Can anyone give a citation for the first recorded instance of infant baptism. This is an historical question not a theological one.
Soli Deo Gloria,
Randy
I doubt that the first recorded instance would be reliable but take this for what it is worth http://www.oldpaths.com/archive/bailey/john/carlos/1903/Articles/baptismi.htmli.e. Google for "infant baptism" recorded
But you can also search Logos for
"infant baptism" NEAR recorded
or
"infant baptism" NEAR century
Most likely Acts 16:15,33; 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16 ...More clearly: (Sorry but I've not converted these to Logos links). EDIT The following is taken from another site - edited down to what is historical. I do see that I accidentally included one clause that is conclusion not quotation or description. I have removed it.
In the year 215 AD, the Church Father St. Hippolytus of Rome writes:
"And they shall Baptize the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family." (Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 c. AD 215).
Now, St. Hippolytus was the disciple of St. Irenaeus of Lyon; and, in AD 180, St. Irenaeus writes:
"For He came to save all through Himself --all, I say, who through Him are born again to God [i.e., Baptized] -- infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men." (Irenaeus, Against the Heresies 2:22:4 -- c. AD 180)
St. Irenaeus was the disciple of St. Polycarp, who was the disciple of the Apostle John himself (as well as an associate of the Apostle Philip). And, in AD 155, St. Polycarp said this at his execution:
"Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury. How can I blaspheme my King and Savior?" (Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp 9 c. AD 156)
Now, it is well documented that "The Martyrdom of Polycarp" was written the year after the saint's execution; and so the quote above is extremely reliable. It is also well documented that Polycarp was 86 years old at the time of his death. Therefore, if the saint claims to have served Jesus for 86 years, it therefore follows that he was Baptized as an infant. And, in another place, we are told that Polycarp was Baptized by none other than the Apostle John!
Furthermore, here are some more Church Fathers on infant Baptism.
St. Justin Martyr (150 AD):
"And both men and women who have been Christ's disciples since infancy, remain pure, and at the age of sixty or seventy years ..." (Justin Martyr, First Apology,15:6 -- AD 110-165)
Origen (244 AD):
"Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And, indeed, if there were nothing in infants that required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism would be superfluous." (Origen, Homily on Leviticus 8:3 -- AD 244)
St. Cyprian (250 AD)
"But in respect to the case of infants, which you say ought not to be Baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be Baptized and sanctified within the eighth day ....And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from Baptism ...we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons." (Cyprian, Epistle 58, To Fides [54] -- AD 251)
St. Gregory Nazianzus (381 AD)
"Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for Baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children and conscious neither of the loss nor of grace? Are we to Baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitiated." (Gregory Nazianzus, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:28 -- AD 381)
St. John Chrysostom (388 AD)
"We do Baptize infants, although they are not guilty of any [personal] sins." (John Chrysostom, Ad Neophytos -- AD 388)
St. Ambrose (387 AD)
"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." (Ambrose of Milan, Abraham 2,11,84 -- AD 387)
St. Augustine (415 AD)
"Likewise, whoever says that those children who depart out of this life without partaking of that Sacrament (Baptism) are alive in Christ, certainly contradicts the apostolic declaration and condemns the universal Church, in which it is the practice to lose no time and run in haste to administer Baptism to infant children, because it is believed as an indubitable truth, that otherwise they cannot be made alive in Christ." (Augustine, Epistle 167 -- AD 415)
Council of Carthage (418 AD)
"Canon 2: Likewise it has been decided that whoever says that infants fresh from their mother's wombs should not be Baptized ...let him be anathema." (Council of Carthage, AD 418)
More clearly:
Clear and thorough!
Crystal Clear! Indeed! Thank you, and Peace! *smile*
Psalm 46:1 Psalm 46:2
Here's a good possibility - The rest of the article can be found here ~~> http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1540-a-history-of-the-baptism-apostasy
Best of all, Meyer's Commentary (soon to be released) is quoted in this article [see the part in bold italics].
Since both faith and repentance are conditions leading to New Testament baptism, naturally infants are excluded (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38). Infants have not the mental capacity to believe in Christ, and they cannot repent for they “have no knowledge of good or evil.” (Deuteronomy 1:39) Hence, the practice of “infant baptism” is unknown to Holy Scripture.
The first possible allusion to infant baptism is by Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 140-203), a 2nd century theologian in Gaul. “He [Christ] came to save, through means of himself, all who through him are born again unto God, infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men” (Against Heresies, 2.22.4; ANF, 1.391). But a contemporary, Tertullian (ca. 150- 222 A.D.), a scholar in the Roman province of Africa, opposed the practice:
“Let them come while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are being taught to what it is they are coming; let them become Christians when they are susceptible of the knowledge of Christ. What haste to procure the forgiveness of sins for the age of innocence! … Let them first learn to feel their need of salvation; so it may appear that we have given to those that wanted” (On Baptism, xviii; ANF, 3.678).
Augustus Neander, a Lutheran historian, made this important comment: “Tertullian appears as a zealous opponent of infant baptism; a proof that the practice had not as yet come to be regarded as an apostolical institution; for otherwise Tertullian hardly would have ventured to express himself so strongly against it” (1850, 1.432). Neander also acknowledged that: “Baptism at first was administered only to adults,” because baptism and faith were “strictly connected” (1.430).
Although Tertullian opposed infant baptism, he did “fertilize the soil” for its ready acceptance by others. He taught that the human spirit, like the body, is transmitted from parent to child (Strong, 1976, 493). Thus, man inherits both a blemished soul and body. Cyprian, in the 3rd century, reasoned:
“But again, if even the chief of sinners, who have been exceedingly guilty before God, receive the forgiveness of sins on coming to the faith, and no one is precluded from baptism and from grace, how less should the child be kept back, which, as it is but just born, can not have sinned, but has only brought with it, by its descent from Adam, the infection of the old death; and which may the more easily obtain the remission of sins, because the sins which are forgiven it are not its own, but those of another” (Epistle,lviii.5; ANF, 5.354).
Origen (ca. A.D.185-254), another post-apostolic writer, erroneously declares:
“Little children are baptized for the remission of sins. Whose sins are they? When did they sin? Or how can this explanation of the baptismal washing be maintained in the case of small children, except according to the interpretation we spoke of a little earlier? No man is clean of stain, not even if his life upon the earth had lasted but a single day” (Homilies in Luke, xiv.5; Lienhard, 1996, 58).
The practice of infant baptism did not become common until the 5th century, after the writings of the North African theologian Augustine had popularized the theory of “original sin.” Even Philip Schaff, a member of the Reformed Church, and a strong pedo-baptist advocate, was forced to admit that “adult baptism was the rule, infant baptism the exception” until the church was fairly established in the Roman Empire. He points out that Augustine, Gregory Nazianzen, and Chrysostom had “Christian” mothers, yet these men were not baptized until early manhood (1884, I.210).
H.A.W. Meyer (1800-1873) was one of the most prominent commentators produced by the German Lutheran Church. He thus had no intrinsic bias against infant baptism, yet in his commentary on Acts [16:15], he wrote: “The baptism of the children of Christians, of which no trace is found in the N.T., is not to be held as an apostolic ordinance, as, indeed, it encountered early and long resistance; but it is an institution of the church, which gradually arose in post-apostolic times…” (1883, 312).
The practice of “baptizing” infants is a human tradition, utterly void of biblical sanction. It instills a false sense of confidence in youngsters as they grow up, and is a hindrance to genuine obedience to the gospel of Jesus Christ.
I hope this helps!
DAL
Here's a good possibility - The rest of the article can be found here ~~> http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1540-a-history-of-the-baptism-apostasy Best of all, Meyer's Commentary (soon to be released) is quoted in this article [see the part in bold italics]. Infant Baptism Since both faith and repentance are conditions leading to New Testament baptism, naturally infants are excluded (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38). Infants have not the mental capacity to believe in Christ, and they cannot repent for they “have no knowledge of good or evil.” (Deuteronomy 1:39) Hence, the practice of “infant baptism” is unknown to Holy Scripture.
Hmm, that first paragraph is theological and not historical. Theologically, Christ was baptized and did not need to repent of sin.
Try a search on your entire library: "Infant Baptism" OR Paedo-baptism
An article that traces the history is available at http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar40.htm which I think is a Lutheran site but I'm not certain.
Please, Brothers and Sisters of the Logos Forums. On the first day the New Year perhaps we could make a real effort to follow Phil Gons' guidelines:
Thank you and a Blessed and Happy and Healthy New Year to each of you. Peace to you because of Emmanuel - God IS with us! *smile*
No debating on my part. Happy New Year! [:)]
Odd:
One forum member is Heartily applauded for her comments.Another is reminded of forum guidelines for the same effort.
Please, Brothers and Sisters of the Logos Forums. On the first day the New Year perhaps we could make a real effort to follow Phil Gons' guidelines: Please do not discuss or debate biblical, theological, or other controversial topics. Use one of the many web forums intended for these kinds of discussions. Please treat each other with the love, courtesy, respect, and kindness that you would if you were sitting in your living room together. Thank you and a Blessed and Happy and Healthy New Year to each of you. Peace to you because of Emmanuel - God IS with us! *smile*
Since both faith and repentance are conditions leading to New Testament baptism, naturally infants are excluded (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38). Infants have not the mental capacity to believe in Christ, and they cannot repent for they “have no knowledge of good or evil.” (Deuteronomy 1:39) Hence, the practice of “infant baptism” is unknown to Holy Scripture .
.
Hi, Dal this is biblical and true.
Christ was baptized and did not need to repent of sin.
(Jn 1:29) “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
Thanks Milford for reminding us to the forum rules.
Especially the topic of baptism is (on both sides of the debate) very dear to the heart, which makes No. 2 difficult - that's one of the reasons No. 1 is neccessary. The original poster especially asked about historical, not theological aspects. I think there have been some good links, search hints etc. provided. Maybe they suffice, otherwise links to additional material in Logos or how to unearth this information from the wealth of resources we have available are called for, not a discussion of pedo- versus credobaptistic apologia.
Mick
And, in another place, we are told that Polycarp was Baptized by none other than the Apostle John!
MJ,
(This is a little off topic from the original post).
I've known that Polycarp was a disciple of John, but I had not heard that he had been baptized by him. Where can I find this information?
Thanks.
I've known that Polycarp was a disciple of John, but I had not heard that he had been baptized by him. Where can I find this information? Thanks.
POLYCARP (PERSON). Bishop of Smyrna in Asia Minor, born ca. 70 C.E. and martyred in Smyrna ca. 156 C.E. Our sources for the life of Polycarp include Ignatius’ letter to Polycarp, Irenaeus’ Adversus Haereses, Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica, and most importantly, the anonymous Martyrdom of Polycarp.* Irenaeus, quoted by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 5:20:6), states that Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle. Some scholars doubt the accuracy of this assertion, especially considering Eusebius’ preoccupation with demonstrating apostolic succession. Neither Ignatius nor Polycarp himself mentions any connection with John. According to a scribal addition to the Martyrdom of Polycarp (22:2), Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp.
Freedman, D. N. (1996). Vol. 5: The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (389). New York: Doubleday.
*Please note that the aforementioned "Martyrdom of Polycarp" is an anonymous work.
Well done, MJ!! You start with Scripture and then move to Church history. You have stated the infant baptism position well indeed.
Both sides of the debate over infant baptism can make a reasonable case from Scripture and history. If not, the issue would have been laid to rest long ago. I grew up Baptist, and joined the United Methodist Church when in High School. I know that both sides of the issue do not listen to the other. Unitl I was grown, I had never heard the information that MJ states so clearly.
What is needed is respect for views that may not be our own. If the issue is something that strikes at the heart of the faith, then I would never compromise. But as Wesley said (in this quote which I found in my Logos edition of Wesley's Works), "But as to all opinions which do not strike at the root of Christianity, we think and let think."
I remember once serving on a Board of MInistry Committee that examined candidates for ordination and ministry. We were examining a young pastor who was wanting to transfer from the Baptist Church to the Methodist Church. So I asked the young Baptist preacher, "Brother, do you believe in infant baptism". He said, "Would you repeat the question?" I said, "Brother, do you believe in infant baptism?" He thought a moment and answered, "Well, do I believe in infant baptism? Fellow, I don't just believe in it, I have seen it."
Me, too.
Paul, when did the first woman receive communion? Acts 2:42 maybe but still not explicit.
(this post is for humors sake only)
Neither Ignatius nor Polycarp himself mentions any connection with John.
Considering the brief amount of the writings of these earliest Church Fathers an argument from silence holds no water.
I come from (and remain in) a theological tradition that does not support or practice infant baptism. That said, I am surprised by the strong words from some posters here toward MJ. Yes, there are some theological assumptions in her post, for instance, seeing "whole household" as possible/probably including infants and toddlers. But I can filter through that. It certainly does not come across as contentious. 2 Timothy and Ephesians 4 shed some light on how we are to treat those who disagree with us.
As for quoting church tradition which includes some theological hermeneutic--what is the problem with that? It is quite relevant to the OP's question. IF that theology existed at that time, then it follows that infant baptisms were done at that time, That is far different than carrying on a contentious conversation over whether one believes in it or not. Is that not correct?
Since both faith and repentance are conditions leading to New Testament baptism, naturally infants are excluded (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38). Infants have not the mental capacity to believe in Christ, and they cannot repent for they “have no knowledge of good or evil.” (Deuteronomy 1:39) Hence, the practice of “infant baptism” is unknown to Holy Scripture . Hi, Dal this is biblical and true.
Amen, Tes! Now as far as Jesus not repenting of any sin before His baptism it's due to the fact that He was perfect and he just did it to fulfill all righteousness (Matthew 3:14-15).
