biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Before you get hot and start quoting Tertullian to me, please consider this:
So much of how we debate hangs on the definitions of words. And in a desperate attempt to find some early support for credobaptism, I have heard people refer to Tertullian, Gregory of Naziansus, and even Augustine's mom (Monika) as early baptists. But once you think carefully about the modern definition of "baptist", the entire argument falls to pieces.
To my knowledge, the few in the early church who did not practice infant baptism had the following characteristics in direct opposition to modern credobaptists:
1) Their reasons for delaying baptism were totally unlike the reasons given for credobaptism today. --- As far as I know, nobody in the early church said that Scripture requires a person to delay baptism until after a profession of faith, as opposed to being bapized as an infant. Tertullian is a case in point. He does call for people to not baptize their babies. But that is because of two faulty doctrines in his theology. First, he believed in baptismal regeneration. Thus, he figured it was better to delay baptism, so that all of a person's past sins would be washed away by the water. In the same breath as calling for the delay of baptism of infants, he *also* called for the delay of baptism of unmarried people who are heavily tempted. But yet he *never* made an appeal to Scripture to suggest that only "believer's baptism" was valid. Does this sound even remotely like modern credobaptist arguments? Secondly, he did not believe in original sin, so he figured there was no sin in the infant to worry about, anyway. It is also interesting that a number of the so-called early-church-baptists actually delayed baptism until death so that all the sins of their lives would be washed away. Does that have anything to do with modern credobaptist exegesis of the Scriptures? I think not.
2) Not one of them ever said that infant baptism was unscriptural or invalid, as far as I know. --- This point is particularly striking to me. Maybe I am just ignorant here, but I do not know of a single statement made by anybody in the early church, saying that infant baptism is invalid. Tertullian never said that those baptized in infancy received "no baptism at all", and therefore must be baptized "for real" after a profession of faith. Gregory of Naziansus did not say that paedobaptism was in opposition to the Bible's teaching on baptism. And how about Monika? If she raised Augustine as a credobaptist, then all of his statements about the universality of acceptance of infant baptism, and about paedobaptism's apostolicity, must have been lies. Isn't it much more reasonable to assume that he wasn't baptized as an infant because his *unsaved* dad would not permit it?
By the way, please do not introduce the red herring of baptismal mode in this thread. For the purposes of this thread, I don't care whether affusion or immersion were used in the early church. The discussion of mode is irrelevant to the discussion regarding the subjects of baptism. For example, the EO church baptizes infants by immersion. So please, don't tell me about early church "baptistries". That point is moot to the present discussion.
In a nutshell, here is my argument:
In the early church, NOBODY rejected infant baptism as unscriptural. Rather, their reasons for delaying baptism were always pragmatic.
And I am willing to be taught. If you know of some early church evidence to the contrary, then please present it to me so I can make a humble retraction. I am saying what I'm saying because of what I know at this time. But if you can show me that there were some bona fide credobaptists walking around in the early church, then I am all ears. I'm listening.
[Edited on 12-7-2005 by biblelighthouse]
So much of how we debate hangs on the definitions of words. And in a desperate attempt to find some early support for credobaptism, I have heard people refer to Tertullian, Gregory of Naziansus, and even Augustine's mom (Monika) as early baptists. But once you think carefully about the modern definition of "baptist", the entire argument falls to pieces.
To my knowledge, the few in the early church who did not practice infant baptism had the following characteristics in direct opposition to modern credobaptists:
1) Their reasons for delaying baptism were totally unlike the reasons given for credobaptism today. --- As far as I know, nobody in the early church said that Scripture requires a person to delay baptism until after a profession of faith, as opposed to being bapized as an infant. Tertullian is a case in point. He does call for people to not baptize their babies. But that is because of two faulty doctrines in his theology. First, he believed in baptismal regeneration. Thus, he figured it was better to delay baptism, so that all of a person's past sins would be washed away by the water. In the same breath as calling for the delay of baptism of infants, he *also* called for the delay of baptism of unmarried people who are heavily tempted. But yet he *never* made an appeal to Scripture to suggest that only "believer's baptism" was valid. Does this sound even remotely like modern credobaptist arguments? Secondly, he did not believe in original sin, so he figured there was no sin in the infant to worry about, anyway. It is also interesting that a number of the so-called early-church-baptists actually delayed baptism until death so that all the sins of their lives would be washed away. Does that have anything to do with modern credobaptist exegesis of the Scriptures? I think not.
2) Not one of them ever said that infant baptism was unscriptural or invalid, as far as I know. --- This point is particularly striking to me. Maybe I am just ignorant here, but I do not know of a single statement made by anybody in the early church, saying that infant baptism is invalid. Tertullian never said that those baptized in infancy received "no baptism at all", and therefore must be baptized "for real" after a profession of faith. Gregory of Naziansus did not say that paedobaptism was in opposition to the Bible's teaching on baptism. And how about Monika? If she raised Augustine as a credobaptist, then all of his statements about the universality of acceptance of infant baptism, and about paedobaptism's apostolicity, must have been lies. Isn't it much more reasonable to assume that he wasn't baptized as an infant because his *unsaved* dad would not permit it?
By the way, please do not introduce the red herring of baptismal mode in this thread. For the purposes of this thread, I don't care whether affusion or immersion were used in the early church. The discussion of mode is irrelevant to the discussion regarding the subjects of baptism. For example, the EO church baptizes infants by immersion. So please, don't tell me about early church "baptistries". That point is moot to the present discussion.
In a nutshell, here is my argument:
In the early church, NOBODY rejected infant baptism as unscriptural. Rather, their reasons for delaying baptism were always pragmatic.
And I am willing to be taught. If you know of some early church evidence to the contrary, then please present it to me so I can make a humble retraction. I am saying what I'm saying because of what I know at this time. But if you can show me that there were some bona fide credobaptists walking around in the early church, then I am all ears. I'm listening.
[Edited on 12-7-2005 by biblelighthouse]