History of Infant Baptism

The writings of Irenaeus offer implicit evidence of infant baptism in the mid-2nd century. Also, Tertullian also testifies to its practice (but recommended against it) around the same time.

 

Good point. We in fact see no evidence of Christ or the Apostles forbidding infant baptism, and no particular controversy regarding it except in the case of Tertullian.

 

Which is only evidence that the issue did not come up. The bigger question is why? Because everyone agreed with it? Or because no one was doing it?

 

As long as we are reading history . . . The Gospels at least hint that Jesus intended for his followers to reform rabbinic Judaism from the inside and return to the true teachings and meaning of Torah. There is no evidence in the Gospels that Jesus intended to start a new religion.

Acts teaches that the Jerusalem Church (Synod) controlled Christian doctrine. The Jerusalem Council expected Christians to follow Torah and offer sacrifices. St. Paul was subservient to the Jerusalem Council. The Council held Paul on a loose string and were content to let Paul preach his interpretation of Christianity as long as he stayed within specified limits and didn't care about the details of Paul's teaching within those limits. Paul was expected to toe the Torah when he was in Jerusalem.

After AD 70 the Jerusalem Synod disappeared and the gentiles took over command of the believers.

Paul's legit (early) letters described a bottom up congregation run organization where women had equal standing with men in all matters. The later forgeries (the Pastorals) describe a top down organization that was controlled by a magisterium of bishops and women kept their mouths shut and followed orders. Back then it was common for new material to be written as if authored by a dead leader and no one was offended by this practice.

 

There's implicit evidence from Irenaeus that it was practiced--and that without controversy--since he believed both: (1) regeneration took place at baptism; and (2) infants were among those who could be "born again" to God. Tertullian who disapproves of the practice* yet testifies to its existence. No other voice of dissent can be found in the early church. Hippolytus, Origen, and Cyprian mention this again in the early 3rd century--again without disapproval or hint of controversy--in geographically varied locations.

(*And Tertullian, who believed in baptismal regeneration, believed it should be delayed until the person could make a concious decision because he believed in the near-impossibility for forgiveness of sins after baptism)

If infant baptism was such a heretical innovation, where's the evidence of wide spread protest to it's institution in the early church?

 

You give the acceptance by Irenaeus to much credit. There is not enough info to determine that it was widely practiced. Much more than that there is no scriptural evidence that it was practiced at all in the early church. In scripture grace is a free gift and given through faith not Baptism or any other secondary thing.

 

I don't think so. The matter of fact manner he expressed his beliefs without evidence that any in the Church protested against them is telling. Irenaeus was a defender of the apostolic faith against heretics such as the gnostics, and has been shown to be very accurate on both his depiction of heretical belief systems (read AGAINST HERESIES) and his witness to the Apostolic faith. There's no record from him or anyone else that there were separate communities of Christians that refused to baptize infants.

I just gave some (see above)

There's no evidence it was forbidden and there's indirect evidence that it would have been practiced.

Neither in scripture nor in the early church is faith and baptism opposed to each other. In fact, Scriptures indicate that in baptism (1) one was actually buried and risen with Christ through faith (Roman 6:3-5; Col 2:12-13); (2) one put on Christ (Gal 3:27); one was saved by the resurrection of Christ (1 Peter 3:21); (4) one was born from above by water and the spirit (comp John 3:3,5 w/surrounding context); (5) one received remission of sins and the gift of the Spirit (Acts 2:38-39). In other words, neither in scripture or the early church was baptism considered 'a secondary thing'.

 

In the history of infant baptism it does not matter so much when, as it does "whom." There were man false teachers. None of the churches that stayed true to the Word of God practiced infant baptism. Many heretical churches did. Paul warned of false teachers that would come, as did every other NT writer including Jesus Himself. We should not therefore be surprised that this heresy was around at a very early age. Just because it existed didn't make it right.

Who practiced it and why? That is the question.
Who opposed it and why? That is another very important question.

Here is a fairly lengthy quote from the second chapter of J.T. Christian's book, "A History of the Baptists."

Biblical churches always baptized by immersion, and always baptized believing adults

 

Perhaps you haven't read of it. The very first Canon speaks of it. Did you even read this one??

http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/elvira.html

 

Then don't be obstinate. Give me an example of an infant that specifically has displayed faith and has been instructed about the gospel and matters concerning baptism.
Common sense prevails here. It specifically addressed infant baptism by limiting its remarks to adult baptism, and saying that only adults can be baptized.

 

When something is talking about mature people or adults you cannot read into infants. That is reading into the passage things that are not there. It is a logical fallacy and no one would accept it in debate. It is not logical.

Here is the canon as stated:

Note: anyone of mature age. That is the subject here, not children. Not a word is said about infants or children--not one word. You cannot read anything about that in this passage.
If you do, then perhaps we can talk also about the validity of Pope John XXIII who baptized a bell! Yes, he did. Why not? It is just as relevant as baptizing babies. It is not mentioned, but neither are infants. Is the baptism of bells a Biblical and acceptable practice like Pope John XXIII did? Is this the proper place to discuss it, in the light of this canon? No. It has nothing to do with this canon, as this canon speaks about "mature persons," not mature BELLS !!!
You cannot read into a passage that which is not there. It says nothing about infants.
It is not infants that approach a heathen temple; it is adults.
And on and on. You are so twisting the meaning of this canon, it is unbelievable the way that you are trying to justify yourself.

 

Exactly. And the RCC requires infants to be baptized because the RCC believes in the heresy of baptismal regeneration. Thus the necessity of infant baptism. Tertullian spoke against infant baptism for this reason. Baptism cannot save; is not necessary for salvation; takes away from the sufficiency of the blood of Christ if made necessary for salvation. It is heretical when used that way. And it is used that way in the RCC.

 

I'm probably reading more into your words than you intended, DHK, but surely biblical churches baptize believers. Your phrase "believing adults" could be seen as meaning "believers who are past the age of majority".