Credobaptism vs Pedobaptism

[Ain't Zwinglian]

They must understand God, sin, righteousness and life and death.

Salvation by understanding? Is this correct?

 

[BobRyan]

Thomas Mann, here's a document quoting want many early-Church members wrote about infant baptism.

Infant baptism in the early Church

Is baptism necessary?

What about the early Christian writers of the NT writing after the resurrection of Christ? What did they say about infant baptism?

 

[BobRyan]

Infants can't understand preaching.

Romans 10: 13-16 NKJV
13For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

14How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written:

“How beautiful are the feet of those who Romans 10 NKJVpreach the gospel of peace,
Who bring glad tidings of good things!”

16But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” 17So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Amen

infants cannot "repent and be baptized each one of you" Acts 2. They have no such concept.
And as Peter said in 1 Peter 3 - that Baptism that saves you is not related to water touching flesh but rather the "appeal to God for a clean conscience" which an infant does not do at all.

So the question of "how is it then that an infant that dies can be saved" can be addressed some other way - but not by the way of baptism known in the Bible.

 

[BillMcEnaney]

Amen

infants cannot "repent and be baptized each one of you" Acts 2. They have no such concept.
And as Peter said in 1 Peter 3 - that Baptism that saves you is not related to water touching flesh but rather the "appeal to God for a clean conscience" which an infant does not do at all.

So the question of "how is it then that an infant that dies can be saved" can be addressed some other way - but not by the way of baptism known in the Bible.

Infants don't need to repent since they haven't committed actual sin.

 

[BillMcEnaney]

What about the early Christian writers of the NT writing after the resurrection of Christ? What did they say about infant baptism?

The article

What about the early Christian writers of the NT writing after the resurrection of Christ? What did they say about infant baptism?

To answer that question, you'll need to find some extrabiblical writings by the NT's divinely inspired coauthors. But since the NT's

What about the early Christian writers of the NT writing after the resurrection of Christ? What did they say about infant baptism?

To answer that question, you'll need to find extrabiblical writings by the divinely inspired NT writers. But doubt you'll discover any now when the NT's original manuscripts no longer exist.

Why would the NT mention infant baptism explicitly if most baptized people were adults? The Bible doesn't say whether any teenagers got baptized. But they would be old enough to accept Christ. So maybe you'll think some probably did, though the Bible doesn't tell us that.

What about adults who aren't intelligent enough to accept Christ? Will they be damned? Maybe baptismal regeneration would compensate for their stupidity?

 

[BobRyan]

To answer that question, you'll need to find some extrabiblical writings by the NT's divinely inspired coauthors.

co-authors of the NT that are not actually listed in the NT?

Why would the NT mention infant baptism explicitly if most baptized people were adults?

If zero were identified by NT writers as being the situation of babies being baptized - then at lease one of them should have noted it especially since they were on record as saying "repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins -- and you shall be saved". Given that they had gone that far in specifying the details - they would have some sort of obligation to then say "err... umm... except here...".

The Bible doesn't say whether any teenagers got baptized.

The Bible does not give any indication that teens cannot "repent and be baptized". -- the only group that has a problem with that is the one where we find infants.

What about adults who aren't intelligent enough to accept Christ? Will they be damned?

The case of infants and adults with severe brain disorder would be in the group not baptized - I agree.
So your question really amounts to "are there non-baptized individuals that are saved anyway?" -- I can think of one... the thief on the cross.

 

[BobRyan]

Infants don't need to repent since they haven't committed actual sin.

The baptism is not helping them in anyway - they are unable to "appeal to God for a clean conscience"

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The case of infants and adults with severe brain disorder would be in the group not baptized - I agree.
So your question really amounts to "are there non-baptized individuals that are saved anyway?" -- I can think of one... the thief on the cross.

Oh no...not another "thief on the cross" statement!

It is IMPOSSIBLE for the thief on the cross to be baptized. Christian baptism wasn't instituted until AFTER Christ's resurrection but BEFORE his ascension(Mt. 28). The first Christian baptisms occurred some 53 days AFTER the thief's death. How is it possible for the thief to be baptized, when the first Christians would baptized 53 days later?

A high school understanding of the Scriptures should be more than enough to convince anybody it is IMPOSSIBLE for the thief to be baptized.

What you are doing is artificially creating a category of baptismal exclusion, where no exclusion exists.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The baptism is not helping them in anyway - they are unable to "appeal to God for a clean conscience"

God's pledge to us in Christ, God's answer to us in the Gospel, is a clean conscience: The Gospel is Good News to sinners that their sins are forgiven. The demand, the earnest need (ἐπερώτημα), the cry of the condemned sinner is answered by God's forgiveness of our sins. In Baptism there is forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38), because in baptism is Jesus Christ crucified and risen from the dead (Romans 6:3-4). So the one who is baptized has been clothed with Jesus Christ Himself (Galatians 3:27). In this way "baptism now saves you" (1 Peter 3:21). For here is God's pledge, God's promise, God's word, God's power and grace, to forgive us of all our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Otherwise it would just be getting wet. Without God's grace, without God's word and promise, baptism wouldn't be any different than a dip in your local pool or taking a shower.

We don't come to God for salvation. God comes down to save us: Jesus Christ suffered and died once for the sins of the whole world. Jesus' work alone saves, not the works--or will--of sinful men. We are justified by grace alone, through faith alone, on Christ's account alone.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Malleeboy]

We certainly see an implicit recognition of the baptism of infants. St. Polycarp was in his 80's when he suffered martyrdom. According to the witnesses of his martyrdom, when Polycarp stood before the magistrate who condemned him, Polycarp refused saying, "For 86 years I have served Jesus Christ, and He has done me no harm, how then could I betray my God and King?" Polycarp's testimony seems to be that he had been a Christian since infancy. While this isn't an explicit witness to infant baptism, it is certainly an implied witness. For if Polycarp had been a baptized Christian his entire life, then he would have been baptized as an infant--born and baptized in the year 69 AD (he was martyred in 155 AD).

ViaCrucis, have you come across the Harris fragments which place Polycarp as 104 when he died, these are in Syriac.

 

[ViaCrucis]

ViaCrucis, have you come across the Harris fragments which place Polycarp as 104 when he died, these are in Syriac.

I'm not familiar, though I'd be interested to learn more.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Malleeboy]

Info about fragments

Project MUSE - <i>Polycarp and John: The Harris Fragments and Their Challenge to the Literary Tradition</i> (review)

muse.jhu.edu

Quote from fragment

Polycarp...He was… old man, being one hundred and f[our] of age. He continued to walk n the canons which he had learned from his youth from John the a[p]ostle. (Weidman, Frederick W. Polycarp and John: The Harris Fragments and Their Challenge to Literary Traditions. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame (IL), 1999, pp. 43,44).

 

[The Liturgist]

Info about fragments

Project MUSE - <i>Polycarp and John: The Harris Fragments and Their Challenge to the Literary Tradition</i> (review)

muse.jhu.edu

Quote from fragment

Polycarp...He was… old man, being one hundred and f[our] of age. He continued to walk n the canons which he had learned from his youth from John the a[p]ostle. (Weidman, Frederick W. Polycarp and John: The Harris Fragments and Their Challenge to Literary Traditions. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame (IL), 1999, pp. 43,44).

Info about fragments

Project MUSE - <i>Polycarp and John: The Harris Fragments and Their Challenge to the Literary Tradition</i> (review)

muse.jhu.edu

Quote from fragment

Polycarp...He was… old man, being one hundred and f[our] of age. He continued to walk n the canons which he had learned from his youth from John the a[p]ostle. (Weidman, Frederick W. Polycarp and John: The Harris Fragments and Their Challenge to Literary Traditions. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame (IL), 1999, pp. 43,44).

I think an age of 102 makes a great deal of sense, if Polycarp was converted with his family. It doesn’t undermine the concept of infant baptism in any respect, however, because we know the ancient church was doing it.

 

[Malleeboy]

Issue is his in the Martyrdom, Polycarp is recorded as saying on the day of his death: "Eighty and six years I have served Him, and He has done me no wrong." Which would seem to inidicate he would have started serving Jesus at around 18, if he was martyred at 104 years old.

Also in On Illustrious Men, Jerome writes that Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle and that John had ordained him as a bishop of Smyrna.[6] So you need to determine when John died, as the last point when Polycarp cold have been made Bishop. There is also a tradition that he made a bishop at 40, I would be surprised that an episkopos would have been under say 25

The date of Polycarp's death is in dispute. Eusebius dates it to the reign of Marcus Aurelius, c. 166–167. However, a post-Eusebian addition to the Martyrdom of Polycarp, dates his death to Saturday, 23 February, in the proconsulship of Lucius Statius Quadratus, c. 155 or 156

So timelines for Polycarp. Ignore Harris fragments and go for 86 at death, having him baptized at birth. If died at 166-17, then he was born at AD 80-81, then bishop at 120-121, but John would have been very old. If dies 155-156, then born at 69-70 AD, then bishop at 109-110, making John making him Bishop more reasonable.

If Harris fragments is correct, then if dies at 166-167, then he was born 62-63, baptiaed 80-81, made bishop at 102-103. If he dies at 155-156, then he was born 41-42, baptized 59-60, made bishop 81-82.

Irenaeus relates how and when he became a Christian:[11]

I could tell you the place where the blessed Polycarp sat to preach the Word of God. It is yet present to my mind with what gravity he everywhere came in and went out; what was the sanctity of his deportment, the majesty of his countenance; and what were his holy exhortations to the people. I seem to hear him now relate how he conversed with John and many others who had seen Jesus Christ, the words he had heard from their mouths.[12]

"and many others who had seen Jesus Christ" would tend to support an earlier date.

However I think it could be said that we do not have have clear and convincing evidence that Polycarp was paedo-baptized, I think it best to place him as disputed.

So the next challenge would be, if we exclude Polycarp as not being definitively prove-able either way, who is the next named person for whom we have clear proof of infant baptism. Everett Ferguson in his tome, "Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries", suggests Julian the Apostate. Whilst also listing around forty, second to fourth century people who were not paedo-baptized, including most of the ecf's in the period and a number of people who had clearly devout Christian parents. However there was a practice of baptizing infants who were dieing, recorded in tomb inscriptions. Infant baptism appears to have been licit and performed but was not the early churches routine practice.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Issue is his in the Martyrdom, Polycarp is recorded as saying on the day of his death: "Eighty and six years I have served Him, and He has done me no wrong." Which would seem to inidicate he would have started serving Jesus at around 18, if he was martyred at 104 years old.

Also in On Illustrious Men, Jerome writes that Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle and that John had ordained him as a bishop of Smyrna.[6] So you need to determine when John died, as the last point when Polycarp cold have been made Bishop. There is also a tradition that he made a bishop at 40, I would be surprised that an episkopos would have been under say 25

The date of Polycarp's death is in dispute. Eusebius dates it to the reign of Marcus Aurelius, c. 166–167. However, a post-Eusebian addition to the Martyrdom of Polycarp, dates his death to Saturday, 23 February, in the proconsulship of Lucius Statius Quadratus, c. 155 or 156

So timelines for Polycarp. Ignore Harris fragments and go for 86 at death, having him baptized at birth. If died at 166-17, then he was born at AD 80-81, then bishop at 120-121, but John would have been very old. If dies 155-156, then born at 69-70 AD, then bishop at 109-110, making John making him Bishop more reasonable.

If Harris fragments is correct, then if dies at 166-167, then he was born 62-63, baptiaed 80-81, made bishop at 102-103. If he dies at 155-156, then he was born 41-42, baptized 59-60, made bishop 81-82.

Irenaeus relates how and when he became a Christian:[11]


"and many others who had seen Jesus Christ" would tend to support an earlier date.

However I think it could be said that we do not have have clear and convincing evidence that Polycarp was paedo-baptized, I think it best to place him as disputed.

So the next challenge would be, if we exclude Polycarp as not being definitively prove-able either way, who is the next named person for whom we have clear proof of infant baptism. Everett Ferguson in his tome, "Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries", suggests Julian the Apostate. Whilst also listing around forty, second to fourth century people who were not paedo-baptized, including most of the ecf's in the period and a number of people who had clearly devout Christian parents. However there was a practice of baptizing infants who were dieing, recorded in tomb inscriptions. Infant baptism appears to have been licit and performed but was not the early churches routine practice.

Is the name given to the relevant text which Harris found "Polycarp and John"? I'd be interested to find more information about the text itself--or does Weidmann's book contain the details on that matter and I should scrounge up the money to buy a copy?

-CryptoLutheran