was all of the early church baptist

[Weston Stoler]

I was told this today

The earliest evidence in church history points to believer’s baptism. Unambiguous testimony for the baptism of infants appears only about the middle of the first half of the 3rd century.· The Didache (100 AD): The most ancient document outside the NT contains over 70 rules for baptism but nothing about infants. The requirement of instruction infers that the candidates were believers. The Shepherd of Hermas and the Letter of Barnabas, both from the 1st half of the 2nd century presuppose believer’s baptism.· Clement of Alexandria (200 AD): discusses both baptism and Scriptures concerning children, but says nothing about infant baptism.· Tertullian (160-220 AD): wrote an entire volume against the practice of baptizing infants. Evidently paedobaptism was beginning to be practiced or he wouldn’t have written against it. Origin is the first to really argue for the baptism of infants.

 

[CharlieJ]

Actually, I think there is good evidence infant baptism was widespread in North Africa by the mid-2nd century. Anyone who reads Tertullian closely will note a few things:

1) Despite the fact that Tertullian rhetorically trashes each and every thing he considers heretical, he is very restrained when it comes to infant baptism. This suggests to me that infant baptism is occurring within communities that Tertullian considers orthodox (i.e., not among schismatic groups) and that it is strongly supported enough that he has to be delicate.

2) Tertullian does not argue, as modern Baptists do, that infant baptism is INVALID. In fact, his argument that it is unwise is premised on the fact that it IS valid. That says a lot about the doctrinal milieu of his time.

 

[baron]

In his book Heresies And Orthodoxy In The History Of The Church by Harold O. J. Brown, he writes; In Augustine's day baptism was increasingly being administered to infants. In order for it to be able to do for infants what it was supposed to do for adults, i. e. forgive their sins, it was necessary to postulate that infants sin. P.204-5. This is under the heading of Original Sin.

As I read that as the doctrine of original sin was settled than infant baptism became the norm. I can not find the source of this comment though.

 

[CharlieJ]

To the Augustine quote:

1) Augustine argues FROM the practice of infant baptism TO original sin. For his argument to be persuasive, infant baptism had to be a secure practice. Even Pelagius does not reject it. I find it odd that some scholars, who acknowledge that, then posit the doctrine of original sin as the CAUSE of infant baptism. Perhaps there was a mutual reinforcement, but the practice definitely came first, logically and chronologically.

2) How does one then explain the practice of infant baptism in the East, where the Augustinian version of original sin never took hold?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Reminder: This forum is PB only.

 

[RamistThomist]

The early church probably did both. Tertullian argued that the practice of infant baptism was wrong, which means it had to have been present for him to argue against it. While the early church did practice infant baptism (and often baptism by immersion), they often did it for very bad reasons.

 

[arapahoepark]

If you read three views of baptism; Sinclair Ferguson makes a good historical argument for paedo-baptism in the early church.