baptism

MJ. Smith said:

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).

The Apostolic Tradition has not been preserved in its original form, but in various translations containing textual development and differing sources. 

Aland
writes: “For whereas the Church Order [the old name for the Apostolic Tradition] has come down to us
in various translations, Sahidic, Bohairic, Ethiopic, Arabic, Latin, the
original Greek text has almost entirely disappeared. The Sahidic tradition goes
back to a manuscript of the year AD 1006, while the Bohairic, Ethiopic and
Arabic manuscripts are even later.” Kurt Aland, Did the Early Church Baptize Infants?, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray
(Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1963), p. 41.

Aland admits this passage could be a much later interpolation, as it breaks the sense of the context.

[quote]

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)

This passage is only extant in the notoriously unreliable Latin translation, preserved in tenth or eleventh century manuscripts, of Irenaeus' Greek: whether it preserves the form and intention of the real Irenaeus is anyone's guess, and at least some RC scholars have thought it an interpolation (e.g. Baronius), as have Anglicans (Bishop Kaye). 

[quote]

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).

Irenaeus was not a disciple as such - he had heard Polycarp's preaching as a young man.

[quote]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!

Polycarp was also said to have been ordained bishop by John. Since John died c. 100, and since, according to Jerome, he had to be carried on his bed in his later years, it is doubtful that Polycarp could have been ordained much later than around 90. This would make him only 20 years old - hardly long enough to justify Polycarp's reputation as a repository of anecdotes of his time with John.

The recently discovered Coptic Harris fragments are consistent with this - they state that Polycarp was 104 when he died. This would mean he was baptized at the age of 18. Indeed, many of the most famous bishops and doctors of the church in the fourth century were baptized later, even those who were born to Christian parents - including Ambrose, Basil, Gregory, Chrysostom and others.

[quote]

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)

Justin actually spoke of those 'who from childhood have been instructed in Christ' (oi ek paidwn emaqhtevqhsan tw Christw). 

With regards to baptism, Justin sees free will of the one being baptized as absolutely integral to it:

Since at our
birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents
coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in
order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but
may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the
water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who
chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the
Father and Lord of the universe.

First Apology 61

Briefly - Origen - there is no reference to baptism of children in his extant Greek works. The Latin translations of his commentaries were freely interpolated by Rufinus, who admits this. Thus they are of no value in determining what Origen actually thought, since we cannot separate Rufinus from Origen.

Cyprian - appears to be the earliest to accept infant baptism, though we know from the catacombs and from writings in other places that this was not the practice anywhere else. It should be noted that the practice in Carthage led to the giving of communion to babies (if they couldn't yet eat, they were given just wine).

[quote] Gregory

"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)

Yes, exactly - baptism of infants began as deathbed baptisms, and inscriptions bear this out also. This is how the practice emerged, and Gregory is witness that in the late fourth century, the practice was beginning, not generally, but in the cases where 'danger presses' - where the child was thought to be in danger of death. This shows that even then, it was not the practice simply to baptize any infant.

We see this in a third-century inscription
in the Roman catacomb of
Priscilla:

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

Aland, p. 77 n. 4.

Gregory himself was baptized as an adult, despite being the son of a bishop.

Chrysostom is probably one of the earliest witnesses of more widespread practice of infant baptism, a practice which appears to have taken a full four hundred years to become established.

Edit: My quotes seem to line up but for someone reason some of my responses are being included in the quotes - have to go now and will be too late to try to edit this more later.

You now whats better than a study of baptism? A study on how to get along with others of the different option.- James Durham's Concerning Scandal is an excellent book you can get on Kindle![:)]

Graham Owen said:

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.

reading these forum is expensive. This is part of a 2 book set on sale now, just picked it up before logos credit ends
http://www.logos.com/product/3650/the-anabaptists

Searching the logos site for:   title:Baptism  shows an amazing number of books

also the Roger Williams Baptist collection has numerous baptism resources
 http://www.logos.com/product/8602/classic-baptist-books-roger-williams-heritage-archive  
(wonder what point of view it takes?   [:D])  I picked this up a few days ago

Randall - Although I have not liked the direction of some of the posts, I am glad that you asked the question because there has been some helpful information from which I have learned something.

Logos does have some resources on infant baptism.  I have not read them so I cannot recommend them, but here is the link.

http://www.logos.com/products/search?q=infant+baptism

Paul Oertly said:

 

 Odd:

One forum member is Heartily applauded for her comments.Another is reminded of forum guidelines for the same effort.

Milford Charles Murray said:

Crystal Clear!  Indeed!            Thank you, and Peace!                 *smile*

Milford Charles Murray said:

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:

1. 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.
2. 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*

One has to wonder what caused the change of heart.

 

You make an interesting observation!

NewbieMick said:

Dean,

I won't go into the argument, but just to be fair to this case (and as this is a bit of the small amount of German scholarship that got translated) it must be said that Aland tried to respond to Joachim Jeremias' book http://www.amazon.com/Infant-Baptism-First-Four-Centuries/dp/1592447570/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1325545888&sr=1-1 and that Jeremias answered with http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Infant-Baptism-Further-Study/dp/1592445403/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1325545888&sr=1-3 - regrettably we lack all three resources in Logos to build our own opinion on this. 

Mick

That's fair Mick, I simply wanted to show that one must be careful of simply copying and pasting quotes which purport to be from a certain historical period, or even attributing quotes to people when even responsible paedo baptist scholars admit they might not have said it. I am pretty sure I read Jeremias' response, but one must also mention in this regard H.
F. Stander and J. P. Louw, Baptism in the
Early Church (Leeds, England: Carey Publications, 2004). These guys are both Reformed paedo-baptists but come to the same conclusion as Ferguson, Aland, etc, that infant baptism began as clinic baptism in the fourth century. 

MJ. Smith said:

I am comfortable including any early documentation of Christianity when the issue is history .

John Huss

Martin Luther

Based on prophetic studies, Martin Luther finally declared, "We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist." (Aug. 18, 1520).

John Calvin

John Calvin (1509–1564) (Presbyterian): "Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and whose language we adopt... I shall briefly show that (Paul's words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy."

John Knox

John Knox (1505–1572) (Scotch Presbyterian): John Knox sought to counteract "that tyranny which the pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church." As with Luther, he finally concluded that the Papacy was "the very antichrist, and son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks."

Thomas Cranmer

Thomas Cranmer (1489–1556) (Anglican): "Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons."

Roger Williams

Roger Williams (1603–1683) (First Baptist Pastor in America): Pastor Williams spoke of the Pope as "the pretended Vicar of Christ o­n earth, who sits as God over the Temple of God, exalting himself not o­nly above all that is called God, but over the souls and consciences of all his vassals, yea over the Spirit of Christ, over the Holy Spirit, yea, and God himself...speaking against the God of heaven, thinking to change times and laws; but he is the son of perdition (II Thess. 2)."

The Westminster Confession of Faith

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647): "There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition that exalteth himself in the church against Christ and all that is called God."

Cotton Mather

Cotton Mather (1663–1728) (Congregational Theologian): "The oracles of God foretold the rising of an Antichrist in the Christian Church: and in the Pope of Rome, all the characteristics of that Antichrist are so marvelously answered that if any who read the Scriptures do not see it, there is a marvelous blindness upon them."

John Wesley

John Wesley (1703–1791) (Methodist): Speaking of the Papacy, John Wesley wrote, "He is in an emphatical sense, the Man of Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled the Son of Perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers... He it is...that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped...claiming the highest power, and highest honour...claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone."

Treat people in the same way that you want them to treat you. (Luke 6:31 CEB)

Honor everyone. Love the family of believers. Have respectful fear of God. Honor the emperor. (1 Peter 2:17 CEB)

The original post violated the first sentence of the forum guidelines. No one should be surprised when such posts quickly turn into debate.

Brad Fry said:

No one should be surprised when such posts quickly turn into debate.

Agreed, but some of the posts have been quite personal and that is simply unnecessary and unproductive.

 [Y]

MJ. Smith said:

If you do a search on "infant baptism" it should appear in the topics section. I'm dashing out to take Mother to an appointment but can provide the URL when I return.

Do you mean, do a search on the wiki? If so, I only get 1 hit; and I don't know what the "topics section" is or where to find it.

Donnie

MJ. Smith said:

http://topics.logos.com/Infant_Baptism

 or do a basic search in Logos

Had no idea about "topics.logos.com" or that via the site Logos users could influence what shows up in Logos searches.

Thanks,

Donnie

 [Y]

Randy,

I appreciate the tone of your post. I think it came across just fine. I apologize for being blunt and about as clear as mud with my "analogy".

Brad

Randall Cue said:

I hesitate to write this post because tone and inflection cannot be determined. I assure you that I am writing this with gentleness and humility.

My motives for the original post have been called into question. It was written with no ulterior motives. I was simply seeking information. 

Randy

Randy,

I read your post exactly that way. I am sorry for any distress you have felt due to some of the subsequent posts. The OP was reasonable and fair. I trust the answers you were given will further help you understand the wonderful revelation of Jesus, Emmanuel.

May you have a blessed and peaceful Year,

Your brother, Chris

Randy, I don't think there was any fault in your original post, nor any bad intention. It's just that you unintentionally stepped into a land-mine. Perhaps someone with more knowledge about the history of controversy over this particular topic might not have asked any question (even looking just for factual details) about such heated topic over which emotions run so strong, but you live and learn. And the Catch-22 is how do you gain the knowledge to know what areas to avoid asking potentially dangerous questions about until you've asked and learned? These forums are not really the best place to ask questions to learn about the content or meaning of Scripture or theology or church history. Probably best to ask within your own church, or one-on-one with someone whose wisdom and gentleness and research skills you've developed a respect for.