History of Infant Baptism

[glfredrick]

So far so good!

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."

I disagree... Whom was Christ speaking and thnking of when He made the emphatic statement to the Apostles, Matthew 16:18 (ESV) 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. One LOCAL body? Doesn't fit the context well at all...

Or these perhaps...

Acts 9:31 (ESV)
31 So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was being built up. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it multiplied.

1 Corinthians 12:28 (ESV)
28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues.

1 Corinthians 15:9 (ESV)
9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Ephesians 1:22–23 (ESV)
22 And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.

Colossians 1:18 (ESV)
18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.

To read any of those verses with just a singular congregation context does GREAT DAMAGE to the doctrines that we ALL hold as truthful for all churches that are made up of the redeemed in Christ!

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.

I, of course, think that you are incorrect on this issue. We're not by and large at odds on a lot of doctrine, but on this part, we are, and by your example it will become very difficult to explain some of the issues at stake in the history of the church with all its side branches, etc.

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.

Which is further proof that "the" church actually saw infant baptism as the norm by that time.

And please note once again... I am NOT arguing in favor of paedo-baptism. I AM a Baptist who holds to the scriptural view that baptism is for those who have professed faith and by immersion. I am arguing here concerning the historicity of the practice and from whence it arose.

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).

With your take, you will have to explain how all those people get to stand before the throne of God from every people, tongue, tribe, and nation...

You are really playing "mix and match" with the proof texts to arrive at what you just posted above. In this doctrine, we definitely part company!

In any case, this is an ex cursus from the OP, which is infant baptism, so perhaps we should carry on in a different thread.

 

[JarJo]

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

I think you misread your own post on that one. Your quote was actually taken from a web page that provided evidence FOR infant baptism. It's point was that the child was given an emergency baptism by the Christian grandmother because the child's father was pagan, implying that the child had not been baptized sooner, as was the normal custom, because the father wasn't Christian.

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.


He was opposed to the heresy.

Thanks for sharing your interpretations of the facts.

 

[DHK]

I think you misread your own post on that one. Your quote was actually taken from a web page that provided evidence FOR infant baptism. It's point was that the child was given an emergency baptism by the Christian grandmother because the child's father was pagan, implying that the child had not been baptized sooner, as was the normal custom, because the father wasn't Christian.

Yes, I know it was pro-infant baptism. That is why I said I didn't agree with all that it said. I believe the reason the infant was baptized was because of the pressure of pagan father.
We find a similar instance in the Bible.
When Paul met Timothy he was not circumcised. His mother was Jewish (as was his grandmother), but his father was a Greek. Families then were patriarchal, with the father having all the say in the family. Timothy wasn't circumcised, though a Jew, because of his Greek father. He was going to travel with Paul, so Paul went and circumcised him. This was not necessary for Christianity of course, but beneficial for both Paul and Timothy as they both frequented synagogues where the uncircumcised were not welcome.

The pagan father had the authority in the former case.

 

[JarJo]

Yes, I know it was pro-infant baptism. That is why I said I didn't agree with all that it said. I believe the reason the infant was baptized was because of the pressure of pagan father.
We find a similar instance in the Bible.
When Paul met Timothy he was not circumcised. His mother was Jewish (as was his grandmother), but his father was a Greek. Families then were patriarchal, with the father having all the say in the family. Timothy wasn't circumcised, though a Jew, because of his Greek father. He was going to travel with Paul, so Paul went and circumcised him. This was not necessary for Christianity of course, but beneficial for both Paul and Timothy as they both frequented synagogues where the uncircumcised were not welcome.

The pagan father had the authority in the former case.

Why would a pagan father wante to baptize his child? It makes no sense. It was the pagan father who refused to let the child be baptized when it was born, but the grandmother gave the child an emergency baptism anyway when the child was dying at age 1 year.

 

[The Biblicist]

I disagree... Whom was Christ speaking and thnking of when He made the emphatic statement to the Apostles, Matthew 16:18 (ESV) 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. One LOCAL body? Doesn't fit the context well at all...

A common principle in hermeutics is a word is defined by its usage. The first use of the term is found in Matthew 16:18 by Christ and there it is found in the singular with the definite article without any geographical location designated. However, the second and third time Jesus uses it is in Matthew 18:17 and again it is found in the singular with the definite article and without any geographical location designated. However, the context makes it clear it is the kind of congregation that is local and visible (Mt. 18:15-17). The same authority given Peter in Matthew 18 is the same authority given the plural "you" in Matthew 18:17-18 which has for its antecedent "church" and has for its contextual and doctrinal antecedent "tell it to the church" as final in authority.

Peter is separated out because his very name characterizes precisly what Peter himself says the membership of the congregation of Christ, the metaphorical "temple" is made from - "lively stones" - 1 Pet. 2:5.

Or these perhaps...

Acts 9:31 (ESV)
31 So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was being built up. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it multiplied.

Wrong translation as the TR is correct with the plural and that is proven by Paul in Galatians 1:22 which describes the very same time:

Gal. 1:22 And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:

Acts 9:31 Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.

1 Corinthians 12:28 (ESV)
28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues.

In context this refers to the church as an INSTITUTION while the verse previous to this one gives the concrete application to the church at Corinth as the local body of Christ - "YE (not we) are the body of Christ and members in particular"

1 Corinthians 15:9 (ESV)
9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Contextually he persecuted the local congregation at Jerusalem as it was the congregation at Jerusalem that was scattered (Acts 8:1-5).

Ephesians 1:22–23 (ESV)
22 And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.

Note he is "the head" of "ALL THINGS" to the church. If the metaphor "head" refers to SPIRITUAL UNION then Christ is in SPIRITUAL UNION with "ALL THINGS" and thus Paul would be teaching pantheism! The term "head" is simply a metaphor for "authority" and Christ is final "authority" over "all things" just as he is final authority over the local congregation and each and every New Testament congregation.

Christ is "head" over the church as the Husband is "head" over the wife. The wife does not have a HEADLESS body with the "head" of the husband sewn into her corpse! She has a PHYSICAL head but the husband is merely placed over her in a POSITION OF AUTHORITY - likewise the church body as the church has a "head" distinct from Christ:

1 Cor. 12:21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

Where do you think the "eye" and the "ear" in this metaphorical body is located???? In its "head." There are those members in the body who are placed over it as leaders who are in POSITIONS of authority.

The metaphor "head" NEVER infers SPIRITUAL UNION between Christ and all believers in heaven and earth - NEVER! It is simply a metaphor of POSITION OF AUTHORITY.

Hence, you do not show to have a rudimentary understanding of the usage of the term "ekklesia" or its synonyms in the New Testament.

Which is further proof that "the" church actually saw infant baptism as the norm by that time.

First, the "church" you speak of is apostate and clearly predicted by the New Testament (1 Tim. 4:1). Second, infant baptism was not the norm but the exception during the second to the fourth century.

With your take, you will have to explain how all those people get to stand before the throne of God from every people, tongue, tribe, and nation...

Don't you know the difference between the judgment for rewards and the eternal state? They all stand before Him at judgment but it is obvious that Revelation 21:24-25 that only the kings of the earth bring the glory of the SAVED nations into the city where the throne is. Hence, those SAVED NATIONS do not come into the city and stand before the throne.

 

[DHK]

Why would a pagan father wante to baptize his child? It makes no sense. It was the pagan father who refused to let the child be baptized when it was born, but the grandmother gave the child an emergency baptism anyway when the child was dying at age 1 year.

1Cor.15:29. From this verse we learn that pagan baptism was prevalent.
It was prevalent because it was thought to bring salvation. It was a pagan practice, a heresy that entered into the early churches, and finally established as doctrine in the RCC.
A true Christian would never have any doubt about a child's salvation.
When David's child died, he ceased to pray, fast, and weep. He knew God would not change his mind. But he also knew that he would see his child in heaven, and that is what he told his puzzled servants.

 

[JarJo]

1Cor.15:29. From this verse we learn that pagan baptism was prevalent.
It was prevalent because it was thought to bring salvation.

How do you say that 1 cor 15:29 refers to pagans baptizing? I have never heard of such a thing. The context indicates that it was a group of Christians doing this baptizing for the dead.

 

[DHK]

How do you say that 1 cor 15:29 refers to pagans baptizing? I have never heard of such a thing. The context indicates that it was a group of Christians doing this baptizing for the dead.

No Christian baptizes for the dead. If they did Paul would have rebuked them for it. He didn't. He used it as an example. It was something that was done in their society by another group--pagans.

 

[JarJo]

No Christian baptizes for the dead. If they did Paul would have rebuked them for it. He didn't. He used it as an example. It was something that was done in their society by another group--pagans.

Is your opinion that pagans performed baptism based entirely on this passage from 1 Corinthians?

 

[DHK]

Is your opinion that pagans performed baptism based entirely on this passage from 1 Corinthians?

No, there are plenty of historical sources to pagan baptism. Even the Jews required baptism for proselytes according to some historians. The Essenes baptized frequently. Both of these groups rejected Christ as Lord. Think of all the cults today, such as J.W. that baptize.

Hinduism is much older than Christianity. Every year they baptize in the "holy waters" of the Ganges River thinking that those polluted waters will wash away their sins.

Even Jeremiah alludes to the practice and mocks it:
(700 B.C.)

(Jer 2:22) For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.

 

[JarJo]

No, there are plenty of historical sources to pagan baptism. Even the Jews required baptism for proselytes according to some historians. The Essenes baptized frequently. Both of these groups rejected Christ as Lord. Think of all the cults today, such as J.W. that baptize.

Hinduism is much older than Christianity. Every year they baptize in the "holy waters" of the Ganges River thinking that those polluted waters will wash away their sins.

Even Jeremiah alludes to the practice and mocks it:
(700 B.C.)

(Jer 2:22) For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.

I haven't seen any bible commentaries that agree with this interpretation of baptism for the dead. It's typically understood as a Christian practice that Paul neither approved nor condemned in that verse.

 

[Ruiz]

Interesting discussion, but let me add that there were pagan Baptisms throughout history as others allude, to such an extent that John the Baptist is often said by modern scholars to belong to one such community.

Even in the 1700's, the rise of the halfway covenant was a horrific secular inclusion in some churches.

I will recount baptism in another post, but wanted to add this.

 

[glfredrick]

Interesting discussion, but let me add that there were pagan Baptisms throughout history as others allude, to such an extent that John the Baptist is often said by modern scholars to belong to one such community.

Even in the 1700's, the rise of the halfway covenant was a horrific secular inclusion in some churches.

I will recount baptism in another post, but wanted to add this.

We cannot blame pagans for what God's revelation and for God's organized doctrines based on that revelation. In that light, pagans also get the blame (or responsibility) for the creation narrative, for the concept of sacrifice and offering, for the flood narrative, for issues with seeing God in multiple lights (Jawheh, Elohim, etc., each as a "different" god), and for the prophets to be some sort of delusional or eplileptic characters who merely spoke in some fantastic (as in out of their minds) way that some otherwise deluded peoples held as the voice of God.

It should come as no surprise to us that pagan (other than God in my useage) peoples should imitate or counterfeit God's revelation, God's doctrines, and God's actions. Is that not what "their father the devil" also called "the father of lies" does best?

That some men see paganism behind every scriptural tenent is sad indeed, and likewise the way some men see "logic," "reason," or "wisdom of men" behind every scriptural tenent with which they disagree is equally agregious, and more so, blasphemous.

God gave the church baptism and also gave examples and a specific word usage that indicate that the means are by immersion and the cause to place under one who has "died to self and is raised to newness of life by Christ" in other words, a believer by faith who can profess that belief no matter which age, but practically and expediently eliminating the youngest of children who cannot so express their faith.

That these God-ordained ordinances are copied, imitated, counterfeited, etc., by either man or by God's enemy the devil, should not be shockingly surprising. That some hold to abbarant views likewise. Such is the work of the one who seeks to ask man always, "Did God really say?"

 

[DHK]

I haven't seen any bible commentaries that agree with this interpretation of baptism for the dead. It's typically understood as a Christian practice that Paul neither approved nor condemned in that verse.

There are some that do, however almost all agree that it is one of the most obscure verse in the Bible and therefore difficult to understand.

It is easier to understand Jeremiah 2:22 if you are looking for Biblical evidence, a verse written 700 years before the birth of Christ. There Jeremiah refers to the ceremonial cleansing of the Jews which they also thought could make them clean. But Jeremiah mocked them:

(Jer 2:22) For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.

The same is true today. No amount of baptismal water will ever wash away sin or bring you salvation. It was practiced long before Christianity by the Hindus, a pagan religion.