Baptism Matters: Part 4 (History)
For the past few days (Day 1 | Day 2 | Day 3) we’ve been looking at the case for infant baptism. Today I would like to conclude the series.
So far in our study, we’ve looked at the implicit inclusion of infants in household baptism. We’ve examined how baptism actually affects the soul of the one being baptized. Yesterday, we also briefly looked at how baptism parallels, and is the fulfillment of, the circumcision of the Old Covenant.
Up until this point, I have tried to address the question of infant Baptism as though I were a Protestant, restricting myself to the testimony of Scripture. However, as a Catholic, I do not hold to the Bible alone, but also to Sacred Tradition, the oral teaching of the Church passed down through the generations.
Even for a Protestant, who doesn’t hold to belief in Sacred Tradition, the witness of the Early Church in the centuries following the Apostles is a significant, albeit less important, consideration. So, today I would like to ask a simple question: Did the Early Church baptize babies?
Testimony from the 2nd Century
There are some indirect references to infant baptism in the Second Century. For example, at his martyrdom in AD 156, St. Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, said that he has served Christ for “eighty-six years”, a strong indication that he regarded himself as a Christian from infancy (Martyrdom of Polycarp, Chapter 9). Likewise, Justin Martyr, writing around AD 155 spoke of men and women having “been Christ’s disciples from childhood” (First Apology,15:6). Such statements do seem to suggest the practice of infant baptism.
However, neither of these references are conclusive indications. Fortunately, things start to get clearer with St. Irenaeus. Here’s what he wrote about salvation:
For He came to save all through means of Himself all, I say, who through Him are born again to God, infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men
– St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 2:22:4 (c. AD 189)
So, in this quotation, Irenaeus says that infants can be “born again to God” . But what does it mean to be “born again”? Thankfully, in another extract, Irenaeus tells us what he means by the phrase:
For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord… being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: “Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven”
– St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Fragment #34
This second quotation shows us that Irenaeus understood that one is born again through Baptism (“by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord”). So, from these extracts of Irenaeus we conclude two facts:
(1) Infants can be born again
(2) We are born again through Baptism
Isn’t it therefore logical to conclude that infants are born again through Baptism?
Testimony from 3rd Century
By the time we reach the Third Century, the Early Church Fathers of that era furnish us with explicit references to infant baptism. Here are three such examples:
The children shall be baptized first. All the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from the family.
– St. Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition 21 (c. AD 215)
The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit
– Origen, Commentaries on Romans 5:9 (c. AD 248)
…you [Fidus] say [infants] ought not to be baptized within the second or third day…but that the law of ancient circumcision should be followed [on the eighth day]…but we all thought very differently in our council…we judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to anyone born of man
– St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letters 58:2 (c. AD 253)
Not all our evidence comes from theologians, however. Here are some inscriptions found by archaeologists on the tombs of two small children, one named “Tyche” and the other “Appronianus”:
Sweet Tyche lived one year, ten months, and twenty-five days. Received [the grace of baptism] on the eighth day before the Kalends [the first day of the month]. Gave up her soul on the same day.
– Christian Inscriptions #27 (c. AD 250)
Florentius erected this monument to his well-deserving son Appronianus, who lived one year, nine months, and five days. Since he was dearly loved by his grandmother, and she saw that he was going to die, she asked of the Church that he should depart from the world a believer
– Christian Inscriptions #40 (c. AD 250)
Both of these inscriptions speak about children under the age of two, an age that is clearly below what most people would call “the age of reason”.
Testimony from 4th/5th Century
The references to infant Baptism continue into the Fourth and Fifth Centuries. Although many more could be added, here are a selection of quotations from some of the greatest theological minds of the Early Church:
“We do Baptize infants, although they are not guilty of any [personal] sins.”
– St. John Chrysostom, Ad Neophytos (c. AD 388)
“Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity.”
– St. Ambrose of Milan, Abraham 2:11:84 (c. AD 387)
Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit.
– St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 (c. AD 388)
The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic
– St. Augustine of Hippo, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 (c. AD 408)
What about Bob? What about Tertullian?
The only early Christian writer I know of who wrote against infant Baptism was the Second Century lawyer and apologist, Tertullian, in his work entitled “On Baptism”. However, he is the only discordant note on this issue in the Christian symphony of the early centuries.
Even in music, though, an occasional discordant note can enhance the overall effect of the piece. In this case, Tertullian speaks about delaying baptism for fear that the Christian would later fall back into sin, thus demonstrating the argument put forth on Day 2, that Baptism actually washes away sin. Also, in arguing against infant baptism, Tertullian inadvertently provides us with evidence that the practice was present in his day!
For more information concerning Tertullian’s objection, I would invite you to read Joe’s article on this particular issue over at Shameless Popery.
Closing thoughts…
There’s much more that could be said concerning the related topics such as the Fall, salvation, sin and redemption, but hopefully this series has given those considering the question of infant Baptism a basic sketch as to the arguments in favour of it.
In conclusion, I would assert that infants should be baptized. This is in accord with the testimony of both Scripture and Tradition. Personally, I think the case is pretty watertight. If I’ve convinced you, please remember that you’ll need a Godfather at the baptism…*cough* 😉
If you are a parent, you have been charged with a very special responsibility, the care of little souls and the charge to teach them the Faith and to do all you can to lead them to Heaven…
And Jesus came and said to them, “…Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you…” – Matthew 28:18
Many problems with infant baptism. On is that it results in baptized atheists.
In regards to infant baptism: ” A German theologian, Schleiermacher, wrote, “All traces of infant baptism which have been asserted to be found in the New Testament, must first be inserted there.” He’s right. The host of German and front rank “Theologs” and scholars of the Church of England—the Church of England, the Anglican Church, which believes in infant baptism—a host of their scholars have united to affirm not only the absence of infant baptism from the New Testament, but from apostolic and post-apostolic times. It isn’t in the New Testament and it didn’t exist in the earliest church. They believe it arose around the 2nd or 3rd century.
A Lutheran professor, Curt Allen (sp.), after intensive study of infant baptism, says, “There is no definite proof of the practice until after the 3rd century,” and he says, “This cannot be contested.” A Catholic professor of theology, Hegerbocker (sp.), writes, “This controversy has shown that it is not possible to bring in absolute proof of infant baptism by basing one’s argument on the Bible.” Good. B.B. Warfield, who is no mean theologian, was an astute and really a great, great theologian who, again, influenced my life in my seminary days…B.B. Warfield affirmed—he was, by the way, an advocate of infant baptism—but, he affirmed the absence of infant baptism from the Bible.”
http://sermons.logos.com/submissions/31975#content=/submissions/31975
Roscoe, you haven’t interacted with anything I’ve written in this post. All you’ve done is copy and paste a whole bunch of quotes from somebody else’s website.
I’m happy for you to argue your point of view, but if you’re looking to convince me of my fault, this isn’t the way to go about it…
> On[e problem] is that it results in baptized atheists.
Why is that a problem? Are you suggesting that there has never been a “believer’s baptism” where the person has later recanted his former faith?
> German theologian, Schleiermacher, wrote…
Would you be impressed if I said “Pope Benedict says…”? You’re quoting a Protestant theologian giving a Protestant opinion. Why should I find that convincing? It’s an appeal to authority, and therefore unconvincing…
> He’s right
No, he’s wrong. It requires you to first come to the New Testament in isolation from the history of the Church and with the preconceived idea that a “family” somehow doesn’t include children below the age of reason.
> The host of German and front rank “Theologs” and scholars of the Church of England…
Please see my comments above about Schleiermacher….
> the Church of England, the Anglican Church, which believes in infant baptism—a host of their scholars have united to affirm not only the absence of infant baptism from the New Testament, but from apostolic and post-apostolic times
A host of Anglican scholars also believe that homosexual acts is morally permissible. Does that mean you do too?
> A Lutheran professor, Curt Allen…
Again, please see my comments above about Schleiermacher….
> A Catholic professor of theology, Hegerbocker (sp.),
Who is this single-named Catholic theologian? If I google him, all I find is this quotation repeated ad nauseum.
But regardless, if I produced a “Catholic” theologian who denied Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist or of the inspired status of Scripture, what exactly would that prove?
Also, note what he says – it’s not possible to bring in absolute proof from the Bible alone. I’d agree. The Bible doesn’t say it explicitly…however, over the course of this series I’ve built up a strong case to show that it makes the most sense of the Biblical data and of Church history…. You haven’t attempted to engage with any of it.
> Good. B.B. Warfield…
A Presbyterian expressing a Presbyterian opinion…
Your not dealing with these scholars findings and want to dismiss them on irrelevant issues. To dismiss them you must show some counter facts that prove them wrong.
How can something be in “accord with Scripture” when Scripture never mentions infant baptism?
> How can something be in “accord with Scripture” when Scripture never mentions infant baptism?
Something is in accord when it fits the things we can definitively prove. What provides the best explanation for the facts? This is what detectives do when they solve cases.
We know whole households were baptized, that Jesus spoke of the little children coming to him and that baptism was for the remission of sins to unite us with Christ. We have explicit reference to infant baptism extremely early in Christian history. Infant baptism makes the most sense for these facts.
To deny infant baptism means that we have to disregard the typological foreshadowing of circumcision, somehow conclude that children aren’t part of households and conclude that the Early Church got the entire notion of baptism wrong from Day 1. That explanation doesn’t make most sense of the evidence.
> Your not dealing with these scholars findings
What findings?! In the text you copied-and-pasted, no argumentation was presented! They only contained assertions. My series of posts, in contrast, contained argumentation, which you are welcome to critique.
> …and want to dismiss them on irrelevant issues
If I quoted a bunch of Catholic scholars who said that infant baptism is historical and Biblical would you really regard their opinion as important?
> To dismiss them you must show some counter facts that prove them wrong.
What “facts” did they present?!
There is no way to prove infant baptism from the Scripture because it does not exist. There are no examples of it and we know that a person is to be baptized only after they have put their faith in Christ. See Matt 28:18-20 and Acts 2:38.
When Jesus allowed the children to come to Him He did not baptize them nor tell others to do so.
Circumcision is not baptism and both these rites address different things.
Here is what a couple of the scholars I quoted said about infant baptism:
“Curt Allen (sp.), after intensive study of infant baptism, says, “There is no definite proof of the practice until after the 3rd century,” and he says, “This cannot be contested.”
A Catholic professor of theology, Hegerbocker (sp.), writes, “This controversy has shown that it is not possible to bring in absolute proof of infant baptism by basing one’s argument on the Bible.”
If they are wrong then you need to present counter facts that show that there is “definite proof of the practice” by the apostles and by the churches in the first couple of centuries. If you can’t then what they wrote is true until it can be proven otherwise.
> There is no way to prove infant baptism from the Scripture because it does not exist.
Something not being explicit and something not existing are two very different things.
> There are no examples of [infant baptism] …
There are, it’s just that for some reason you refuse to accept that children are part of a household.
> we know that a person is to be baptized only after they have put their faith in Christ. See Matt 28:18-20 and Acts 2:38.
I fail to see how Matt 28:18-20 strengthens your case. If anything, it weakens it. Jesus tells the apostles to baptize all nations…not just the members of nations who are above the amorphous “age of reason” (where’s that in Scripture?).
> Circumcision is not baptism and both these rites address different things.
St. Paul seems to think differently.
> Here is what a couple of the scholars I quoted said about infant baptism: …
Roscoe, please stop doing that. You’ve already pasted these opinions and I’ve already responded to them. It’s not convincing and I’m rather unimpressed with comments that are blindly copied and pasted from someone else’s site.
> If they are wrong then you need to present counter facts
As I said before, WHAT facts?! Nothing is presented in your quotations, only a denial of evidence.
In my series I have shown that we have explicit reference to infant baptism within the first few generations of Christians, as well as veiled references earlier and in Scripture, all of which are completely compatible with infant baptism.
Here is the problem you have to explain: where are all the “true” Christians complaining about this introduction of infant baptism? Surely the “true” Christians would have kicked up a fuss? Why do we find no opposition? Wouldn’t the “true” followers of Jesus stand up for the truth?
> you need to present counter facts that show that there is “definite proof of the practice” by the apostles and by the churches in the first couple of centuries.
Why do you draw the line at “the first couple of centuries”? That seems rather arbitrary and places an unrealistic burden on the surviving documents to fully articulate the infant baptism.
Having said that, if you read my article, you’ll see I do refer to Irenaeus who lived towards the end of the Second Century.
However, I have a question, if I could demonstrate evidence of infant baptism by the end of the First Century, would that make any difference to you, or would you still hold to your own fallible interpretation of Scripture and thus condemn the entire early Church?
I ask this because I’m guessing you have some very definite ideas about how baptisms should take place. I’m assuming that you would insist that baptism should only be done by immersion. Is that a reasonable guess? If so, does it make any difference to you that we have evidence from the First Century that baptism could be performed by sprinkling?
You are making the claim that the Scripture and the early church believed in infant baptism and yet there is no evidence from Scripture nor the early church of the 1st 3 century that the church officially taught and practiced this in all the churches.
Notice the order of the command in Matt 28:18-20:
1- go
2- make disciples- to do this requires a person to understand what is involved. An infant cannot do this.
3- then baptize.
Where does Paul say that baptism is the new circumcision?
The facts from those scholars are that there is no evidence in Scripture or it being practiced by the entire church before the 3rd century.
” St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Fragment #34″ is not about baptism which is a reference to John 3:5. Here Jesus is referring to Eze 36:24–27) refers to renewal or spiritual cleansing which is done by the Spirit.
In the early centuries there could have been resistance to infant baptism especially by those who knew the Scripture. Those that did not would not most likely have done so since they had nothing to compare it with.
If infant baptism was taught and practiced by the apostles then we would expect it to be done in all the churches in the first couple of centuries. The fact that we don’t see it shows it was not taught by them but came about much later.
All doctrines must be proved by Scripture or they are not apostolic. What we do see developing in the early church unbiblical ideas that eventually become doctrines and practices in the RCC.
> You are making the claim that the Scripture and the early church believed in infant baptism and yet there is no evidence from Scripture
There is…it’s just that you don’t accept the evidence.
> nor the early church of the 1st 3 century that the church officially taught and practiced this in all the churches
Have you read what I wrote before? Would it make any difference to you if I could show it in an earlier century?
Are your beliefs about the method of baptism informed at all by the presence of baptism by sprinkling in the First Century?
> Where does Paul say that baptism is the new circumcision?
Here. The association between circumcision and baptism is also found in the early church (see the reference to “the eighth day” in this current post).
> The facts from those scholars are that there is no evidence in Scripture or it being practiced by the entire church before the 3rd century
…and I could quote scholars who disagree. I could quote Bart Erman who thinks that Jesus isn’t divine and Scripture isn’t inspire. It doesn’t prove anything.
> ” St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Fragment #34″ is not about baptism which is a reference to John 3:5. Here Jesus is referring to Eze 36:24–27) refers to renewal or spiritual cleansing which is done by the Spirit
The Early Church is unanimous in interpreting John 3:5 in terms of baptism. This is born out in Irenaeus in that he uses the same language of spiritual rebirth when speaking about baptism in “Against Heresies”.
> In the early centuries there could have been resistance to infant baptism especially by those who knew the Scripture. Those that did not would not most likely have done so since they had nothing to compare it with
Where is your evidence of this? You have to hold yourself to the same standard that you’re setting for me.
> If infant baptism was taught and practiced by the apostles then we would expect it to be done in all the churches in the first couple of centuries. The fact that we don’t see it shows it was not taught by them but came about much later
Why do you think we’d find explicit written testimony of this during those early years of persecution? We know that the early Christians were secretive about their liturgies and we only have so much evidence from which to work.
If you ripped out a single page of my journal, would you expect to find complete references to every single part of my life (work, study, hobbies, love life, …)? If not, why do you expect to find explicit testimony to every single doctrine or aspect of Christian life within our limited document set from the First and Second Century?
> All doctrines must be proved by Scripture or they are not apostolic
That’s the presupposition with which you’re coming to the discussion. However, Scripture itself talks about apostolic teaching that isn’t written down (2 Thessalonians 2:15). You also face the problem that Scripture nowhere identifies the canon, the list of books that should go in the Bible. You therefore must trust sources outside of the Bible.
> What we do see developing in the early church unbiblical ideas that eventually become doctrines and practices in the RCC
This is the problem – where are the “true” Christians objecting to these “unbiblical ideas” which we find present even at the dawn of the Church?
You are dramatically more removed in terms of distance, language and time. Why do you think you have a better grasp of Christianity than those who were taught by the disciples?