History of Infant Baptism

You utterly and completely disregard the New Covenant promised in the OT and fulfilled in the NT.

 

Rabbinic Judaism perverted the Torah and started a new religion. Jesus maintained the law within the boundaries of God's purpose. The gospel has always been the same (Acts 10:43; Heb. 4:2; Acts 26:22-23) and is based upon the New Covenant (Heb. 13:20).

However, the Law covenant was "ADDED" (Gal. 3:21) while the New Covenant was in force and illustrated in the gospel preached to Abraham 430 years prior to the giving of the Law. The Law was added for a special purpose. It was added to instruct Israel in what is morally clean and unclean.

However, with the coming of Christ, God ratified the New Covenant in time and space by the blood of Christ and in so doing nailed the Old Covenant and all of its types to the cross taking it out of the way and established a new house of God (the N.T. congregation) as the public administration for the New Covenant. Hence, the Lord's Supper took the place of the Passover, baptism took the place of circumcision, the N.T. house of God (congregation) took the place of the temple and thus there was a doing away with the public administration of the Old Covenant and its theocratic government (Heb. 8-9).

The New Testament public house of administration of the New Covenant superseded the temple and its ordinances which was the public house of administration of the Old Covenant. The sacrificial rites of the temple were done away with by the cross and the sacrifice of Christ (Heb. 9-10).

However, other ceremonial laws even though they were no longer mandatory, including circumcision, they were in the realm of Christian liberty as they still served as teaching instruments.

The council at Jerusalem simply rejected the MANDATORY obedience to ceremonial laws in order to be saved (Acts 15:2). They requested that the gentile congregations observed a select portion of ceremonial laws for expediecy of the gospel witness to the Jews (Acts 15:21).

God did intentionally purpose to remove the TYPE (Old Covenant public administration - the house of God and its ordinances) and replace it with a New public adminstration - the New Testament house of God and its ordinances (Heb. 8).

There was no such transfer or change. The New Testament house of God was that change and the church at Jerusalem was the same in nature as Gentile congregations. Romans 14 deals with ceremonial ordinances and days within the liberty of both Jews and Gentile believers denying they are mandatory upon anyone.

That is simply false and there is no historical data to support this outlandish lie.

 

Read some of the evidence that is given here:

Infant baptism was around in very early ages. But as noted it was a pagan practice.

 

Are you confused? The same quotation qualifies that bold statement in the previous two sentences. No earlier than 200.

 

Don't infer from your bolded statement that it was Christian.
The evidence that I posted, was evidence that it was not Christian.
Inscriptions indicated that they were persecuted. They were in the Catacombs, a burial place for the dead. They were in hiding. True believers would not have fear of death. But pagans did. No doubt their inscriptions helped to relieve that fear. Anyone associated with Christianity was persecuted--relatives whether saved or not.

 

My authority is the Word of God, not the ECF. The ECF often held to various heresies. Even Origen was considered a heretic by both Protestants and Catholics alike. So consider the following quote:

I don't trust the ECF. I trust the Word of God. Note that they had some weird ideas about baptism, none of which are taught in the Word of God. The only useful thing about this quote is that it gives historical information about infant Baptism--that it existed in the time of Origen, Chrysostom, and Cyprian.

 

Pagan baptism is mentioned in the Bible.

(1Co 15:29) Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

Christians did not baptize for the dead. This was a pagan practice. It was probably similar to what Mormons practice today--proxy baptism that their relatives might "rise from the dead" and be saved, though we don't know for sure. What we do know is that it wasn't a Christian practice.

 

Infant sprinkling and infant pouring and infant immersion and adult pouring and adult sprinkling are all PAGAN as none have any Biblical basis.

 

Your trust in the Word is admirable and comendable, and indeed it is THE source of truth for faith and practice.

However, it was written at a particular period in history and goes no farther than the final date of its writing (prophecy obviously excluded, but there are no prophecies concerning infant baptism). Therefore we must turn to the extant historical record, verified as possible by archeological and anthropological evidence, so as to know what transpired in the days immediately following the closing of the canon of Scripture.

We also turn to other historical records than the ECF, otherwise known as the Anti-Nicene Fathers. Roman historians, letters, inscriptions, etc., all lead to a better understanding of what actually transpired during that early phase of church life.

That infant baptism is not proscribed or described in Scripture is a given. That some scholars have "found" it in passages dealing with "oikos" or with "adelphoi" when in context (rarely) is "baptizo" mentione, leading most to hold that there is no doctrine of paedo-baptism in Scripture.

That the early church adopted it may stem from any number of reasons, none of which are probably pagan in nature. Rather, the ritual washing common to the Jews of the day, coupled with the entrance to the covenant of God via circumcision on the 8th day, coupled with a flawed doctrine of baptismal regeneration in the first hundred years after the Apostles, all finally showed up in the common practice of the church to baptize infants so as to insure that their original sin was covered should they die before confirming their faith in Christ. The practice remains largely the same even some 1800 years into the future, where Catholics and many Protestants still baptize infants on the 8th day so as to cause their entry into the covenant kingdom of God and as a remedy for their inherited original sin.

Just pick up any catechism from virtually any denomination or sect that practices infant baptism and see the practice thusly described, and most of the catechisms were written 500 or so years ago, or at least handed down from doctrines that old or older.

 

Here is some more information. Armitage is a well known Baptist historian.

 

Baptidzo is the only word that is used to translate Baptism in the Bible. Therefore we know that it is by immersion, for that is what the word means. The other words you mention are not used in the Bible in reference to baptism. It is an argument against you, not in your favor.

 

Actually, that WAS my argument. Sorry for not making it more clear.

I am CERTAINLY NOT arguing that infant baptism is found in the Bible. I am also NOT arguing that baptism by any other means than immersion of believers is biblical.

I AM, however, saying that the history of the church shows that after the first century, when the Scriptures were penned and sealed, that infant baptism crept into the church and became normalized. Like the other thread, I am merely pointing out what happened historically, not agreeing with it in doctrine.

 

The Greek has a word for sprinkle (rantizo) and that is used in scripture but never for this ordinance and never as a synonym with this ordinance.

The Greek has a word for pour (epicheo) and that is used in scripture but never for this ordinance and never as a synonym with this ordinance.

The Greek meaning of baptizo has a long and explictly clear distinguished history up to the time of the writing of the New Testament and it never is used to convey the idea of sprinkling or pouring. Never!

 

You imagine that there was an educated class of Christians apart from "the" church at that time. We've found no real evidence to suggest that there was.

And, yes, baptismal regeneration was one of the early hallmarks of "the" church early on. They later modified and changed their view back and forth several times before landing on the view they now hold, which was largely set in place during Trent. That baptism is yet one of the "required sacraments" of the RCC speaks volumes to what they actually believe.

 

Again, Romans 4:5-12 completely and utterly denies the Biblical basis for sacraments. Thus baptismal regeneration is a PAGAN doctrine rather than a Biblical doctrine just as is infant sprinkling, pouring or immersion.

 

There was an outcry. I have already listed that in another post elsewhere.
It wasn't common practice until well after 200, and even then it wasn't "The Common Practice."
It was practiced by pagans. It was practiced by some "Christians."
It was practiced by "Christians" that were not considered Christians by others, such as the RCC. For many centuries it was not considered the norm, though it was practiced.