Infant Baptism: The Practice of the First Century Church Part six

 

                                                                        Introduction: 

Over the past five posts, I have attempted to defend infant baptism from scripture. As always, it's important to read a series of posts in chronological order. Now, in the first of two posts, I will attempt to defend infant baptism from other documents in early Christianity besides that of the New Testament. This post will focus on Christianity in the first two centuries (A.D.-200s). The second post will focus on infant baptism in the third century, completing my seven posts advocating for infant baptism which has been a common practice in ancient Christianity. 

It is often forgotten among evangelicals and fundamentalists that there are other historical documents concerning the early Christians besides the New Testament. Typically, they are found in Jewish, Greco-Roman, and Christian sources. These sources enlighten us not only about the historical context that the world of the New Testament was written in, but also, about how it was interpreted by the earliest of Christians. I do not have to refer to Christian sources after the emergence of Christianity after its religious freedom that began with Emperor Constance (fourth century). No indeed, there are much earlier documents that refer to the practices of baptism. The Didache, for example, dates no later than the early second century (some affirm that it was written in the last first century). At most, this early Christian document is only separated decades from John's composition of Revelation (even if we take the earliest dating for Revelation and the latest date for The Didache). 

Those who claim to appeal to scripture alone as evidence for infant baptism or its lack in the New Testament and then claim that church history has no influence on liturgical worship are theologically foolish and historically gullible. While a true evangelical Christian, would see in the New Testament, the inspired Word of God which surpasses all other authorities, it is hardly a protestant position to ignore two thousand years of Christian history. Furthermore, I'm not appealing to two thousand years of history in these final posts to defend infant baptism. Rather, I wish only to show that infant baptism was commonly practiced in the first several centuries of the church's existence. Those who allege that infant baptism originated only in the fourth century lack historical knowledge of its long existence prior to that time. While screaming ''Scripture Alone,'' many Credobaptists fail to understand the meaning of Luther when he stands for scripture being the highest authority. They also fail to take into account that scripture being the sole authority does not mean that we remain ignorant of scripture's historical contexts and grammatical elements.  

                                                   Infant Baptism in the First Century 

Baptism was the admission of a person into church membership (1 Corinthians 12:13). Never is there an example in scripture of a young child in a Jewish or a Christian home who is withheld from church membership because of his/her age or lack of early profession. Assuming that both baptism and church membership were just for those who either professed Christianity or those who had now reached an age of accountability, is simply not Biblical. Indeed, this is another case of the Credobaptists assuming that the New Testament is only speaking of their standards of who can be a church member---without them, in many cases, understanding the Jewish context to the meaning of ''household'' which was explained previously. Likewise, nowhere in the Testament does it imply that Christ and the apostles instituted a new practice (baptism) that was exclusive towards children, and unlike the Old Testament, expected that they make a profession of faith before receiving covenantal membership. Indeed, it would be expected that the Jewish community would have reacted in some sort of surprise to a new rite that was not inclusive towards children, unlike the old one. While some Credobaptists have attempted to resort to the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 as evidence against infant baptism, I find their argument against it to be weak. 

In Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem rejected the claim proposed by the Judaizers that all Christian males have to receive physical circumcision. Some Credobaptists point to this passage as evidence against the practice of baptizing babies. They claim that if infant baptism existed, and likewise if baptism now replaced circumcision, why did the church not affirm this before the Judaizers? Would it have not been more simple to claim that baptism was now the new circumcision, and thus, that infants can be baptized? 

One problem with the argument proposed by Credobaptists concerning the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, is that they are the ones lacking Biblical support for their view. Since Paedobaptists believe that the New Testament never rescinded the promise to the Israelite and Gentile believers, ''for you and your children (Acts 2)'', the burden is truly on them to prove that the New Testament transitioned from the practice of the Old Testament concerning the membership of young babes among God's covenantal family. Paedobaptists simply affirm the Old Testament practice of admitting children to this membership as they see nothing in the New Testament to say otherwise. If anything, for the Credobaptist position to be true, the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 should actually now command the Judaizers that baptism is now based on some sort of profession rather than an entrance into the benefits of the church for young children of believers. Certainly, the Acts of the Apostles were never exclusive to infant baptism as early Christian scholar Everett Ferguson noted. 

A second problem concerning the claims of the Credobaptists concerning Acts 15, is that Paul already affirmed that baptism has replaced circumcision already in Colossians 2. According to many scholars, Colossians was written before Acts. If Colossians was written first, why should the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 have to again affirm what Paul had already taught? Likewise, it should be remembered that scripture does not record the apostles preaching against every sin and promoting every practice in each of their writings. For example, the Apostle Peter never mentions homosexuality in his epistles. Do we assume that Peter didn't condemn it? Likewise, Peter never mentions some Christian practices in his writings such as the Lord's Table? Do we then assume that Peter denied the importance of the Eucharist because he doesn't mention it all the time? No indeed, the apostle of the keys affirmed that Paul's writings were inspired (2 Peter 3:14-16). Those who suggest that for something to be true, the New Testament must repeat it over and over again, are appealing to an idea about the Bible that is never taught in it.   

On another note, many Credobaptisats object to infant baptism as they claim that since scripture is meant for all to understand, why would it take a theologian to see scripture as supporting infant baptism? This objection has several problems, however: 

One, where in scripture does it teach that theology is meant to be easily understood? Likewise, where does it say that lay people are not dependent upon pastors or theologians to understand it? If you do not understand either Koine Greek or Biblical, then you are not reading the scriptures in their original languages. Indeed, you are trusting in someone else to both interpret and translate it for you to understand. This is hardly a new pattern. Most throughout history have not known the original languages. 

Second, many of the church fathers disagreed with each other over eschatology. If everything in scripture is simple, why did they have different views on it? 

Third, Peter admitted to being confused by Paul's writings in 2 Peter 3:15-16. 

Fourth, why do the Credobaptists assume that their interpretation is the natural one? Likewise, why do they assume that their view is the one that is most able for all to understand? Indeed, Jews of the first century had a unique cultural, linguistic, and historical understanding of the meaning of the New Testament that we do not have today. Certainly, we have the Holy Spirit. However, a lack of knowledge of Judaism, its theology, its history, and its literature, will lead to many misunderstandings in the New Testament. Could it be that it was natural for the first-century Jews to accept infant baptism because they had brought their children into a covenant with God through circumcision since God's covenant with Abraham? I affirm, yes!

That said, much of this I have covered in the previous posts. Now, let us turn to the second century and see if the Christians closest to the apostles interpreted baptism as just for believers only. As few Christian documents besides the New Testament exist before the first century, we must examine evidence from the second century. 

                                                   Infant Baptism in the Second Century

With the possible exception of the book of Revelation, all of the New Testament was completed before the second century. Typically, most scholars, however, see Revelation's historical date to be in the nineties after Christ's birth (though some see its composition as likely having been made before A. D. 70). In short then, the second century bears witness to other early Christian documents that are barely younger than parts of the New Testament. 

Many Credobaptists point to the writings of Clement of Rome and others. They claim that these early Christian writings never mention infant baptism. While this is true for much of the Christian literature in the first two centuries, do these writings ever teach for a delayed baptism for children of believers as Credobaptists advocate for? No, they do not. While writings on infant baptism in the second century are rare, there are some hints of its practice during this era of history. 

One of the most important documents of early Christianity is The Didache. Written as early as the first century, it was written no later than the very early part of the second century. According to Ferguson, some date its writing to as early as 70 AD, though others hold its completion to as late as a hundred years later. Some have suggested that the apostles wrote it. 

Likely written around 100 AD, The Didache instructs candidates to fast before baptism. Because of this, many Credobaptists believe that the document was composed at a time when infant baptism was not yet widespread in the church. Indeed, they assert that the document implies believers' baptism only, for how can an infant fast before baptism? 

First of all, The Didache hardly gives the picture of baptism that is portrayed by many Credobaptists today. Many of the church fathers believed that a child could learn to fast once they stopped breastfeeding from their mother (around the age of three years.) This is quite different from the dominant view of many Credobaptists now who feel that a toddler is too young to be baptized. 

Second, if the Didache did support infant baptism, I do not know why a single church father who endorsed infant baptism did not express disagreement with it. Indeed, Augustine of Hippo, for example, differed from church fathers before him who held to a literal thousand-year reign. Why did Augustine, the strong believer in infant baptism that he was, not look at this document as contrary to the prevailing practice of infant baptism in the fourth and fifth centuries? Likewise, why did many of the Greek fathers, possibly more familiar with the document than many of the west, never express disagreement with it for its alleged support of believer's baptism only (considering that many of the Greek fathers were infant baptized). 

Third, while fasting does not conflict with Baptists doctrine per see, the fact that most Baptists in the twenty-first century do not fast before baptism is also relevant to their lack of loyalty to this ancient document. 

Fourth, The Didache was from a Jewish community and intended to instruct those outside of it about Christianity. Because of this, it seems natural that it would teach a missionary baptism for many of the heathens in gentile lands. Of course, some Credobaptists may feel that infant baptism would be an important doctrine for the document to teach considering that even Gentile coverts may have children. However, the document says nothing about delaying baptism for children of believers until they can make a profession of faith. Despite being the oldest continuous document of baptism besides the New Testament, The Didache lacks details on baptism (much like many passages that speak of baptism in the New Testament). Ultimately then, until more evidence is found, I don't think that The Didache benefits proof for either Paedobaptists or Credobaptists. 

For Paedobaptists, The Didache does not conflict with infant baptism. The reason is, that Paedobaptists accept missionary baptisms (baptizing adults who profess Christianity before receiving baptism). The document gives instructions on the mode of baptism (it holds immersion as the standard). However, it says little concerning the baptism of young children raised in a Christian household. 

Although some have appealed to the writings of Polycarp, along with Justin Martyr as support of infant baptism, I still see little evidence in their writings to suggest their view on it either way. However, Irenaeus of Lyons provides one of the best evidence of infant baptism being a practice in the early church. 

One of the closest cases of Credobaptism in early Christianity is The Shepherd of Hermas. Written between the late first to the being of the second century, the document actually calls for a delay in baptism. As it holds baptism necessary for salvation and believes that baptism can be lost through mortal sin, it believes in delaying the sacrament. The problem for the Credobaptists, however, is not just that The Shepherd of Hermas is unbiblical to support a delay in baptism so as to protect one's salvation, but also, that its reasons for delaying baptism are not the same reasons that Credobaptists do it. Essentially all, if not universally of Credobaptists argue for many different reasons to not baptize infants than the ones proposed by The Shepherd of Hermas. 

Perhaps the greatest evidence for infant baptism in the second century is found in Against Heresies by the church father Irenaeus. For those unfamiliar with Irenaeus, he was a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna. Likewise, Polycarp had been a disciple of John the Evangelist. Because of this, Irenaeus had a nearly direct chain to Christ's first apostles. It seems to me, very unlikely that either Credobaptist theologians or Paedobaptist ones from the twenty-first century would have a better historical understanding of Christ and the first Christians than him. Written in the late second century, this work was about a hundred years after John's passing: 

''For Christ came to save all through Himself-all, I say, who through Him are born again to God-infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men (2:22.4).''

While not explicit in supporting infant baptism, Irenaeus speaks of God's salvation towards even infants. As some have rightly pointed out, baptism is always connected to salvation among the writings of the early church fathers. Because of this, the evidence is strong that Irenaeus was speaking of infants being baptized. If he did not believe in such an exception, as I explained earlier, the burden would be on the Credobaptists to prove otherwise.  

While I have not read every Jewish or Christian document from the first and second centuries, I know that the third will give us more insight into the traditional debate between believers' baptism and infant baptism. I could not find any references, for example, in The Epistle of Barnabas to the debate on infant baptism. In general, most of the early Christians' writings seemed more concerned with instructing the faithful about the necessity of baptism for salvation than with giving details on who can legally be baptized. 

In the next post, I will be discussing the doctrinal divide over infant baptism in the third century. 

Further Sources: 

Crampton, W. Gary. From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism. (2010). Reformed Baptist Academic Press. 

Ferguson, Everett. Encyclopedia of Early Christianity. (1998). Garland Publishing.