When did baby baptism vs. adult baptism start?

This looks like a good online source for documents written by early church leaders. While we can't necessarily use this stuff to prove or disprove doctrines, it does give us an idea of how the early church interpreted the scriptures.

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8074.asp

 

Catholic Answers lists the following early church documents as supportive of infant baptism being practiced since as early as 189A.D.

There are many more but here is a sampling. I haven't had time to verify the accuracy of the quotes but the Christian Classics Ethereal Library is probably the best online collection of english translations of early Christian writings I have ever come across.

I'm not sure when the first historical records of opposition to infant baptism began. The first one I am aware of is the The Schleitheim Confession of Faith of 1527 which sparked the Anabaptist (Mennonite, Amish, Hutterite) movement. There may be earlier documents I am not aware of.

 

Actually, outside of Biblical Testimony, the earliest criticism of infant baptism is found in the works of Tertulian...

And so, according to the circumstances, disposition, and even the age of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable. This is particularly true in the case of little children. For why is it necessary.. if baptism itself is not so necessary... that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger?... Let the children come, then, while they are growing up. Let them come while they are learning... while they are learning where to come. Let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the remission of sins?... If anyone understands the weighty importance of baptism, he will fear its reception more than its delay. Sound faith is secure of salvation. ~ Tertullian (c. 198, W), 3.678.

Of course, I do have to note that Tertullian is criticizing what appears to have been an already well establish tradition of infant baptism.

 

Thanks for the heads up. It is interesting that while Tertullian makes a strong argument against infant baptism, he doesn't come right out to oppose it or say that it is wrong.

 

Yes, that is interesting. What is also interesting is that he assumes it's regenerative as the rest of the early Post-Apostolic Church. He expresses a real belief that it, in and of itself, removes sin... very curious.

Doesn't 'anyone' have an early interpretation of Baptism which contradicts this interpretation?

 

What concerns me about this assertion is that every other heresy was typically followed by a great deal of debate and discussion among the Early Church eventually solved through a Council as we find in Acts with the Council of Jerusalem. Why no record of debate or discussion concerning 'baptismal regeneration' or 'infant baptism'?

Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him. 14 And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. 15 For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. 16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. ~ Acts 22:16

Passages link these make it difficult to separate the 'act of baptism' from the 'washing away of sins' even-though other passages appear to make a distinction between the act and forgiveness...

What is the typical interpretation of this passage?

Thanks.

 

Yes, this heresy goes way back. Even Jesus (Mark 16:16; John 3:5) and Peter ( Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21) seem to have misunderstood it.

 

Your post strikes me as presumptive and antagonistic.

What fruit is intended to be born from such seed?

 

I don't know what you mean by presumptive, but there was certainly no attempt to be antagonistic. This was an attempt at sarcasm, which I enjoy tremendously whether directed toward me or from me, and that one was just too easy and too tempting to pass over. If it offended you or anyone else on the BB, I apologize.

The fact is that I have been taught all my life that baptism is an act of obedience to demonstrate our death to the old life and ressurection into the new life. It is not a sacrament or a washing away of sins or a spiritual regeneration. The trouble is I can't find scriptural support for any approach to baptism other than that of baptismal regeneration. So I'm often called names like misguided and heretical.

 

Yes, see Post #31.

 

Brother/Sister,

Please pardon me for my presumption of your post. I too ask apology.

I have found the greatest support for the Baptist Baptismal teaching is the conversion of Cornelius in Acts 10...

While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? - Acts 10:44-47

Notice the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word... then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized.

This is the key Scriptural Passage that highlights regeneration pre Baptism.

 

EVERY Pastor I have EVER had says that if you believe Baptism saves, you are not yet saved.

and I agree.

 

Yes, I get reminded of that four or five times a year by my pastor and more often than that by my wife. I used to hold the historical Baptist position on baptism. Then in 1970, I read through the entire New Testament and realized what I had believed about this was wrong. Nothing I have heard or read since then has convinced me otherwise.

 

Surely you realize you have just pronounced everlasting damnation on all members of the Churches of Christ, all Anglicans/Episcopalians, all Catholics and all Orthodox, not to mention the occasional maverick Southern Baptist like me.

 

Grace and Peace Zenas,

As you may well know, I am a student of Church History and Doctrine but I would just like to offer my sympathy for your situation. How do you explain the conversion of Cornelius and his household? Have you ever read the commentary from the Haydock Bible (Fr. Haydock, Roman Catholic)?

Ver. 44. The Holy Ghost fell upon all them, and made his coming known in some visible manner and exterior signs, as on the day of Pentecost. The Christians who had come with St. Peter, who before had been Jews, were astonished to see that such extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were given to uncircumcised Gentiles. (Witham)

Ver. 47. Can any man forbid water? &c. or doubt that these, on whom the Holy Ghost hath descended, may be made members of the Christian Church, by baptism, as Christ ordained? (Witham) --- Such may be the grace of God occasionally towards men, and such their great charity and contrition, that they may have remission, justification, and sanctification, before the external sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and penance be received; as we see in this example: where, at Peter's preaching, they all received the Holy Ghost before any sacrament. But here we also learn one necessary lesson, that such, notwithstanding, must needs receive the sacraments appointed by Christ, which whosoever contemneth, can never be justified. (St. Augustine, sup. Levit. q. 84. T. 4.)

For many years the Roman Catholics have described their sacraments as "An outward sign of an inward grace". In a real sense, it is an official acknowledgment of what has already taken place by God. Individuals entering the Roman Catholic Church through the RCIA are already considered 'Baptized' (i.e. think regenerate) once they officially enter into the Rite of Initiation. If these individuals die before actual Baptism, they are still considered Baptized members and given a full Christian Burial.

The point that I am attempting to make is that even among the most diametrically opposed cases (i.e. RCC vs. Baptist) even they recognize a distinct separation between the actual sacraments and God's Grace and Renewal of the individual.

Remember, Abraham believed and it was accounted to him as righteousness. Through our participation with the prevent grace already present in us are we quickened to a life with and in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. For some the external recognition of this can be overwhelming and later be the crowning moment in their lives of Faith but God has always been that 'still, small voice' within renewing us to a relationship with Him. Amen. :thumbs:

 

This is not a defining argument, but interesting nonetheless.

John 4:1-2 notes that "Jesus baptized not, but his disciples..."

I Cor 1: 14-16. Paul is actually thanking God "that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius." (None of you Corinthians).

He also says he baptized Stephanas' family, who apparently was not of the church at Corinith.

It does beg the question, if baptism is necessary for salvation,why did Jesus not personally baptize as many as he could grab; and why did Paul thank God that he didn't baptize many people? Part of the answer is in v.15, so that people would not brag about being baptized by Paul, the superstar.