6 comments

1. As a covenantal presbyterian who worships with Baptists (of the quasi-reformed variety) these quotes come in handy for clearing up mass confusion. Leading baptist scholars will occasionally have these random fits of fancy during which they yell things like “NO ONE baptized infants until Emporer Constantine made it the law at the Council of Nicea!” Or “The word baptize means to immerse and nothing else, ever…EVER!”

   Thanks, and keep quoting the Fathers.

   Reply ↓

   • You should tell anyone who yells that sort of thing that infant baptism was established practice by no later than AD 206. Both Origen and Tertullian, in that year, witness to the existence of infant baptism as established practice.

     See the two-part essay by Isaac Fox, on this site, regarding Tertullian.

     Reply ↓

2. Thank you. I appreciate the response, very helpful.

   Reply ↓

3. I, for my part, am grateful that we ignore that advice about taking off the clothes nowadays.

   Reply ↓

4. And first baptize the small children. And each one who is able to speak for themselves [sic], let them speak. But those not able to speak for themselves, let their parents or another one belonging to their family speak for them …. And when the presbyter grasps each one of those who will receive baptism, let him command him to renounce, saying, “I renounce you, Satan, with all your service and all your works.” And when he has renounced all these, let him anoint him with the oil of exorcism saying, “Let every spirit be cast far from you.” …Let the bishop put his hand on them, fervently, saying, “Lord God, as you have made these worthy to receive forgiveness of their sins for the coming age, make them worthy to be filled with your Holy Spirit…
   Sections § 2.1-2, 9-11, 21, 27 in Bradshaw, P.F., Johnson, M.E., L Edward Phillips and Attridge, H.W. (2002). The Apostolic Tradition: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, Mn: Fortress Press.

   Baptism of infants/children here in the ‘Apostolic Tradition’ is connected with the forgiveness of sin, regeneration, and exorcism. This seems very different to Calvin’s view on infant baptism. Does Reformed theology regard infant baptism for the forgiveness of infants sins/original sin? Are there ever examples from the early church where baptism is not for the forgiveness of sin?

   Reply ↓

   • Shane,

     It is challenging for us to understand the context of the early Christian church but we must try to travel back, as it were, to their world. We live in light of 2,000 of Christianity. They did not.

     Hippolytus did in AD 236. He was a great defender of orthodoxy against the Montanists and others. When adult converts were baptized they were called to renounce Satan because the Gentile converts came from paganism. The use of oil was probably influenced by the Old Testament. By the early 3rd century already people were adding to the sacraments, a pattern that would come to evil eventually.

     As to regeneration, the Apostolic Tradition doesn’t say that. It is the case that by the fourth baptismal regeneration did become widely held but it’s not the case that infant baptism either necessitates baptismal regeneration or assumes it. I’ve address this a few times but take a look at this essay on the language of the Nicene Creed.

     As we try to put ourselves in their shoes we must be careful not to read back into the 2nd and 3rd centuries later doctrines. Regeneration in the ancient church (and even later) could mean the giving of new life but it can also mean merely sanctification.

     The church in the early 3rd century isn’t the church of Calvin’s Geneva in the mid-16th century but your assumption that there are no points of connection between the context in which infant baptism was practiced in the early church and in the Reformation is to be challenged. There was a developing covenant theology in the early church, which we see in Barnabas (AD 120), Justin (AD 150), and Irenaeus (AD 180), which is virtually indistinguishable from that outlined by Bullinger in 1534 and held by Calvin regarding the continuity of the covenant of grace. Barnabas was facing Gnostic radicals and Jewish critics of Christianity who rejected the unity of the covenant so he defended it at length. Bullinger et al. were facing Anabaptists, who shared some of the same views to which Barnabas et al. were responding.

     By the time we get to Augustine, the arguments made by the 2nd century covenant theologians were assumed. Augustine even alludes a pre-lapsarian covenant (of works) in City of God ch. 16.

     So, there was a covenant theology that supported and gave context to the ancient Christian practice of infant baptism. Take of look at this essay where I respond at more length to the Baptist complaint that the ancient church baptized infants for the wrong reasons.

     As to the “forgiveness of sins” this is the language of Acts 2:38. See the essay on the Nicene Creed.

     Reply ↓

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.