Why Some Churches Practice Infant Baptism and others do not.

[Soloist]

Undoubtedly an appeal to early church writing will be brought in, so I present https://scrollpublishing.com/products/a ... ptism-new/

If you can’t afford it, message me.

[silentreader]

Why doesn’t the NT say a peep about infant baptism then?

Didn't need to. Why didn't it say a peep about pouring?

FWIW, I'm not terribly comfortable with pouring either. Or sprinkling. But I do believe there are solid Christians who disagree with me on all these things.

As Josh notes, there's no mention of infant baptism in the NT. To see if NT baptism could be applied to infants anyway, I think it's helpful to look at the reasons the NT gives for baptism. Which of these reasons makes sense for infants? This summary was created with ChatGPT, feel free to point out where it got anything wrong, it looks good to me at first blush.

1. For the forgiveness of sins:
- Acts 2:38 - "Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'"
This verse links baptism with repentance and the forgiveness of sins, suggesting that baptism is a step towards being cleansed of sin.

2. To follow Jesus' example:
- Matthew 3:13-17 - "Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter him, saying, 'I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?' Jesus replied, 'Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.' Then John consented."
Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist serves as a model for believers to follow, demonstrating obedience and righteousness.

3. As a public declaration of faith:
- Romans 6:3-4 - "Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life."
Baptism is symbolically associated with dying to one's old self and rising to a new life in Christ, signifying the believer's faith in Jesus' death and resurrection.

4. To receive the Holy Spirit:
- Acts 19:4-6 - "Paul said, 'John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.' On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied."
This passage highlights that baptism in Jesus' name is linked with receiving the Holy Spirit, marking the believer's full inclusion into the Christian community.

5. As an act of obedience to Jesus' command:
- Matthew 28:19-20 - "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
Baptism is part of the Great Commission, where Jesus commands His followers to baptize disciples, underscoring it as an act of obedience to His teachings.

6. To belong to the body of Christ (the Church):
- 1 Corinthians 12:13 - "For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink."
This verse emphasizes the unifying aspect of baptism, where believers are spiritually joined into one body, the Church, regardless of their background.

! Corinthians 10:1-5 (ESV)

For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

This is probably a similar idea to #6 above but pointing to a different body?

[Ernie]

Undoubtedly an appeal to early church writing will be brought in, so I present https://scrollpublishing.com/products/a ... ptism-new/

If you can’t afford it, message me.

From the Scroll Website

What the Early Christians Believed About Believer’s Baptism

The Catholics, Orthodox and other churches make the claim that infant baptism was the normal practice of the early Christians. In this three-audio message set, Bercot demonstrates that believer’s baptism was the normative practice of the early Christians until the mid-third century. In fact, the evidence indicates it was still the predominant practice until the fifth century.

Bercot begins this series of messages with the baptismal instructions of Jesus and then looks at every baptism described in the Book of Acts. He demonstrates that these were all believer’s baptisms. He then looks at all the passages of Scripture that discuss the meaning of baptism—nearly all of which assume believer’s baptism.

Bercot then quotes from the primary writers of the second century and demonstrates that there is no concrete evidence of infant baptism in the second century. In fact, the universal belief in the 2nd century was that infants and children are innocent, and therefore do not need baptism.

Bercot then looks at the quotations from the 3rd century that are commonly brought forth by infant baptizers. He shows that nearly all of these quotes are talking about baptism of young children—not infants. In fact, there is only one quotation in all the pre-Nicene writings that specifically talks about infant baptism, and this is a quote from Cyprian in A.D. 250.

As Bercot shows, the evidence indicates that believer’s baptism was still the standard practice throughout the 4th century. It was not until the 5th century, when Augustine declared that all unbaptized infants are condemned to hell that infant baptism became the normative practice, and it was eventually mandated by the state church.

[Valerie]

Undoubtedly an appeal to early church writing will be brought in, so I present https://scrollpublishing.com/products/a ... ptism-new/

If you can’t afford it, message me.

From the Scroll Website

What the Early Christians Believed About Believer’s Baptism

The Catholics, Orthodox and other churches make the claim that infant baptism was the normal practice of the early Christians. In this three-audio message set, Bercot demonstrates that believer’s baptism was the normative practice of the early Christians until the mid-third century. In fact, the evidence indicates it was still the predominant practice until the fifth century.

Bercot begins this series of messages with the baptismal instructions of Jesus and then looks at every baptism described in the Book of Acts. He demonstrates that these were all believer’s baptisms. He then looks at all the passages of Scripture that discuss the meaning of baptism—nearly all of which assume believer’s baptism.

Bercot then quotes from the primary writers of the second century and demonstrates that there is no concrete evidence of infant baptism in the second century. In fact, the universal belief in the 2nd century was that infants and children are innocent, and therefore do not need baptism.

Bercot then looks at the quotations from the 3rd century that are commonly brought forth by infant baptizers. He shows that nearly all of these quotes are talking about baptism of young children—not infants. In fact, there is only one quotation in all the pre-Nicene writings that specifically talks about infant baptism, and this is a quote from Cyprian in A.D. 250.

As Bercot shows, the evidence indicates that believer’s baptism was still the standard practice throughout the 4th century. It was not until the 5th century, when Augustine declared that all unbaptized infants are condemned to hell that infant baptism became the normative practice, and it was eventually mandated by the state church.

Well of course Bercot would present it that way but that ignores other church writers who say otherwise including Origen who was second century who said the Apostles taught to. So again, every country the Apostles started Churches it would support the statement that Apostles taught it. Bercot of course would have an Anabaptist bias for obvious reasons. Doesn't make it so- not with others prior to 3rd century who said otherwise. It was a worldwide practice of those who canonized Scripture.

[Bootstrap]

From the Scroll Website

What the Early Christians Believed About Believer’s Baptism

The Catholics, Orthodox and other churches make the claim that infant baptism was the normal practice of the early Christians. In this three-audio message set, Bercot demonstrates that believer’s baptism was the normative practice of the early Christians until the mid-third century. In fact, the evidence indicates it was still the predominant practice until the fifth century.

Bercot begins this series of messages with the baptismal instructions of Jesus and then looks at every baptism described in the Book of Acts. He demonstrates that these were all believer’s baptisms. He then looks at all the passages of Scripture that discuss the meaning of baptism—nearly all of which assume believer’s baptism.

I'm fairly certain I would agree to this point.

From the Scroll Website

Bercot then quotes from the primary writers of the second century and demonstrates that there is no concrete evidence of infant baptism in the second century. In fact, the universal belief in the 2nd century was that infants and children are innocent, and therefore do not need baptism.

I don't think the Apostolic Fathers - the ones who directly knew Apostles, the next generation - spoke to this issue at all.

Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202 AD) is the earliest to speak to the possibility of infants being saved, according to some. Here's the quote:

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103222.htm

Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master, He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged by all as a Master. For He did not seem one thing while He was another, as those affirm who describe Him as being man only in appearance; but what He was, that He also appeared to be. Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law which He had appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself — all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be "the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence," Colossians 1:18 the Prince of life, Acts 3:15 existing before all, and going before all.

People who teach infant baptism often focus on this part:

For He came to save all through means of Himself — all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.

But I think this is reading out of context. Yes, Jesus came to save all, working grace at every age. But he does not say that infants should be baptized. The only direct statement about age of baptism is this:

Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master, He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged by all as a Master.

And we also see things like this, which seem to cast doubt on the reliability of this:

The thirty Æons are not typified by the fact that Christ was baptized in His thirtieth year: He did not suffer in the twelfth month after His baptism, but was more than fifty years old when He died.

I think anyone who reads the Fathers carefully in depth starts to see that kind of thing. They do not speak as one, and they do not always speak reliably to Scripture. They are clearly an important light into the way the early church developed, but the early church was not infallible. In fact, the New Testament witnesses richly to that fact.

From the Scroll Website

Bercot then looks at the quotations from the 3rd century that are commonly brought forth by infant baptizers. He shows that nearly all of these quotes are talking about baptism of young children—not infants. In fact, there is only one quotation in all the pre-Nicene writings that specifically talks about infant baptism, and this is a quote from Cyprian in A.D. 250.

I assume you are talking primarily about Hippolytus here? If so, I agree.

Cyprian wrote about infant baptism here, reading the entire letter is worthwhile to avoid cherry picking:

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050658.htm

He is communicating the decision of the Council of Carthage. Here's the summary at the top:

To Fidus, on the Baptism of Infants.

Argument.— In This Letter Cyprian is Not Establishing Any New Decree; But Keeping Most Firmly the Faith of the Church, for the Correction of Those Who Thought that an Infant Must Not Be Baptized Before the Eighth Day After Its Birth, He Decreed with Some of His Fellow-Bishops, that as Soon as It Was Born It Might Properly Be Baptized. He Takes Occasion, However, to Refuse to Recall the Peace that Had Been Granted to One Victor, Although It Had Been Granted Against the Decrees of Synods Concerning the Lapsed; But Forbids Therapius the Bishop to Do It in Other Cases.

I think Origen is also pre-Nicene. I think these quotes are accurate:

https://www.catholic.com/tract/early-te ... nt-baptism

“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Tertullian disagrees strongly with this:

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0321.htm

And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary — if (baptism itself) is not so necessary — that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, "Forbid them not to come unto me." Let them "come," then, while they are growing up; let them "come" while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the "remission of sins?" More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to "ask" for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given "to him that asks." For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred — in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom — until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.

Tertullian's writings do seem to acknowledge that some in the early church practiced infant baptism. He is opposed to this practice.

On infant baptism, by this time, the early church did not speak with one voice. That came after Augustine. Looking to the Apostolic Fathers to resolve the issue doesn't help, they are silent. Looking to the pre-Nicene fathers, there is disagreement.

This is common when looking at the Church Fathers for most issues. To me, Scripture is the clearest picture we have of the early church as God intended. To my mind, both Bercot and the Orthodox Study Bible footnotes tend to cherry-pick, giving the impression that the early church universally agreed with their views. So it's not surprising that they are each citing the early church, but coming to opposite conclusions about what the early church believed.

FWIW, Quasten's Patrology contains really helpful indexes for seeing the range of views in the early church. The texts are mostly online.

[Soloist]

Well of course Bercot would present it that way but that ignores other church writers who say otherwise including Origen who was second century who said the Apostles taught to. So again, every country the Apostles started Churches it would support the statement that Apostles taught it. Bercot of course would have an Anabaptist bias for obvious reasons. Doesn't make it so- not with others prior to 3rd century who said otherwise. It was a worldwide practice of those who canonized Scripture.

Yeah it’s far easier to ignore any possible evidence or logic because his summary doesn’t include everything he says.
If you wanted to hear his thoughts…
I know two men who chose to go Orthodox, they specifically traveled to speak to Bercot over his sermon he gave in favor of infant baptism. Of course, he would be uniquely qualified to speak on this having done considerably more research on it then you or I and has taught on both sides.

Either way, even the Orthodox reject some early church practices so 1 person with a quote isn’t definitive of a practice anymore then me saying “all Mennonites in Oregon brush their teeth”

[Bootstrap]

As Bercot shows, the evidence indicates that believer’s baptism was still the standard practice throughout the 4th century. It was not until the 5th century, when Augustine declared that all unbaptized infants are condemned to hell that infant baptism became the normative practice, and it was eventually mandated by the state church.

I think there were clearly people baptizing infants before Augustine. How does Bercot define "the standard practice", and what evidence does he provide? It seems clear that Tertullian and Cyprian were writing to people who were baptising infants, it also seems clear that some people were opposed to it at that time.

I think this GPT summary is accurate:

Establishment of a Single Practice

The widespread acceptance of infant baptism as the normative practice across the Christian Church cannot be pinpointed to a single council or decree but rather emerged over time through a combination of theological development, ecclesiastical authority, and pastoral practice. By the time of Augustine (354–430 AD), the practice of infant baptism was well established, particularly in the context of his debates with the Pelagians over original sin and the necessity of grace for salvation. Augustine's theological arguments strongly supported the practice of infant baptism, contributing to its acceptance as orthodox practice within the Church.

General Acceptance

By the 5th century, the practice of infant baptism was generally accepted in both the Eastern and Western branches of the Church, although discussions about the theology and timing of baptism continued in various forms. The Second Council of Orange in 529 AD, for example, affirmed the practice of infant baptism against the backdrop of semi-Pelagian controversies.

It is important to note that while the practice of infant baptism became the norm within the majority of Christian traditions, the question of believer's baptism versus infant baptism would re-emerge with the Anabaptist movement during the Reformation in the 16th century, leading to the establishment of denominations that practice believer's baptism exclusively.

The agreement on infant baptism, therefore, evolved over centuries as part of the broader development of Christian doctrine and practice, reflecting the Church's response to theological, pastoral, and cultural challenges.

[Soloist]

Boot, did you listen to the recordings? Or are you making a judgment off of a summary?

[Bootstrap]

Boot, did you listen to the recordings? Or are you making a judgment off of a summary?

Off the summary. It makes some black and white statements, I am comparing these to writings I am actually fairly familiar with, I have looked into this over the years.

I find recordings almost useless for doing careful research. You need the text and the citations to be able to look things up and check for yourself. When I have looked at Bercot's writings, I have often found a tendency to cherry-pick in order to convey the sense of a unified church, where my reading of the original sources shows that different writers believed different things. I feel the same way - in a different direction - with the Orthodox Study Bible notes. As here - Cyprian, Origen, and Tertullian are the primary pre-Nicene witnesses. I came by Quasten honestly, it was recommended by several people who teach Patrology in seminaries and universities.

My judgement is mostly based on (1) his conclusions, and (2) my own research into this subject over the years, reaching different conclusions. Though I definitely agree that adult believer baptism is what the Bible teaches.

[Ernie]

Bercot then quotes from the primary writers of the second century and demonstrates that there is no concrete evidence of infant baptism in the second century. In fact, the universal belief in the 2nd century was that infants and children are innocent, and therefore do not need baptism.

I did not write this.

Bercot then looks at the quotations from the 3rd century that are commonly brought forth by infant baptizers. He shows that nearly all of these quotes are talking about baptism of young children—not infants. In fact, there is only one quotation in all the pre-Nicene writings that specifically talks about infant baptism, and this is a quote from Cyprian in A.D. 250.

neither did I write this.

Both are quotes from the Scroll publishing site.