7. History of Infant Baptism


"The earliest explicit mention of infant “baptism” in the history of the church is from the African church father, Tertullian, who lived from about A.D. 160 to about 220. 

When we look at the New Testament, the closest thing to infant baptism that we find is the reference to three “households” being baptized. In 1 Corinthians 1:16, Paul says, “Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.” In Acts 16:15, Luke reports concerning the new convert, Lydia, “When she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, ‘If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.’” And in Acts 16:33, Luke tells us that after the earthquake in the jail of Philippi, the jailer “took [Paul and Silas] that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his [household].” 

It is significant that in regard to the family of the Philippian jailer Luke reports in Acts 16:32, just before mentioning the baptism of the jailer’s household, “[Paul and Silas] spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house.” This seems to be Luke’s way of saying that hearing and believing the word is a prerequisite to baptism. The whole household heard the word and the whole household was baptized. In any case, there is no mention of infants in any of these three instances of household baptisms, and it is an argument from silence to say that there must have been small children." (John Piper)


"As the church was in an evangelistic mode in the first three centuries we find clear statements of the fact of adult baptism upon conversion. There was also the concept that baptism washed away all pre-baptismal sins. Hence there arose the practice of postponing baptism until one’s deathbed in order not to commit post-baptismal sins which would have to be dealt with through penance.
As the church conquered the pagan world we see infant baptism as arising as a universal practice. In part this appears to be based upon the fact that even in the ancient church there was the concept that baptism was the initiation rite into the community of faith, and infants are born into that community so are baptized. A second factor appears to have been the rise of the understanding of original sin [sin we have from Adam] and the belief that baptism washed away the stain of original sin." (Bible. org)
"The only opponent of infant baptism among the fathers is the eccentric and schismatic Tertullian, of North Africa. He condemns the hastening of the innocent age to the forgiveness of sins, and intrusting it with divine gifts, while we would not commit to it earthly property.(459) Whoever considers the solemnity of baptism, will shrink more from the receiving, than from the postponement of it. But the very manner of Tertullian’s opposition proves as much in favor of infant baptism as against it. His opposition to it is founded on his view of the regenerating effect of baptism, and of the impossibility of having mortal sins forgiven in the church after baptism; this ordinance cannot be repeated, and washes out only the guilt contracted before its reception. On the same ground he advises healthy adults, especially the unmarried, to postpone this sacrament until they shall be no longer in danger of forfeiting forever the grace of baptism by committing adultery, murder, apostasy, or any other of the seven crimes which he calls mortal sins. On the same principle his advice applies only to healthy children, not to sickly ones, if we consider that he held baptism to be the indispensable condition of forgiveness of sins, and taught the doctrine of hereditary sin. With him this position resulted from moral earnestness, and a lively sense of the great solemnity of the baptismal vow. But many put off baptism to their death-bed, in moral levity and presumption, that they might sin as long as they could. Tertullian’s opposition, moreover, had no influence, at least no theoretical influence, even in North Africa. His disciple Cyprian differed from him wholly. In his day it was no question, whether the children of Christian parents might and should be baptized—on this all were agreed,—but whether they might be baptized so early as the second or third day after birth, or, according to the precedent of the Jewish circumcision, on the eighth day. Cyprian, and a council of sixty-six bishops held at Carthage in 253 under his lead, decided for the earlier time, yet without condemning the delay." (Bible.org)

Visit this site and read how people in the 2nd to 5th century looked at infant baptism. Early Teachings on Infant Baptism


Bible verses on baptism: 

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”

Romans 6:3-6 “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.”
Galatians 3:27 “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”

1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:”



What is your reaction to the above readings on infant baptism? While you probably don't fully understand Christian baptism, do you see any issues with the beliefs of some of these folks? Write at least 6-10 sentences in your response. 



Comments

  1. It is a little disturbing to me reading about child baptism. How people totally do not understand the real reason behind such a commitment. To them it’s just an easy and free ride into heaven, a forgiveness of sin. Yes, it is a forgiveness of sin, but it is also so much more. It is a commitment with God a promise to stay pure and to walk with him. Not a free ride into heaven. It does not work till you are on your death bed or a few hours after birth, that is pointless and defeats the proposes of a baptism in Christ. A child already belongs to God no matter what.

    ReplyDelete
  2. it really disturbs me just look at that Picture the baby looks terrified and is screaming they are totally missing the point and do not know The meaning of that step. it is a HOLY Commitment for we serve a HOLY GOD, we Should Serve and Seek Him with Fear and Trembling we cannot take this step lightly. I am so thankful our dear Lord is showing me each day how Holy that step really is and that He is guiding me to Make that commitment one day.
    May our dear Lord Lead and Guide us that we do not take that step Lightly May He Help us to deny OURSELVES and Take up our Cross and follow Him Daily so that we are able to Say with Paul I Die to self daily. For Me To Live For CHRIST is GAIN.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It is a very troubling thing. Infants are innocent when they are but babies, but some people think when they are baptized that they become without sin. Many religions are against it because they think it is not right. The bible also doesn't agree with infant baptism. baptism is the way to cleanse yourself of sin, but infants do not have sins, so if they baptize them at such a young age what happens if they sin when they get older. Infants don't understand anything about the purity and what it takes to baptize and follow God. Infant Baptism is wrong because babies don't know what it takes, and neither do those who baptize them. In my opinion they don't know the true extant about it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's disturbing about how Tertullian recommended people to push baptism off as long as possible. He thought that baptism only washed away the pre-baptismal sins. Thus, if one was baptized when he was at death's door, all his sins were gone, and that person was saved. This way, a person could sin all his life and supposedly be saved when he died. This careless way of life was wrong. Even if his theory was correct (which we know it wasn't), one never knows when he will die. What if a person never had the opportunity to be baptized, what if a person died in an accident? Tertullian's view of baptism was really shallow, and he deceived many, many people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To me it seems like Tertullian did not agree with postponing baptism until one’s deathbed, rather only till they are not in the danger of forfeiting forever the grace of baptism by committing any of the seven mortal sins. But that too is a rather warped understanding of what true Christian baptism really signifies.

      Delete
  5. I find it quite disturbing that some people even consider that baptizing an infant will remove his sins forever and always. Placing the baby it water or whatever they do is meaningless because the infant can't comprehend what great step it is making, that is has to let go of his will and serve Christ. We need to understand the importance of the step we are making, and I highly doubt infants know the step. Yes, I think there are issues. I think we should be ready and should fully understand the concept of baptism. We should understand what is expected of us. Tertullian's views don't really make any sense, and they are messed up. We should not wait to become baptized. What if we pass way before then? Once you are an adult and you think you are ready, you should go baptize.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment