History of Infant Baptism

[glfredrick]

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.

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

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

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).

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.

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).

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

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.

Paul's legit (early) letters described a bottom up congregation run organization where women had equal standing with men in all matters.

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

 

[DHK]

So where were all the true adult-only Baptists in the early church? Was Tertullian the only one? Where were all the other 'real christians' putting up a fight when this practice became widespread?

Read some of the evidence that is given here:

The witness of the literary texts of the early church fathers, councils and apologists for the practice of infant Baptism in the first Christian centuries receives valuable confirmation from the catacombs and cemeteries of the Middle East, Africa and southern Europe, Below are epitaphs from the 200’s of small children who had been baptized. it is interesting to note that there are no Christian epitaphs in existence earlier than 200. As soon as the era of Christian Inscriptions begins, we find evidence for infant Baptism.

In that century there are attributes and symbols in tombstones inscriptions of little children which allows us to clearly infer we are dealing with baptized children. The following is as early as 200 or shortly thereafter:

In the second last line is the phrase Dei Serv(u)s which means slave of God followed by the Chi Rho symbol for Christ. The last line is the Greek ichtheos familiar as the "fish symbol" - an anagram for Jesus Christ God’s Son Savior. These words and symbols mark the one-year, two months, and four-day-old child as a baptized Christian.

From the Lateran Museum, also from the 200’s, is a Greek inscription that gives information about the religious status of the parents. It reads, "I, Zosimus, a believer from believers, lie here having lived 2 years, 1 month, 25 days."

Also from this era are headstones for children who received emergency baptism with ages ranging from 11 months to 12 years. Since the patristic sources of the third century, as those earlier, give us to understand that the children of Christian parents were baptized in infancy, we must conclude that these emergency baptisms were administered to children of non-Christians. The inscriptions themselves confirm this conclusion. In the Roman catacomb of Priscilla is reference to a private emergency baptism that was administered to the one-and-three-quarter-year-old Apronianus and enabled him to die as a believer. The inscription reads:

Dedicated to the departed Florentius made this inscription for his worthy son Apronianus who lived one year and nine months and five days. As he was truly loved by his grandmother and she knew that his death was imminent, she asked the church that he might depart from, the world as a believer.

The fact that it was the grandmother who urged the baptism makes it very probable that the father of the child, Florentius, was a pagan. This is confirmed by the formula in the first line which is pagan and not found on any other Christian epitaphs. We have thus in this inscription evidence for a missionary baptism administered to a dying non-Christian infant.
http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar40.htm

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

 

[JarJo]

The witness of the literary texts of the early church fathers, councils and apologists for the practice of infant Baptism in the first Christian centuries receives valuable confirmation from the catacombs and cemeteries of the Middle East, Africa and southern Europe, Below are epitaphs from the 200’s of small children who had been baptized. it is interesting to note that there are no Christian epitaphs in existence earlier than 200. As soon as the era of Christian Inscriptions begins, we find evidence for infant Baptism.

Thanks for coming around!

 

[The Biblicist]

Thanks for coming around!

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

 

[DHK]

Thanks for coming around!

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.

 

[DHK]

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:

Chrysostom in the fourth century believed that infants were baptized “so that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit” (Baptismal Instruction 3.6). A century and a half earlier, Cyprian understood infant baptism to be a washing of the guilt of Adam’s sin (Letters 64.5), as had Origen.
I NFANT B APTISM
Greg Johnson, Center for Christian Study, (Saint Louis)

http://ca.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGkmtTKQ1P3WUAxdvrFAx.;_ylu=X3oDMTE2aGd2ZHViBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMjUEY29sbwNzazEEdnRpZANNU1lDQTAxXzc1/SIG=129a6ip97/EXP=1326291411/**http%3a//christianstudy.homestead.com/InfantBaptism.pdf

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.

 

[JarJo]

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.

Now you're talking about pagan baptism? I haven't heard of that before. I don't think there's such a thing. Must have been Christians.

 

[DHK]

Now you're talking about pagan baptism? I haven't heard of that before. I don't think there's such a thing. Must have been Christians.

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.

 

[JarJo]

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.

That's some fascinating research. What else can you tell us about the pagans who baptized? Did this pagan group have a name? And I'm curious why they were buried in Christian catacombs, and put Christ's name on their tombstones.

 

[The Biblicist]

Now you're talking about pagan baptism? I haven't heard of that before. I don't think there's such a thing. Must have been Christians.

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

 

[glfredrick]

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.

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.

 

[DHK]

That's some fascinating research. What else can you tell us about the pagans who baptized? Did this pagan group have a name? And I'm curious why they were buried in Christian catacombs, and put Christ's name on their tombstones.

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

Infant baptism appeared in the Christian church history around the Second Century, coming from the pagan influences of Baal Worship, as we will show later, but it came about as a result of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration - the teaching that baptism is essential to salvation; or, if you want to turn it around, that water baptism saves the soul (or at least is a part of a person’s salvation). Consequently, as the teaching of baptismal regeneration started being propagated, it was natural for those holding to this doctrine to believe that everyone, should be baptized as soon as possible. Thus, baptism of infants still in the innocent state (and as yet unaccountable for their actions) came into vogue among many of the churches.

Armitage's History (p73) explains the pagan civil law and social customs of that day. These pagans had no standard of morality as you and I have. Their marriage rites were not on the basis ours are. One man might be the husband of a hundred women, and he might be the father of several hundred children. The mother had no right at all to determine whether the child she bore was to live or not, that was le ft up to the FATHER. Just as the farmer would go down to the pigpen and pick out the pigs he wanted to keep and do away with the runts, so was the father the one who decided if the child was to be kept and allowed to live. The mother could not even name the child if it was kept, the pagan priest did that. If the child was decided to be kept, the daddy would take it down to the pagan priest and the ceremony would be arranged. The Priest first must 'exorcise ‘evil spirits from the infant by anointing the baby's head with OIL. With the oil the priest puts the occult mark of Tammuz on the child's head by marking a "T" with the oil. (later to become the 'Sign of the Cross) The Priest then put SALT and SPITTLE on the baby’s tongue to preserve it from future influence of evil spirits. "HOLY WATER" is now sprinkled or poured over the baby's head, and the baby is said to be cleansed from any original sin and is now "born-again" and a member of the Babylonian Religion. This process was known as INFANT CHRISTENING and was practiced hundreds of years before Christ, (Hislop,pl38) and is found NOWHERE in the Bible! There is not a single example of a baby being 'baptized' or 'christened' in the Bible! Knowing what you do now, WOULD YOU WANT YOUR BABY CHRISTENED?

This was called 'Baal Worship' in the Old Testament, and God called it an abomination! The professed conversion of Emperor Constantine in A.D. 313 was looked upon by many as a great triumph for Christianity. However, it more than likely was the greatest tragedy in church history because it resulted in the union of church and state and the establishment of a hierarchy which ultimately developed into the Roman Catholic system. There is great question that Constantine was ever truly converted
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3404160/Baptism

 

[DHK]

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.

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.

 

[glfredrick]

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 Biblicist]

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!

 

[JarJo]

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.

Thank you for this really honest and balanced analysis!

It leaves me with two questions - 1. was baptismal regeneration the main understanding of baptism in early church century? And 2. where was the outcry from the real Christians as the practice of infant baptism became widespread?

 

[glfredrick]

Thank you for this really honest and balanced analysis!

It leaves me with two questions - 1. was baptismal regeneration the main understanding of baptism in early church century? And 2. where was the outcry from the real Christians as the practice of infant baptism became widespread?

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

 

[DHK]

Thank you for this really honest and balanced analysis!

It leaves me with two questions - 1. was baptismal regeneration the main understanding of baptism in early church century? And 2. where was the outcry from the real Christians as the practice of infant baptism became widespread?

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.