David McKay - 19 July 2008 05:54 PM

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.

But where is the written evidence of the other side of the debate? Is there third century evidence of people arguing against the ‘apparent’ new innovation?

If it were a new innovation then at least some early church fathers must have argued against it.

David,
I would have thought that the sudden defense would allude to the fact that something innovative was being proposed.
Read the early Church Fathers.  Tertullian AD 155 has written a treatise on this matter.  There are others - you can check them out yourself.

Hi folks.  Nice to see the thread bubbling away nicely!  I feel so proud of my ‘baby’ ;)

Just observing, though - the last several posts appear to have taken the theme entirely onto the territory of opinions on IB in the early church, which in my OP I clearly said I hoped we wouldn’t be veered off into in this particular thread.  It’s a fascinating subject, yes, and well worth discussing, but I suggest we start a separate thread specifically on it.  If no one does this soon and yet the patristic discussion continues here, I might well start it myself - something like “Infant baptism - views in the early church”.

Meanwhile let this thread be about the Biblical evidence.  Believe me there’s plenty more to be said that no one has touched on yet!

I would have thought that the sudden defense would allude to the fact that something innovative was being proposed.
Read the early Church Fathers.  Tertullian AD 155 has written a treatise on this matter.  There are others - you can check them out yourself.

G’day Donna
That was the point I was attempting to make. It was only in the 3rd century that infant baptism was becoming common and then later, the norm.

Dan Baynes - 19 July 2008 07:41 PM

Meanwhile let this thread be about the Biblical evidence. 

I agree.

Good on yer, Adam.

So - anything you’d like to submit next?

David McKay - 19 July 2008 05:54 PM

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.

David

The sudden defence of infant baptism in the third century is just as easily explained if it was coming under attack for the first time.  The point?  This proves nothing - either way!  [Sorry Dan, but I just couldn’t let this one go by.]

On the early church fathers generally, it’s hard to ignore them completely because, as I’ve already argued, so many of the assumptions we make about the NT era are culturally influenced, and the early church fathers are much closer to the culture/s of the NT era than we are.

On the biblical data, Dan, why don’t you throw some more issues out there that you would like to see tossed around some?

Bob

Bob, you are warmly forgiven ;)

Okay, I’ll take up your challenge.

Let’s start with texts already alluded to.

Re. Acts 2:38-39, I have never read a Baptist commentator who has been able to avoid making a redundancy out of the reference to believers’ children.  Why is that clause there?  If everyone comes into the church on their own bat, what is special about that particular group of individuals?

Next, I would like to take the concept “you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit… the promise is to you and to your children”, and juxtapose it with Acts 10:47 -

“Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?”

I know that’s out of context, but the underlying principle is surely applicable generally.  In Acts 10, the sufficient evidence of their having received the HS was that they spoke in tongues and praised God (v. 48).  In Acts 2, the sufficient evidence for young children (who can’t say yes or no themselves) is that their parents have themselves received the HS concomitant to repentance, faith and baptism.

Dan Baynes - 19 July 2008 08:48 PM

Re. Acts 2:38-39, I have never read a Baptist commentator who has been able to avoid making a redundancy out of the reference to believers’ children.  Why is that clause there? 

Regarding Acts 2:38 “the promise is for you, your children and all who are far off”

you = Peter’s Jewish hearers who are standing there

your children = their descendants (remember the covenant promise is made with Abraham/Israel’s seed) [this is the position held by I. Howard Marshall, John Stott and Richard N. Longenecker’s commentaries I don’t think any of these are Baptists]

those who are far off = Jews living in the diaspora

Some of these descendants may have been teenagers, others infants, others not even born !!

The point is that the covenant blessing are offered in Christ to the Jewish people - present, future and in the diaspora.

Furthermore the reference to baptism is only with regard to the “you” i.e. those standing in front of people. The baptism of their children is simply not commented on or referred to at all - only the fact that the covenant blessings in Christ are available to the descendants and the Jews in the diaspora (who for most of whom are yet to be told the gospel)!

If you tired to find any further reference in the text to the “your children” of verse 28 then the closet reference would be 2:17 where Peter quotes “your children will prophesy” which clearly is not a reference to newborns.

Really you can’t justify infant baptism based on Acts (nor disprove it) !!! Acts is not talking about infant baptism or believers baptism (the baptism of people who have been Christians for sometime). It simply mentions that convert baptism occurred - it is not constructing a theology of baptism. And the arguments that are made quoting examples of Acts baptisms can go both ways depending on the assumptions one brings to these texts.

If infant baptism is the way to go let’s have some convincing support based on the meaning of baptism i.e. the theology of baptism.

Adam Olive - 19 July 2008 09:35 PM

Dan Baynes - 19 July 2008 08:48 PM

Re. Acts 2:38-39, I have never read a Baptist commentator who has been able to avoid making a redundancy out of the reference to believers’ children.  Why is that clause there? 

Regarding Acts 2:38 “the promise is for you, your children and all who are far off”

you = Peter’s Jewish hearers who are standing there

your children = their descendants (remember the covenant promise is made with Abraham/Israel’s seed) [this is the position held by I. Howard Marshall, John Stott and Richard N. Longenecker’s commentaries I don’t think any of these are Baptists]

those who are far off = Jews living in the diaspora

Some of these descendants may have been teenagers, others infants, others not even born !!

The point is that the covenant blessing are offered in Christ to the Jewish people - present, future and in the diaspora.

Furthermore the reference to baptism is only with regard to the “you” i.e. those standing in front of people. The baptism of their children is simply not commented on or referred to at all - only the fact that the covenant blessings in Christ are available to the descendants and the Jews in the diaspora (who for most of whom are yet to be told the gospel)!

“Children” surely means immediate progeny before it secondarily means remote descendants.  It’s clear from the OT (and Romans 9) that the covenant passes to a third generation ONLY if the second generation continues faithful in it when they’re grown.  Thus Ishmael was circumcised into the covenant, but defected, so his descendants didn’t enter it at birth.  Same with Esau.

Moreover, the term still refers to descendants of believers (in an unbroken line of faith) and NOT simply to a group of individuals living in a future period.

Adam Olive - 19 July 2008 09:35 PM

If you tired to find any further reference in the text to the “your children” of verse 28 then the closet reference would be 2:17 where Peter quotes “your children will prophesy” which clearly is not a reference to newborns.

Which version is that?  I only ever read “sons and daughters.” But the broader point is that Joel is speaking to the nation of Israel, in which context “sons and daughters” simply means “Israelite men and women”.  No reference there, then, to the concept of v. 39 (not 28!).

Adam Olive - 19 July 2008 09:35 PM

Really you can’t justify infant baptism based on Acts (nor disprove it) !!! Acts is not talking about infant baptism or believers baptism (the baptism of people who have been Christians for sometime). It simply mentions that convert baptism occurred - it is not constructing a theology of baptism. And the arguments that are made quoting examples of Acts baptisms can go both ways depending on the assumptions one brings to these texts.

If infant baptism is the way to go let’s have some convincing support based on the meaning of baptism i.e. the theology of baptism.

Agreed that theological statements take priority over historical instances in terms of proving doctrines or practices - and I think Acts 2:38-39 is in the former group!  Perhaps, then, we can turn the flow of the thread in that direction, leaving behind the household baptisms for the time being.

Angela
It’s ok, I was not offended.  I have thicker skin than that.
The written is certainly the word of God.  The oral tradition is what has been handed down from the Apostles.  This could also be described as the word of God for neither one contradicts the other.  We would not know from scripture what the oral tradition is, otherwise it would not be oral tradition but written.  How do we know what the oral tradition is. I say through the church, “the pillar and foundation of truth” 2Tim3:15

“Children” surely means immediate progeny before it secondarily means remote descendants.

Nope. The Biblical use of the word doesn’t hold necessarily to the above.

Anyway Longnecker, Stott and Marshall are more qualified than I am to make the call here and like I said they favour future generations.

Which version is that?  I only ever read “sons and daughters.”

I wasn’t quoting a version.

Joel 2 is quoted and applied to Peter’s hearer’s ”Your sons and daughters ...” Regarding the later ”Your children” in verse 39 .... children are generally sons and daughters (who are always children of whoever they are sons and daughters of). [dizzing logic - lol]

I was simply pointing out that no mention of the baptism of the “Your children” is mentioned in the text. Those Peter tells to be baptised are the “You” who ask him what they must do. Hence this pasage is not overly helpful in arguing either position.

Apart from Peter’s statement that the covenant promises are also for “your children” (current and future progeny) the only other reference to ‘children’ are the ‘sons and daughters who prophesy’.

If infant baptism was an innovation, there would be a clearly marked period in Church history when persons attacked the innnovators ....... there is non

Baptists have no evidence of true Christians rejecting the practice , like the fraudulent Epistle of Moroni in the Book of Mormon, where Moroni purporting to write in the fourth bcentury AD condemns infant baptsim. Baptists would love that in the New Testament.

Same with auricular confession...it was right there from the start. You can’t start something like that without Divine sanction.

If David quotes the Didache, does he believe in the eucharistic sacrifice which it sees as a fulfilment of Malachi’s prophecy about the prure oblation offerd by the gentiles?

Without checking the Didache, Robert, I assume that’s referring to Mal. 1:11 rather than 3:3.  I wonder why its writer(s) considered this to be a prophecy of the Eucharist, when the NT interprets the Christian’s whole life of service to God as a “living sacrifice” - could this not be a sufficient fulfilment?

Likewise with the incense, which again the NT interprets as the prayers of saints.  Years ago I read (I think in some Antiochian Orthodox) the argument from this verse of Malachi directly to the use of censers in their services.  In view of the above I think that is an unnecessary and misguided literalism :-o

Is it not safer to view both these aspects through the hermeneutical grid we are obliged to employ at e.g. Isaiah 66:23 - “And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD”?  I’m not aware that the old Jewish New Moon festival has any NT equivalent at all.  In other words, aren’t we just to understand that the prophet uses the typical religious forms of his time to describe the continuity of God’s worship in a future so distant that those forms shall no longer apply?