History of Infant Baptism

[JarJo]

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.

According to this, you receive the Holy Spirit when you are baptized:

Acts 19: 1 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when[a] you believed?”

They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”

“John’s baptism,” they replied.

4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all.

 

[The Biblicist]

According to this, you receive the Holy Spirit when you are baptized:

Acts 19: 1 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when[a] you believed?”

They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”

“John’s baptism,” they replied.

4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all.

Your confusing the gifts of the Spirit (tongues, etc.) with regeneration by the Spirit.

 

[JarJo]

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.

So basically, all of the educated Christians in the first century after Christ were part of the mainstream group of Christians that believed in baptismal regeneration and infant baptism? And there may have been people against these things, but they weren't educated and left no written protests behind?

 

[The Biblicist]

So basically, all of the educated Christians in the first century after Christ were part of the mainstream group of Christians that believed in baptismal regeneration and infant baptism? And there may have been people against these things, but they weren't educated and left no written protests behind?

What you have and what you call "educated Christians" is a partial record preserved by Rome because it suited them to keep that while destroying the records of their enemies. What you have is what I call the history of apostasy. Just as in Romans 1:22-32 error is given over to more error so the Ante-Nicene records digress into worse error of the Nicene Records and then into worse error in the Post-Nicene records as error begets worse error.

 

[JarJo]

What you have and what you call "educated Christians" is a partial record preserved by Rome because it suited them to keep that while destroying the records of their enemies. What you have is what I call the history of apostasy. Just as in Romans 1:22-32 error is given over to more error so the Ante-Nicene records digress into worse error of the Nicene Records and then into worse error in the Post-Nicene records as error begets worse error.

Okay thanks for the explanation. So what happened to these true christians? What were they called by the romans? Did they give a name to this heresy? Or did they wipe our all trace of their existence and pretend they never existed? Usually Rome liked to specify the heresies they disagreed with and anathematize them.

 

[The Biblicist]

Okay thanks for the explanation. So what happened to these true christians? What were they called by the romans? Did they give a name to this heresy? Or did they wipe our all trace of their existence and pretend they never existed? Usually Rome liked to specify the heresies they disagreed with and anathematize them.

They also liked to pervert what others believed as well. The Paulicians are on record complaining that Rome charged them with being Manicheans when they repudiated dualism. However, that did not stop Roman writers from continuing to charge them falsely. The Waldenses complained of the same as did many others.

Montanists were all characterized by Rome by one fanatic and yet Tertullian became a Montanist. Novations and Donatists were all characterized by one person as well. All we have of the Donatists is Augustine's infallible memory of every word they said??????

There are many many historians that dive into the records preserved by Rome and see these problems.

Of course, none but Roman Historians and those who side with Rome are credible historians or so says the Romanists.

 

[JarJo]

They also liked to pervert what others believed as well. The Paulicians ...

This group appeared around 657AD. I meant evidence of Christians against infant baptism in the first centuries. And this group wasn't even against infant baptism.

Montanists were all characterized by Rome by one fanatic and yet Tertullian became a Montanist.

This group was at the right time but they weren't against infant baptism.

Novations and Donatists ...

They weren't against infant baptism either. What were the anti-infant-baptism groups called?

Rome had no problem naming the groups it disagreed with. But where is the evidence for a group that opposed infant baptism that Rome disagreed with? There seems to be no trace of them.

 

[Walter]

What you have and what you call "educated Christians" is a partial record preserved by Rome because it suited them to keep that while destroying the records of their enemies. What you have is what I call the history of apostasy. Just as in Romans 1:22-32 error is given over to more error so the Ante-Nicene records digress into worse error of the Nicene Records and then into worse error in the Post-Nicene records as error begets worse error.

You are saying the Catholics destroyed most of the records of their enemies? Read 'Adversus Haereses' by St Irenaeus of Lyons -a bishop- circa 180 AD, well after the Apostles. He describes the types of heresies that the Christians had to battle with in those days. Those records were not destroyed because it served the Catholic Church, but the records of the 'bible-believing Baptists' were because they were such a threat?

 

[glfredrick]

So basically, all of the educated Christians in the first century after Christ were part of the mainstream group of Christians that believed in baptismal regeneration and infant baptism? And there may have been people against these things, but they weren't educated and left no written protests behind?

I do not care for words like "no" and "none" (and likewise "all") because those words are seldom if ever true. There have always been dissidents and some of them left some writings -- rare, true -- but some.

Most of what we know, however, is encapsulated in the writings of the ECF. If you have other sources besides an argument from silence concerning all the documents burned "by that evil church" then by all means bring them forward!

There are several references in very early texts like the Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, First Epistle of Clement, etc., that point the way to what would later become an error of the church in this regard.

The Shepherd of Hermas (circa AD 150), for instance:

Hermas 3[31]:1 "I will still proceed, Sir," say I, "to ask a further question." "Speak on," saith he. "I have heard, Sir," say I, "from certain teachers, that there is no other repentance, save that which took place when we rent down into the water and obtained remission of our former sins."

The Didache (circa AD 100):

7:1 But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water;

7:2 but if thou hast not running water, baptize in some other water, and if thou canst not baptize in cold, in warm water;

7:3 but if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

7:4 But before the baptism, let him who baptizeth and him who is baptized fast previously, and any others who may be able. And thou shalt command him who is baptized to fast one or two days before.

In these early writings we can see the rudiments of a later strayed doctrine.

 

[DHK]

Rome had no problem naming the groups it disagreed with. But where is the evidence for a group that opposed infant baptism that Rome disagreed with? There seems to be no trace of them.

Where is the evidence? Let me quote a little from J.T. Christian's book, "A History of the Baptists."

Dr. Dosker, Professor of Church History, Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Louisville, says:

Every candid historian will admit that the Baptist. have, both philologically and historically, the better of the argument, as to the prevailing mode of baptism. The word baptizo means immersion, both in classical and Biblical Greek, except where it is manifestly used in a tropical sense (Dosker, The Dutch Anabaptists, p. 176 Philadelphia, 1921).

Nothing is more certain than that the New Testament churches uniformly practiced immersion,

The period of the ancient churches (A. D. 100-325) is much obscured. Much of the material has been lost; much of it that remains has been interpolated by Mediaeval Popish writers and translators; and all of it has been involved in much controversy.

One of the very earliest voices lifted against the abuses was that of the Shepherd of Hermas. The Shepherd says:

Customs have become worldly; discipline is relaxed; the Church is a sickly old woman, incapable of standing on her feet; rulers and ruled are all languishing, and many among them are corrupt, covetous, greedy, hypocritical, contentious, slanderers, blasphemers, libertines, spies, renegades, schismatics. Worthy teachers are not wanting, but there are also many false prophets, vain, eager after the first sees, for whom the greatest thing in life is not the practice of piety and justice, but the strife for the post of command. Now the day of wrath is at hand; the punishment will be dreadful; the Lord will give unto every one according to his works.

One of the earliest and most hurtful errors was the dogma of baptismal regeneration. This error in one form or another has marred the life and colored the history of all of the Christian ages. It began early and the virus may be traced to this day not only among ritualists, but likewise in the standards of evangelical Christians. Tertullian was influenced by it to oppose infant baptism, and under other conditions it became the frightful origin of that heresy.

Believers’ baptism continued to prevail in the churches. Notwithstanding the efficacy which was supposed to exist in baptism, infant baptism was of slow growth. Even after its first appearance it was opposed by many, and for a long time was not generally practiced.

The writers known as the Apostolic Fathers, Clement, Barnabas, Ignatius and the Pastor of Hermas, all required faith on the part of the candidate baptized. Clement does not mention baptism in his Epistle to the Corinthians; but he does exhort parents to "let your children be partakers of the Christian training" (Migne, Patrologiae gr., I. 255).

Barnabas says: "Mark how he has described at once both the water and the cross. For these words imply, blessed are they who, placing their trust in the cross, have gone down into the water; for, says he, they shall receive their reward in due time" (Migne, Patrologiae gr., II. 755).

Ignatius writes to Polycarp as follows: "let your baptism be to you an armor, and faith as a spear, and love as a helmet, and patience as a panoply" (Ibid, Vol. V. p. 847). The order of baptism as well as the exhortation exclude infant baptism.

And the Shepherd of Hermas speaks of those who "have heard the word, and wished to be baptized in the name of the Lord" (Ibid, Patrologiae gr., Vol. II. p. 906).

The Apostolic Fathers require that faith shall precede baptism and hence they know nothing of infant baptism.. Dr. Charles W. Bennett, Professor of Historical Theology in Garrett Biblical Institute, Methodist, says: "The Apostolic Fathers contain no positive information relative to the practice of the church of their time respecting infant baptism" (Bennett, Christian Archaeology, p. 391. New York, 1889).

Passing to the second generation of the Fathers, Justin Martyr, A. D. 114-168, has sometimes been quoted as favoring the practice of infant baptism. After relating the evils of human nature and the bad habits of men, Justin declares that,

in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and ignorance, but may become the children of choice and of knowledge, and may obtain in water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, Its name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by name alone (Migne, VI. 419).

It is now quite generally admitted that Justin knows only the baptism of adults, though he believed in baptismal regeneration.

http://www.pbministries.org/History/John T. Christian/vol1/history_02.htm


Look in the right places and you will find plenty of evidence of immersion of adults being the only practice of baptism among those churches that remained true to the Word of God. There was apostasy; there were false teachers, and there always will be. We do not listen to them.

 

[glfredrick]

What we have to consider is that "the" church drifted in its doctrines in the hundreds of years beyond the writings and guidance of the Apostles.

As that drift widened the gap between Scripture and reality, false doctrines crept in, history was often revised to cover the tracks, and eventually a reformation (or multiple reformations) were required to bring the people of God back in line with the revealed Scriptures.

Some here would revile catholicism (note small "c" indicating universal rather than large "C" indicating Roman Catholic) from its first day, failing to understand that the catholicism that they denigrate is their own history until that time when it diverged from Scripture and God moved to restore to a right doctrine and order His church. So, therefore, ANYTHING produced by those who were a part of that original "catholic" (meaning "universal") church is often (wrongly) reviled without examination just because of whom it represents.

That is wrong, both on an historical account and on a theological account, and much of what we still hold as true today, and acclaim as right doctrine, stems directly from those earliest days after the Apostles as Gods people started to sort out and figure out what He desired for them to become as a new covenant people.

Those who would also revise history to fabricate, as an argument from silence, some alternative "baptist" church from the earliest days beyond the Apostles are just as flawed in their ideology as is the Roman Catholic Church who had to revise history to derive a system of popery beginning with Peter.

The actual historical truth and movement of God is something other than either of those two groups bring to the table and it stems from an actual regenerate people who actually make up the "church" of the Lord Jesus Christ -- His Bride -- and His people, apart from whatever name gets nailed above the front doors.

 

[JarJo]

Hi glfredrick,

Thanks again for your balanced posts.

What we have to consider is that "the" church drifted in its doctrines in the hundreds of years beyond the writings and guidance of the Apostles.

As that drift widened the gap between Scripture and reality, false doctrines crept in, history was often revised to cover the tracks, and eventually a reformation (or multiple reformations) were required to bring the people of God back in line with the revealed Scriptures.

What I find hard to accept is that to explain church history, we have to accept that the vast majority of Christianity drifted away from apostolic practice on some rather important and simple issues within just a few generations of the apostles, and that this happened without a schism taking place in such a way that there was no obvious division within the church over these issues like there arose over other issues. The question of whether to baptize babies of believers must have been there right from the beginning, and its a yes or no question. If the apostles said 'no', how could it somehow become 'yes' without a big uproar and split taking place in the church?

 

[glfredrick]

Hi glfredrick,

Thanks again for your balanced posts.



What I find hard to accept is that to explain church history, we have to accept that the vast majority of Christianity drifted away from apostolic practice on some rather important and simple issues within just a few generations of the apostles, and that this happened without a schism taking place in such a way that there was no obvious division within the church over these issues like there arose over other issues. The question of whether to baptize babies of believers must have been there right from the beginning, and its a yes or no question. If the apostles said 'no', how could it somehow become 'yes' without a big uproar and split taking place in the church?

Oh, but there was schism... But one must decide which aspects of the schism were doctrinally sound, and most of the breakaway groups were not as sound as the main body -- until around 400 AD anyway.

For a grand example of this happening in real life, in our own era we're seeing multiple strains of Christinity operate at the same time, sometimes with varying adherents attending the same service! We have the late 19th century development of Protestant Liberalism -- spoken against very elequently by G. Graham Machen in his work, "Christian Liberalism," where the very concept of God as presented in the Scriptures is questioned. We have the Finney revivalist doctrines, that ushered in an entirely new concepts in how many see the process of regeneration and conversion, they being in some sense syncronistic instead of monergistic. We have the Calvinistic doctrines, that are the oldest of all mentioned above with roots back to the very Apostles, where God is seen in His electing and effectual calling of those whom He sets apart for salvation. We have the off-shoots of Pelagianism, which finds its roots in the early heresy of Origen furthered by Pelagius and picked up by others, as often expressed in a "non-cal" sense, though to be fair the "non-cal" perspective is akin to the rainbow, with a color for everyone. And, we have some "cafeteria line" doctrines that are all over the map, taking bits and pieces from all the others above as the individual sees fit.

Each of the proponents of the above doctrinal stances argues forcibly that THEIR doctrine is the only RIGHT doctrine and that THEIR doctrine goes all the way back to Jesus. Most are incorrect, and in fact, they cannot all be true for some are just plain mutually exclusive.

Somewhere in the middle of all this is a position that honors God above all, that rightly attributes to God His sovereignty based not on what He does but on Who He Is -- Creator, King, Lord, God, Almighty, Holy, Just Judge, Merciful, Loving, Gracious, Knowing All, Seeing All, Hearing All, Being All, Wholly Other, yet Immanent as "Christ with us." That same position must take into account the moral actions of human beings, the culpability for sin that the Sovereign says is placed directly in the heart of human beings, and the atonement of Christ, who came to: regenerate, redeem, recover, rekindle, remove, repent, replace, rejoin, reassure, rejoice, react, reauthorizing, reawakening, and a host of other "re" words that we might interject.

 

[The Biblicist]

What we have to consider is that "the" church drifted in its doctrines in the hundreds of years beyond the writings and guidance of the Apostles.

As that drift widened the gap between Scripture and reality, false doctrines crept in, history was often revised to cover the tracks, and eventually a reformation (or multiple reformations) were required to bring the people of God back in line with the revealed Scriptures.

So far so good!

Some here would revile catholicism (note small "c" indicating universal rather than large "C" indicating Roman Catholic) from its first day, failing to understand that the catholicism that they denigrate is their own history until that time when it diverged from Scripture and God moved to restore to a right doctrine and order His church. So, therefore, ANYTHING produced by those who were a part of that original "catholic" (meaning "universal") church is often (wrongly) reviled without examination just because of whom it represents.

Here is where you err. The New Testament does not ever speak of a "catholic" or universal church - never! The congregations of the New Testament are local visible bodies of baptized believers. The term "congregation" is the proper translation of the Greek term "ekklesia" and it is found in the plural and in the singular GENERIC and INSTITUTIONAL sense but the scriptures never modify it by the terms "universal" or "invisible" nor do they ever attribute to it any metaphors that teach it is by nature "universal" or "invisible."

Even in the "Apostolic Father's" the use of "catholic" does not refer to the nature of the church as every local visible body of baptized believers is called the "catholic" church. Instead the term "catholic" has its earliest usage as a term in contrast to the earliest problem noted in Acts 15 where dispute broke out over whether the membership of the church should be restricted to JEWS only and thus all Gentiles had to be circumcised and made Jews. Instead, each and every church is "catholic" or universal in regard to ethnicity.

Those who would also revise history to fabricate, as an argument from silence, some alternative "baptist" church from the earliest days beyond the Apostles are just as flawed in their ideology as is the Roman Catholic Church who had to revise history to derive a system of popery beginning with Peter.

Another error. The apostate churches, those whose history are preserved by Rome in the Ante-Nicean, Nicene and Post-Nicene accounts regularly and routinely identified a common enemy from as early as 150 AD right up to the Reformation as the "Anabaptists." That is a fact admitted by their own historians. The Justinian Codes were directed explicitly to ana-baptism.

The actual historical truth and movement of God is something other than either of those two groups bring to the table and it stems from an actual regenerate people who actually make up the "church" of the Lord Jesus Christ -- His Bride -- and His people, apart from whatever name gets nailed above the front doors.

The Bride of Christ does not include all of God's people and that is obvious from any cursory study of the Bride. In Revelation 19:6-9 there are those invited as guests to the wedding. In Revelation 21:24 there are the "saved nations" existing on the newly created earth OUTSIDE the city which is the home of the Bride. Even the tree of life is divided between two types of God's people, the overcomers who may eat of the fruit of the tree of life (Rev. 2:7) and the nations of the saved who partake only of the "leaves" of the tree of life (Rev. 22:2). Furthermore, the metaphor is applied directly to the local visible congregation (2 Cor. 11:2) and is descriptive of congregations that continue to be faithful to Christ in doctrine and practice in contrast to those who are "corrupted" (2 Cor. 11:3-4; harlots - Rev. 17-19).

 

[JarJo]

Another error. The apostate churches, those whose history are preserved by Rome in the Ante-Nicean, Nicene and Post-Nicene accounts regularly and routinely identified a common enemy from as early as 150 AD right up to the Reformation as the "Anabaptists." That is a fact admitted by their own historians. The Justinian Codes were directed explicitly to ana-baptism.

I would love to see some references for this from the period of 150AD to 300AD. I've never seen them before and it would be really enlightening.

 

[DHK]

I would love to see some references for this from the period of 150AD to 300AD. I've never seen them before and it would be really enlightening.

Wasn't this good enough for you:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1788920&postcount=50

 

[JarJo]

Wasn't this good enough for you:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1788920&postcount=50

Sorry, but I find the posts from that book are long on polemics and rather short on facts. The problem with that kind of writing is that its only useful to reinforce people who already believe in what it says. Its flaws are obvious to people who don't agree. And I don't really want to delve down into a long discussion of each point because I find your style of discussion rather polemical as well and I feel it won't lead to a better mutual understanding but more likely would just lead to frustration and accusations.

I was hoping Biblicist would have something more concrete.

 

[DHK]

Sorry, but I find the posts from that book are long on polemics and rather short on facts. The problem with that kind of writing is that its only useful to reinforce people who already believe in what it says. Its flaws are obvious to people who don't agree. And I don't really want to delve down into a long discussion of each point because I find your style of discussion rather polemical as well and I feel it won't lead to a better mutual understanding but more likely would just lead to frustration and accusations.

I was hoping Biblicist would have something more concrete.

Basically there are two choices.
You can follow the revisionist history of the RCC, and believe what they say.

Or you can avail yourself of Baptist historians like J.T.Christian who have done an incredible amount of research and believe what they say. Their work is well documented.

Which source are you going to believe: the tainted RCC source or the reliable Baptist source. That decision is up to you? That is why, in seminary, we study both church history and Baptist History. You will also find a thread on Baptist History on this board.

 

[JarJo]

Basically there are two choices.
You can follow the revisionist history of the RCC, and believe what they say.

Or you can avail yourself of Baptist historians like J.T.Christian who have done an incredible amount of research and believe what they say. Their work is well documented.

Which source are you going to believe: the tainted RCC source or the reliable Baptist source. That decision is up to you? That is why, in seminary, we study both church history and Baptist History. You will also find a thread on Baptist History on this board.

That's just it - you think you have to just believe one side or the other and dig in your heels. Actually there is a third way, which is to go to primary sources and look at the plain facts and decide for yourself. What I see is a mix of evidence, some pointing one way and some pointing the other. I'm hoping to find some new primary sources that I haven't seen before to make a more honest and informed judgement of the matter.

My opinion right now is that there isn't really enough information from before 200AD to understand the origins of infant baptism. I feel that the lack of mention of a dispute over infant baptism suggests that the practice must not have been condemned by the apostles. But I'm open to more primary sources that show evidence of a dispute. The primary sources in what you posted really didn't seem to go one way or the other.

Evidence I See:

Pro Infant Baptism:
Tombstone evidence that it was practiced at least as early as 200AD
Mentioned by early church fathers after 200AD without hint that it was a subject matter in dispute
Infant baptism not mentioned as a source of dispute by Irenaeus
No rules about age for baptism mentioned anywhere

Anti Infant Baptism
Lack of specific mention of infant baptism before 200AD (although possibly alluded to by Ireneaus)
Baptism is typically described from perspective of adult baptisms
Tertullian was opposed to it, although he seems to have been opposing the standard practice

 

[DHK]

That's just it - you think you have to just believe one side or the other and dig in your heels. Actually there is a third way, which is to go to primary sources and look at the plain facts and decide for yourself. What I see is a mix of evidence, some pointing one way and some pointing the other. I'm hoping to find some new primary sources that I haven't seen before to make a more honest and informed judgement of the matter.

My opinion right now is that there isn't really enough information from before 200AD to understand the origins of infant baptism. I feel that the lack of mention of a dispute over infant baptism suggests that the practice must not have been condemned by the apostles. But I'm open to more primary sources that show evidence of a dispute. The primary sources in what you posted really didn't seem to go one way or the other.

Evidence I See:

Pro Infant Baptism:
Tombstone evidence that it was practiced at least as early as 200AD
Mentioned by early church fathers after 200AD without hint that it was a subject matter in dispute.

The very document that I gave you said it was a pagan relative that demanded it. Why would you read anything else into it?

Infant baptism not mentioned as a source of dispute by Irenaeus
No rules about age for baptism mentioned anywhere.

Thus your argument is illogical for it is an argument from silence. Because it is not mentioned then it must be there. No, you need the actual proof. Because it is not mentioned is the proof that it was not practiced.

Anti Infant Baptism

Lack of specific mention of infant baptism before 200AD (although possibly alluded to by Ireneaus)
Baptism is typically described from perspective of adult baptisms
Tertullian was opposed to it, although he seems to have been opposing the standard practice

He was opposed to the heresy.