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

                         

                                      

                                                                     Introduction: 

So far, I have attempted to prove both historically and theology that the earliest of Christians infant baptized. I believe that I have made a much stronger case for the Paedobaptist position than many of its advocates have on the web. In this final post, I will be discussing the historical roots of what we now call ''believers' baptism. Likewise, I will be appealing to history as evidence that infant baptism was widespread in the first several centuries. 

                                                     The Case of Tertullian of Carthage

Many Credobaptists point to the Tertullian of Carthage as holding their view. To them, he proves the early orthodoxy of their beliefs because of his belief in baptism following repentance. There are several problems with their claims, however. 

Tertullian's treatise, On Baptism, is the oldest surviving treatise of baptism still in existence. In the work, baptism presupposed both faith and repentance (like modern-day Credobaptists). To Tertullian, saving faith was not possible without baptism (unlike most modern Credobaptists). Likewise, Tertullian never believed that infants who are baptized receive invalid baptisms (unlike many modern Credobaptists). No indeed, the African church father strongly preferred believers' baptism as he was concerned about losing their salvation after their baptism (unlike most modern Credobaptists). Because of this, he was a strong believer in delayed baptism. for these reasons, he technically wasn't Credobaptist...he preferred a child to wait for baptism so as to protect their own salvation. He never rooted his thoughts in the concept that infants cannot legally be baptized. In general, he saw infant baptism as an acceptable practice. For more on Tertullian's view on baptism and repentance, see Baptism in the Early Church by Everett Ferguson, pp. 336-351. 

                                                 The Case of Origen of Alexandria 

In his Homily on Romans 5, Origen of Alexandria said the following: 

''The church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.'' 

Origen of Alexandria's words do not testify to any rejection in the church of what he just said. His testimony to the apostles practicing infant baptism is a strong one. Born in the late second century, Origen has always served as an invaluable source to Christians throughout time. Augustine of Hippo and John Calvin are among some of the respected theologians most influenced by him. 

Those who claim that Origen was a heretic and a bad theologian miss the point here. Even besides the fact that Augustine and Jerome thought well of him, we will put his orthodoxy to the side to fit the discussion of this post. The fact that an early Christian theologian held later alleged heretical ideas does not take away their historical knowledge. We appeal to Josephus, Philo, and Tacitus as reliable sources on the first century whether or not we agree with the theological positions of these men. The main thing to remember is that even church fathers who may have endorsed wrong positions can still benefit us for historical purposes. Those who wish to avoid reading anything from Origen because of his theological beliefs lack the understanding that history is not interchangeable with theology. 

                                       Other Early Christians of the Third Century:

Beginning in the third century, infant baptism became widespread, as well as the norm for most Christians. It did not become mandatory, however, until Emperor Justinian (sixth century). The Apostolic Tradition and Hippolytus of Rome mutually agreed to its existence. 

                                                                   Conclusion:

In summary, there is no scripture to support the delay of baptism for children born into Christian households. Conversely, there are many good Biblical reasons to baptize infants as I have explained in the last posts. Likewise, the view that infants are invalidly baptized unless they make an immediate profession of faith before baptism, is unknown in early Christian documents. Indeed, not a single church father questioned the validity of infant baptism. While a number of church fathers in the fourth century were not infant baptized including Jerome of Rome and Augustine of Hippo, even the church fathers who doctrinally disagreed with infant baptism never claimed that a young child had to be rebaptized later on if they had already been infant baptized at first. Both John Bunyan and John Piper stand in the tradition of Tertullian as are more and more Credobaptists, in the sense, that they accept people who were baptized as infants into church membership without a prerequisite in believers' baptism. While it's always a convenient answer for those Credobaptists who ignore church history to say that Tertullian and others just held certain beliefs because they were influenced by the teachings of the Catholic Church, many non-Trinitarians could look them in the face and tell them that the Trinity was invented by the Catholic Church. The problem is not how similar our beliefs are to the Catholic Church, but rather, are our beliefs Biblical? In so far as they are, then we should have no problem admitting to an agreement on areas where Roman Catholicism teaches something in accordance with scripture. 

Finally, the early Christian witness to infant baptism is very strong. Even when it lacks mention of it, it doesn't teach many of the modern positions on baptism proposed by most Credobaptists. In general, the church fathers almost universally supported infant baptism by the sixth century. Those before the fourth century, while having different views on it, unanimously agreed that if a baby was baptized, then there was no question as to the validity of its baptism. Can one be so ignorant to think that they know more than those in the early centuries? I do not speak of the Credobaptists who believe the Didache backs their position. Rather, I speak of those who neither care nor appeal their view on infant baptism to the early church fathers. They simply trust their upbringing, the theologians that they trust, and their own interpretation of scripture (something that Luther never advocated for in Sola Scriptura). If Paedobaptism is wrong, let us hear the Credobpatist case from both the New Testament and the early church fathers. 

While it is not arrogant to disagree with Paedobaptism, it is arrogant to think (as some Credobaptists do) that virtually everyone until the time of the Reformation got it wrong on baptism. The best Credobaptists are those who also care enough to study early Christianity to back their positions.