baptism

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.

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

No debating on my part.  Happy New Year! [:)]

`

 

MJ. Smith said:

The post was taken from another source and reflects none of my own reasoning

Are you saying that these are not your words? They are not in blue...and not in quotes. No citation was given.

 

MJ. Smith said:

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! :-) Therefore, at least in the case of St. John, we can show conclusively that the Apostles Baptized infants.

Furthermore, here are some more Church Fathers on infant Baptism. Thought I'd throw them in. ;-)

 

MJ. Smith said:

I did my best to edit out theological statements and carefully insured that there was no statement of evaluation included.

Hogwash ! The first 2 and the last 8 quotes are nothing but roman theology/dogma.They do not in any way address  the question of when the first infant baptism occurred. The last quote is a blatant curse on anyone who dares to disagree... And you still maintain you edited?   Hogwash !

MJ. Smith said:

Furthermore, here are some more Church Fathers on infant Baptism 

MJ. Smith said:

"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).

MJ. Smith said:

"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. 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)

 

MJ. Smith said:

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.

Ronald Quick said:

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.

 

Paul, when did the first woman receive communion? Acts 2:42 maybe but still not explicit.

(this post is for humors sake only)

Paul Oertly said:

Michael Childs said:

Considering the brief amount of the writings of these earliest Church Fathers an argument from silence holds no water. 

But words from an anonymous novel do hold water?

Words from an ancient document of the Christian church hold a lot of water - a lot more than silence in a few brief letters and documents. After all, the sources you mention were not writing biographies of Polycarp, were they?  Do you find any Church Fathers contradicting the statement?  That silence speaks at least as loud as yours.

For example,  I have not yet mentioned the assasination of Abraham Lincoln.  Please don't interpret that as my doubting the fact.

I am not saying that the matter is proven beyond all doubt, but the weight of the evidence we have would support the statement. Why would one doubt it without evidence?

 

Michael Childs said:

Well done, MJ!!  You start with Scripture and then move to Church history.  You have stated the infant baptism position well indeed.

Maybe someone shoulda clued you in...M.J. is fervently denying that she is attempting to support infant baptism theology. Yes, She started with scripture...Scripture that never mentions infants. She then follows up with a dozen quotes from early church fathers that never address the OP's question...just promote the doctrine. ... Well done, Indeed [:P]

Tes said:

DAL said:

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).

DAL

Dan DeVilder said:

That said,  I am surprised by the strong words from some posters here toward MJ. 

I got into this discussion because one school of thought was applauded, another was reminded of forum guidelines. I am not offended by anyone's theology. I do think it's hypocritical to promote a certain theology , then deny that is what was done.

Dan DeVilder said:

It is quite relevant to the OP's question.  IF that theology existed at that time,

The OP's question had nothing to do with theology, In fact he asked that it not be a theological debate. The question was: When was the first infant baptism? Only one of her citations even vaguely addresses that question. (And it is from an anonymous source)

Rick said:

Paul Oertly said:

The OP's question had nothing to do with theology, In fact he asked that it not be a theological debate.

Then why have you contributed to the debate?

Why have you?

 

Richard DeRuiter said:

Does anyone have any more to add to that discussion?

I do !

Richard DeRuiter said:

I agree. MJ's post was excellent and well researched.

Well researched indeed. Copied and pasted from a Catholic website.http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=127903  

Richard DeRuiter said:

Other than that, both posts answered the OP's question probably as much as it can be, using original sources, pointing to sources in Logos whenever possible. Well done!

Yeah, Right ! [:P]

MJ. Smith said:

Yes, I should have provided links to Logos but I was tired and lazy.

Richard DeRuiter said:

(though his comment on baptism being a merely human tradition... was unnecessary and unnecessarily contentious - IMHO)

I think you should take time to read what he said. He didn't say that about conventional baptism, But infant baptism.

DAL said:

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.

Paul Oertly said:

I think you should take time to read what he said. He didn't say that about conventional baptism, But infant baptism.

As soon as you state that infant baptism is not conventional (or indeed that it is) you are stating a theological position that is bound to go beyond what should be discussed on these boards, believe it or not people have strong feelings on both sides of the argument with fully argued biblical authorities.

Paul Oertly said:

You still believe it accurate

I think that in the context of the original question the information is accurate, the question was about the origins/support of Infant Baptism not the validity. That MJ found the information on a Catholic site (assuming that she did) simply shows she had the intelligence to focus her research on a source likely to contain something relevant.

MJ. Smith said:

"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)

Again this quote is relevant because it demonstrates that Infant Baptism was taking place in 418, and presumably before, and that there were those who disagreed with the practice then as now.

IMHO MJ simply offered some relevant information in good faith, I can't understand why she has become the target for a personal attack because some people do not like the subject matter.

Personally, I'm from a tradition that baptises on the basis of a personal confession of faith in Jesus, typically adults or older children/teenagers. as this seems to be the mandate of scripture. I also accept that this requires a specific interpretation of Acts 16:33 and 1 Corinthians 1:16.

In a bid to end "on topic" a great way of exploring this subject and gathering information is by looking at the interaction between the European Reformers (Luther, Zwingli, etc.) and the Anabaptists. This is covered really well in the following Logos resource:

Estep, William R. The Anabaptist Story: An Introduction to Sixteenth-Century Anabaptism. 3rd ed., rev. and enl. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996.