical circumcision that it must be given to all of one’s physical offspring, shouldn’t such find explicit command somewhere?

Even if one supposes Jewish Christians would have “automatically” assumed such a continuation, what about Gentile believers? Apart from explicit instruction from the Apostles to do so (and this preserved in holy writ for the sake of future Gentile converts, who in a few short years would constitute the vast majority of the church), how could such an inference be certainly known?

It’s also been pointed out that there is no indication whatsoever in the writings of the early church fathers conveying that any of them understood baptism was to be given to infants on the basis of continuing that particular aspect of circumcisional practice. Origen was one of the earliest advocates of infant baptism, but he makes no reference to covenantal inclusion as the reason for it. Rather, he specifically appeals to apostolic tradition, claiming they passed along the teaching that infants need to be so cleansed from original sin (Commentaries on Romans, 5.9). While by no means definitive in establishing proper theology or church practice, this is extremely inauspicious from a historical perspective.

The biblical references to household baptisms are at best inconclusive on this point.

All the baptism passages are inconclusive without covenantal context.

Far as early church goes, when I took historical theology with Sam Waldron he said in reference to the early church , "I expect baby talk." They don't argue from covenants, but neither did they get that baptism doesn't wash away your original sins. In fact, such superstition caused them to place baptism a long distance from the profession. They never called the Lords Day as the Sabbath. And I'll bet if you had said to Origen that the three members of the Trinity are of one substance, equal in power and glory, distinguished by their personal properties you would get this response --->

I dont put much faith in the early church for these reasons. I dont think they run against me, yet neither an LBC or WCF subscriptionist is going to find their own theology adequately (or in some cases, at all) expressed. I attribute that as intentional by Christ in Eph 4.

 

[Dachaser]

All the baptism passages are inconclusive without covenantal context.

Far as early church goes, when I took historical theology with Sam Waldron he said in reference to the early church , "I expect baby talk." They don't argue from covenants, but neither did they get that baptism doesn't wash away your original sins. In fact, such superstition caused them to place baptism a long distance from the profession. They never called the Lords Day as the Sabbath. And I'll bet if you had said to Origen that the three members of the Trinity are of one substance, equal in power and glory, distinguished by their personal properties you would get this response --->

I dont put much faith in the early church for these reasons. I dont think they run against me, yet neither an LBC or WCF subscriptionist is going to find their own theology adequately (or in some cases, at all) expressed. I attribute that as intentional by Christ in Eph 4.

Some of them received teaching first hand from Apostles and stayed sound in doctrine, but others like Origen seemed to stray off the scripture pathway.

 

[Phil D.]

Far as early church goes, when I took historical theology with Sam Waldron he said in reference to the early church , "I expect baby talk." ...I don't put much faith in the early church for these reasons.

First, I am not in any way, shape or manner putting my faith in the early church. However, it can't be said that church history is totally irrelevant to the question at hand.

Second, there are substantial differences between cases like the Trinity and baptismal practice. While the doctrine of the Trinity didn't find full, unified expression for centuries, there are innumerable statements in the ECFs on various attributes and relationships concerning the persons of the Godhead that are fully consistent with orthodox theology. There is no analogous treatment of baptism.

In other words, many of the individual components pertaining to the full-orbed, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity find immediate and continuing expression among the ECFs. Conversely, from the very earliest writings and continuing for centuries later there is virtually no trace of covenant/circumcision thinking in the ECFs various expressions concerning baptismal doctrine.

 

[Andrew35]

All the baptism passages are inconclusive without covenantal context.

Far as early church goes, when I took historical theology with Sam Waldron he said in reference to the early church , "I expect baby talk." They don't argue from covenants, but neither did they get that baptism doesn't wash away your original sins. In fact, such superstition caused them to place baptism a long distance from the profession. They never called the Lords Day as the Sabbath. And I'll bet if you had said to Origen that the three members of the Trinity are of one substance, equal in power and glory, distinguished by their personal properties you would get this response --->

I dont put much faith in the early church for these reasons. I dont think they run against me, yet neither an LBC or WCF subscriptionist is going to find their own theology adequately (or in some cases, at all) expressed. I attribute that as intentional by Christ in Eph 4.

Theology, no. However, when I was investigating the historical case for infant baptism, it struck me that a practice is going to be more robust than a theology (hence baptism and the Lord's Supper are nigh universally practiced throughout Christian time and space, though their various and contradictory theological rationales abound). And (here comes another argument from silence) it seemed to me that convincing the whole church--including remote, rural ones--from one end of the Roman Empire to the other to begin the practice of infant baptism without a squeak of protest would have been quite the undertaking.

We should expect to see at least some resistance given the same freakout that was occasioned over a practice (again) so simple as the date of Easter. Even just one note or quotation from an early father: "The Warbsquiblers of Morinthia refuse to practice the baptism of all but mature believers, saying this is the true teaching of the apostles."

 

[Phil D.]

it seemed to me that convincing the whole church--including remote, rural ones--from one end of the Roman Empire to the other to begin the practice of infant baptism without a squeak of protest would have been quite the undertaking.

The first explicit mention of infant baptism comes from Tertullian in the early 3rd century. He opposed it and treats it as an innovation.

 

[Andrew35]

The first explicit mention of infant baptism comes from Tertullian. He opposed it and treats it as an innovation.

As I recall, he opposes it on very different grounds from what a modern Baptist would. His rationale is pragmatic, not based on an appeal to tradition or the practice of the apostles. To say he treats it as an "innovation" is going rather too far, to my mind.

 

[Phil D.]

To say he treats it as an "innovation" is going rather too far, to my mind.

Fair enough. For myself, I would agree with several authors, including at least one paedobaptist, who have perceived it in that manner.

Also, I haven't seen any compelling answers to the fact that the Didache, seen by most textual scholars as the oldest church writing apart from the New Testament (late 1st - early 2nd century), makes no mention of or accommodation for baptizing infants in its extended instructions on how and to whom baptism should be administered.

 

[Tom Hart]

The first explicit mention of infant baptism comes from Tertullian in the early 3rd century. He opposed it and treats it as an innovation.

Could you provide a quotation, or at least name the source? I think I've read the words you are referring to, and I don't recall anything about "innovation".