David
Sure in the early Church, part of the Christian initiation would have included repenting and believing because they were adults who were able to understand.  Don’t forget this is the Church in it’s infancy.  However, there is no exclusion for infants or children.  If circumcision was used in the old testament (surely those infants would have said ‘no way’ if given a choice), then it logically follows that infants would be included in the new testament.
On a more natural level, we feed and clothe our children whether they ask for it or not.  So therefore on a spiritual level we would feed them spiritually.

What did the early Church understand about infant baptism: St Irenaeus 140AD - 202AD - wrote:  He came to save all through Himself, - all I say who through Him are reborn in God, infants, and children, youths and old men.  Therefore He passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age, and at the same time becoming for them an example of piety, of righteousness, and of submission; .......
I prefer to take what the early Church fathers understood on this issue than some interpretation that came after Luther and Calvin.

If circumcision was used in the old testament (surely those infants would have said ‘no way’ if given a choice), then it logically follows that infants would be included in the new testament.

I don’t think the practices of circumcision in the Old Testament logically apply to baptism in the New Testament. Clearly there are differences e.g. only males were circumcised but this does not mean only males are baptised.

Nor does quoting the examples of households in Acts provide strong evidence for the argument. The Philippi jailer is used by baptists to point out not only is all the household baptized but they are also all said to have heard and believed.

Infant Baptism needs to be justified by discussing its meaning in the New Testament (which I think does have points of contact with circumcision) and the corporate solidarity concept.

But to say baptism should be applied to infants because circumcision was applied to infants is not entirely convincing.

Rather ... What is signified by baptism and how does this meaning apply to infants?

Donna Green - 19 July 2008 11:24 AM

If circumcision was used in the old testament (surely those infants would have said ‘no way’ if given a choice)

LOL! Impeccable logic there.

Adam
I’m not basing my belief of infant baptism purely on the verses quoted, particularly on circumcision.  These texts were used to show that it was not meant to be adult only baptism.  I’m just doing what protestants do, i.e., use certain quotes to support their claim.  The theology of baptism is more complex than a couple of quotes.  You have to look at its development from the old testament through to the new and in light of what the early Church understood about baptism.

David

The passage [Acts 16:31ff] makes clear that these folk were capable of being instructed and exercising faith.

I think you are presuming too much.  To say that Paul instructed the whole household does not mean that every individual was of an age where they could intellectually comprehend the gospel.  Again, 1st century Jews (and others) thought corporately, so they simply would not think to say something like “and the infants were baptised as well”.  This is the problem with the ‘believer’s baptism’ approach - it interprets the passages through an exclusively individualist grid, whereas the Bible views people BOTH communally and individually.

I’d be interested to know if there is ANY evidence that infant baptism was introduced later (as you suggested in another thread).  As far as I am aware, from the earliest times the church fathers have understood infant baptism to be the normal practice, dating right back to the NT era.  Do we have any evidence to overturn their understanding?  They were, after all, much closer chronologically and culturally then we are to that era.  If we think we know more than they did, we need good evidence to support that claim.

Bob

Hi Bob
Luke tells us that the people in Acts 16 who were baptised rejoiced that they had come to believe in Christ.

It would appear that infant baptism began about 180 AD, but was not the prevailing type of baptism till about 200 years later.

I think the early documents of instruction in baptism, from the Didache onwards are clearly about instructing adults preparing for their own baptisms.

David
Read my earlier note re early church history on infant baptism.  St Irenaeus AD140 (didache writings).  St Justice Martyr (AD148-155) in his First Apology also talks about infant baptism.  He talks about being led to a “place where there is water” and compares it with our not being aware of our natural birth.  If you have the early writings you need to read the whole apology. 

Sure the believers in the new testament would have rejoiced.  So would the infants if they were able to speak!

I think one argument for the practice of infant baptism going back to the apostles is that it is clearly being done early and if it were a break from earlier baptismal practices why is there no record of the debate it would have generated in the Church.

I agree with the earlier posts that there doesn’t seem to be evidence for infant baptism as being a new course of action within church history.

Even so I think discussions on Acts will not prove particularly fruitful for either side of the debate - on both sides it requires some assumptions to see one’s point of view.

I’m still hoping that the discussion will move to defining baptism and from this basis relating it to infants.

e.g. baptism is a sign of inclusion in the people of God - thus if children of christian parents are seen to be part of the people of God then baptise them.

OR

e.g. baptism is an expression of repentance and a call of faith in Christ - thus appropriate to converts.

It seems to me that the definition of baptism is what determines who are potential candidates.

i.e. emphasis on inclusion leading one way and emphasis on faith/repentance leaning the other way.

Adam
Both your examples are correct.  Baptism brings us into the family of God. It is also the cleansing of sin; it sanctifies us and makes us new.  In baptism, we receive the Holy Spirit.  Remember John said you must be born again.  He was referring to baptism.  See John 3:5.  Here Jesus said you cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven unless you are born of water and the spirit.  So, the Catholic Church includes infants for both reasons - to cleanse our souls and to enter into the family of God.  This is the beginning of our journey of faith in Jesus. 

I know this is a very simplistic explanation, but I suspect this will stir up debate on justification and salvation all over again.

David McKay - 19 July 2008 02:35 PM

Luke tells us that the people in Acts 16 who were baptised rejoiced that they had come to believe in Christ.

Again, those who were able to would have done so.  That really doesn’t tell us that infants were not included, as if Luke would have to say, “except the infants, of course”.  On your argument, byt the way, we’ll have to deny baptism to the severely intellectually handicapped too, as we won’t be able to instruct them, nor can we ascertain that they have repented and believed.

It would appear that infant baptism began about 180 AD, but was not the prevailing type of baptism till about 200 years later.

Evidence??

I think the early documents of instruction in baptism, from the Didache onwards are clearly about instructing adults preparing for their own baptisms.

Of course they are, if that’s what they were writing about.  All that tells us is that they didn’t offer anything about instructing infants, which is not particularly surprising.
Bob

Donna, your response to my post indicates you may have missed the examples I was giving. I was suggesting two possible emphasis on the meaning of baptism:
1. a sign of inclusion in the people of God
2. an individual’s conscious call/pledge of repentance and faith (I think you took me to mean baptism as cleansing of sin which is not the e.g. I was giving).

Donna Green - 19 July 2008 03:54 PM

In baptism, we receive the Holy Spirit. 

If baptism is tied to the moment of conversion but some people become Christians and are then baptized 5 years later in which case they received the Spirit at conversion by faith 5 years earlier and not at their baptism.

Remember John said you must be born again.  He was referring to baptism. 

I’m not sure born of water-and-spirit refers to baptism. Perhaps Ezekiel 36:25-27 is in view. The idea being cleansing and renewal through God’s redemptive work rather than being a reference to baptism.

25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules

Hi Bob. The long period of instruction before baptism also shows how cautious the church originally was about whom they would baptise.

In Paul Jewett’s Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace he cites some evidence for infant baptism possibly beginning around 180 AD.

Steven A McKinion says there is no written defence of infant baptism prior to the third century and cites E Ferguson’s theory on the origins of infant baptism, that a study of funerary inscriptions reveals that it began to be practised on infants as an emergency situation, because of the belief that people needed to be baptised to be saved. “Baptism in the Patristic Writings” in T Schreiner and S Wright Believer’s Baptism

Steven A McKinion says there is no written defence of infant baptism prior to the third century

Possibly because it was common practice and therefore did not need to be defended.

Is there a record of debate in early church history? If not it implies infant baptism was always present.

Of interest ....

Baptism of proselytes to Judaism

Edersheim – Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah
Appendix XII.THE BAPTISM OF PROSELYTES (See vol.i. BookII. ch.xi. p.273.)

• all the children were admitted to membership on the faith of their parents
• all the males - children and adults - were circumcised
• the whole family – men, women and children– were baptized

• Unborn children of proselytes did not require to be baptized, because they were born ‘in holiness’ (Yebam. 78 a).

Neither Jews nor the children of proselytes were baptised because they were considered as born into the covenant and therefore had no need of baptism which was used only as an introductory rite.

Hi Adam
The sudden defence of infant baptism in the Third Century would seem to suggest that it was a contemporary innovation and needed to be discussed.