Why Some Churches Practice Infant Baptism and others do not.

[Josh]

Origen isn’t inspired scripture. And neither is the Orthodox Study Bible outside of the scripture itself.

The Bible simply doesn’t support infant baptism, full stop, and I don’t consider the Eastern Orthodox an authority on much of anything, going right back to their schism they caused in 1054.

[Bootstrap]

And you think Orthodox writers do not have a bias?

They were "The Church" JM. They've been there since the beginning. Anabaptists mistakenly believed the RC made up infant baptism much later. As Boot has provided info revealing otherwise, I refuse to deny that which I took the time to learn about. Anabaptists have taught me things too but they based their con conclusions on Sola Scriptura which the Church had oral traditions passed down & obviously different interpretations then all the sects that came out of the reformation - which some continued infant baptism and do to this day even to hough they broke off from RC.

I think we are all "The Church", those of every denomination who follow Jesus faithfully and build our lives around that. And in the 1500s, the Catholic Church was a very corrupt institution, which led many true Christians to leave the church. I think the very claim that one denomination is "The Church" is a problem.

Here's what I think I showed: both the Orthodox Study Bible and Bercot have their biases, ignoring parts of the record that disagree with the story they prefer to tell. This is why they can each give black-and-white depictions of early church history that reach opposite conclusions.

As I see it:

A. The New Testament record is clear

1. The New Testament only ever describes baptism by immersion. It only ever shows baptism of people old enough to repent. The meaning of baptism involves death to self, new life in Jesus, identification with the death and resurrection of Jesus, being made clean of our sins.
2. Jesus himself waited until he was roughly 30 before he was baptised by John. The baptism of John is the meeting point between the Hebrew טבל
and the Greek word for baptism.
3. Nothing in the New Testament says that baptism is the same as circumcision. Even the passages that compare the two emphasize that baptism is about dying to self and being raised with Christ. Here's one central verse people quote to support infant baptism by connecting it to circumcision, I think it illustrates what I just said:

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

B. The Apostolic Fathers are Silent about Infant Baptism

The best reference we have to baptism in the Apostolic Fathers comes from the Didache:

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

I think this gives permission to use forms that are not immersion if circumstances require it. Note that it uses the word "baptize" when it involves dipping into the water, and uses "pour out water" without explicitly calling this baptism in the physical sense. It's a substitute for a literal baptism.

But the Apostolic Fathers do not mention infant baptism or any controversy about whether it is appropriate.

C. The Pre-Nicene Fathers mention this a few times ... and disagree

These are the people I quoted above. Tertullian is decidedly against infant baptism, Origen and Cyprian are in favor.

D. After Augustine, infant baptism becomes universally accepted

But the meaning of baptism has changed from the New Testament. It is now about covenant and erasing original sin, not about repenting and dying to ourselves and being transformed, identifying with Jesus in his death and resurrection.

[Bootstrap]

Another important piece of evidence - in the Septuagint, the Greek word for baptism translates a specific Hebrew word - טָבַל. Here are all the verses that use that word:

GEN 37:31 - dipped (וַיִּטְבְּלוּ אֶת-הַכֻּתֹּנֶת בַּדָּם)
EXO 12:22 - dip (וּטְבַלְתֶּם בַּדָּם)
LEV 4:6 - dip (וְטָבַל אֶצְבָּעוֹ)
LEV 4:17 - dip (וְטָבַל אֶצְבָּעוֹ)
LEV 9:9 - dipped (וַיִּטְבֹּל)
LEV 14:6 - dip (וְטָבַל)
LEV 14:16 - dip (וְטָבַל)
LEV 14:51 - dip (וְטָבַל)
NUM 19:18 - dip (וְטָבַל)
DEU 33:24 - and dips (וְטֹבֵל)
JOS 3:15 - dipped (נִטְבְּלוּ)
RUT 2:14 - dip (וְטָבַלְתְּ)
1SA 14:27 - dipped (וַיִּטְבֹּל)
2KI 5:14 - dipped (וַיִּטְבֹּל)
2KI 8:15 - and he dipped (וַיִּטְבֹּל)
JOB 9:31 - you would plunge me (תִּטְבְּלֵנִי)

I think that tells us something about the meaning of the word as Hellenistic Jews would have understood it in the time of Jesus.

[Soloist]

But Menno taught other things you don't adhere to.
Infant baptism was taught by the Apostles. There was much they didn't write down.

Look at what I said and what Josh said.

Follow Paul as he follows Jesus, follow the Catholics as they follow Jesus, follow Menno Simons as he follows Jesus.
Do not follow Paul as he follows his own, do not follow the Catholics as they follow their own, do not follow Menno Simons as he follows his own

The Church was going strong before NT writings. Acts 15 was the beginning of Church leaders (,Apostles at that time) to pray in councils to make decisions for the Church. Can you imagine? Trying to keep the Church on the same page in so many countries where Apostles took the faith in the known world of the time? And it was important for the Apostles to pass down what they knew & taught to those that would succeed them.

Again I specifically said that they weighed the teachings against scripture. They didn’t just blindly accept what the apostles taught as they were those who called themselves apostles who were not.

It has helped me a great deal to have and study the Orthodox Study Bible. I mean WHO canonized the Bible to begin with? They had it, studied it, taught it and also the oral teachings of the Apostles and this was an enormous task. Now compare that task to the tiny fraction of German & Swiss Anabaptists the last few hundred years.

There is nothing wrong with the Orthodox Bible the issue is the commentary.

That orthodox study Bible was composed hundreds of years after even people such as Origen.

In 543, Emperor Justinian I condemned him as a heretic and ordered all his writings to be burned. The Second Council of Constantinople in 553 may have anathematized Origen, or it may have only condemned certain heretical teachings which claimed to be derived from Origen. His teachings on the pre-existence of souls were rejected by the Church.[21]

Wiki

You elevate someone quite highly who is considered a heretic.
This is the very problem of trying to elevate the orthodox as a preserver of truth. They can’t even determine who heretics are. If he was declared a heretic during the reformation period, they would’ve even dug up his bones to burn them.

We do study and search Scripture as Bereans but that does not dismiss oral, i.e. Origen said Apostles taught infant baptism. Clearly Anabaptists arrived at different understanding of baptism than others including "mode" it does not seem then it was the Holy Spirit guiding them to understand & know it all. Other denominations continued with infant baptism. There are millions more Orthodox martyred for their faith than Anabaptists.

It actually completely dismisses oral if it’s not taught in Scripture. Prophecy on the other hand we are given scriptures of how to weight.

Searching the Scriptures as Bereans was especially important for the message of the Gospel to be seen and understood as the fulfillment of prophecy regarding Jesus Christ-

It’s even more important now to search the Scriptures to see if what is taught is true by any group.

The truth was not preserved by a group of people who have been very corrupt for hundreds of years.
The truth they did preserve was the scriptural written text. This has been confirmed over and over with historical findings. Even the early church writings clearly show support for what the Scriptures write. These oral traditions were not wrote down for even longer than the Quran was not wrote down.
Academically speaking the scholarly records of the Quran, is fraught with numerous issues.
These oral traditions have about the same level of authenticity as the Hadith’s and Quran.

[Bootstrap]

It has helped me a great deal to have and study the Orthodox Study Bible. I mean WHO canonized the Bible to begin with? They had it, studied it, taught it and also the oral teachings of the Apostles and this was an enormous task. Now compare that task to the tiny fraction of German & Swiss Anabaptists the last few hundred years.

I think that the Orthodox and the Catholic church each teach that the authority of the church and oral tradition is equal to or even greater than Scripture. I think that's the greatest divide. I think all churches stray over time - that's the problem with wineskins. We have to keep getting back to Jesus and the Bible, by the grace of God, through his Spirit. In the 1500s, the Catholic Church was quite corrupt and off base, that led to the Reformation. Which brought people back to Scriptures. The Scriptures that the Catholic Church did not want lay people to read for themselves in languages they understand.

The Orthodox Study Bible is an apologetic work, defending Orthodox teaching. No different from other apologetic study bibles, each has their own view of things.

The Pharisees thought they had a position guaranteed by God. They thought their traditions were required to understand the Bible. Jesus disagreed.

Mark 7:

And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

I think this is still a real danger for Christians today. Not just Orthodox and Catholics.

I think John the Baptist was right to warn that religious institutions have no permanent standing with God. Repentance and bearing fruit really, really matter.

Matthew 3:

“You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.

I think we need to remember this every generation. Every day, really. I appreciate the book, "The Problem with Wineskins". You can't have wine without wineskins, but old wineskins are not up to the task. We need constantly to return to the Holy Spirit and be renewed in our understanding.

Mark 2:

No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. Otherwise, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse. And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins.

So to me, appeals to the authority of some religious institution, or the value of their traditions, is at odds with the teaching of Jesus.

[RZehr]

So to me, appeals to the authority of some religious institution, or the value of their traditions, is at odds with the teaching of Jesus.

I really don’t like arguments that are based on appeals to EO or Amish authority. This is not to say that there is nothing to learn from them. But they aren’t some sort of Trump card to be played whatsoever. I don’t value their blanket opinions on Christianity, else I would join them. I value certain things here and there from them.

[Bootstrap]

So to me, appeals to the authority of some religious institution, or the value of their traditions, is at odds with the teaching of Jesus.

I really don’t like arguments that are based on appeals to EO or Amish authority. This is not to say that there is nothing to learn from them. But they aren’t some sort of Trump card to be played whatsoever. I don’t value their blanket opinions on Christianity, else I would join them. I value certain things here and there from them.

I think I have a lot to learn from various traditions, including these. And I think there are members of The Church scattered across traditions.

But if anyone is convinced that our religious traditions and institutions cannot go astray, I recommend Revelation 2 and Revelation 3. Written to The Church at Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.

Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent. Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne. Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

We often apply this verse to non-Christians, but it was written to Christians in these churches - "I stand at the door and knock." We need to hear his voice and open the door. Over and over and over again.

Any part of The Church can go astray and lose its lampstand.

“You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.

That applies to all of us.

[MattY]

And you think Orthodox writers do not have a bias?

They were "The Church" JM. They've been there since the beginning. Anabaptists mistakenly believed the RC made up infant baptism much later. As Boot has provided info revealing otherwise, I refuse to deny that which I took the time to learn about. Anabaptists have taught me things too but they based their con conclusions on Sola Scriptura which the Church had oral traditions passed down & obviously different interpretations then all the sects that came out of the reformation - which some continued infant baptism and do to this day even to hough they broke off from RC.

I think we are all "The Church", those of every denomination who follow Jesus faithfully and build our lives around that. And in the 1500s, the Catholic Church was a very corrupt institution, which led many true Christians to leave the church. I think the very claim that one denomination is "The Church" is a problem.

Here's what I think I showed: both the Orthodox Study Bible and Bercot have their biases, ignoring parts of the record that disagree with the story they prefer to tell. This is why they can each give black-and-white depictions of early church history that reach opposite conclusions.

As I see it:

A. The New Testament record is clear

1. The New Testament only ever describes baptism by immersion. It only ever shows baptism of people old enough to repent. The meaning of baptism involves death to self, new life in Jesus, identification with the death and resurrection of Jesus, being made clean of our sins.
2. Jesus himself waited until he was roughly 30 before he was baptised by John. The baptism of John is the meeting point between the Hebrew טבל
and the Greek word for baptism.
3. Nothing in the New Testament says that baptism is the same as circumcision. Even the passages that compare the two emphasize that baptism is about dying to self and being raised with Christ. Here's one central verse people quote to support infant baptism by connecting it to circumcision, I think it illustrates what I just said:

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

I agree with this, except to note that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is described as a pouring, and full immersion may not have been possible or practical all the times the NT mentions baptism, so it could have involved partial immersion combined with pouring.

B. The Apostolic Fathers are Silent about Infant Baptism

The best reference we have to baptism in the Apostolic Fathers comes from the Didache:

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

I think this gives permission to use forms that are not immersion if circumstances require it. Note that it uses the word "baptize" when it involves dipping into the water, and uses "pour out water" without explicitly calling this baptism in the physical sense. It's a substitute for a literal baptism.

But the Apostolic Fathers do not mention infant baptism or any controversy about whether it is appropriate.

Agree. Also, speaking of silence, one of the earliest Apologists, Justin Martyr, wrote about baptism, but did not mention infant baptism - around A.D. 155.

C. The Pre-Nicene Fathers mention this a few times ... and disagree

These are the people I quoted above. Tertullian is decidedly against infant baptism, Origen and Cyprian are in favor.

Correct, but it's worth examining further to show that Origen and Cyprian were not innovators or isolated cases. And personally, I'm interested not just in when infant baptism first began (no one knows exactly), but also, when did theological teaching on baptism change, so that it became acceptable without resulting in an Anabaptist-style split-off from the main church? There had to be a change in thinking about the meaning and purpose of baptism first, or else a sizable group would have opposed it and put up a fight.

You quoted Origen earlier:

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...

The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants.

Origen didn't have some kind of privileged connection to the Apostles, being several generations later; but I don't think he was a liar either. It must have already been fairly common by his time. He was born into a Christian family around 185, and if it was a new thing during his lifetime, he ought to have known. For him to make that statement, the previous generation must have considered acceptable as well (at least in Egypt where he was born).

This pushes its beginnings to probably somewhere between 150-185. This makes sense, considering that baptismal regeneration was taught by this time, which could lead to infants being baptized for original sin. In regards to Irenaeus, the argument is that to the early church, "born again" was simultaneous with baptism - they were always linked in their minds. But I agree that's reading too much into what he wrote. It's inconclusive.

The Council of Carthage, that Cyprian wrote about, was a conference of 66 bishops, and the question was not about whether infants should be baptized, but whether they should wait until the 8th day to baptize them, or just baptize them as soon as possible (within a couple days), which is what they decided. The fact of baptizing infants seems to be taken for granted by this time (A.D. 250).

In Tertullian's case, compare what he said with early Anabaptist quotes. He opposed infant baptism, but not with Anabaptist theology regarding baptism. Here's Tertullian:

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.

Here's Menno Simons:
http://www.mennosimons.net/ft009-baptism.html

Thus has the Lord commanded and ordered; therefore, let no other be taught, or practiced forever. The word of God abideth forever. Young children are without understanding and cannot be taught, therefore, baptism cannot be administered to them without perverting the ordinance of the Lord; misusing his exalted name, and doing violence to his holy word. In the New Testament there are no ordinances enjoined upon infants, for it treats, both in doctrines and sacraments, with those who have ears to hear, and hearts to understand...
Since we have not a single command in the Scriptures that infants are to be baptized, or that the apostles did practice it; we modestly confess, with a good conscience, that infant baptism is but human invention; a selfish notion; a perversion of the ordinance of Christ; a manifest abomination, standing in the holy place, where it ought, properly, not to be...
In the second place, it is evident, that infant baptism is an accursed, abominable and idolatrous institution...

Tertullian was not one to hold back or restrain his condemnation of things he disagreed with; if he thought something should be condemned and was perverting the ordinance of the Lord, he would tell you so. He says waiting is "preferable" and says the reason to wait is to exercise caution and avoid baptizing people rashly, lest they fail to fulfill their promises. Yes, it's "let them wait till they can make their own decision", but it's not "this is not baptism, it's a perversion of the New Testament, and they need to be re-baptized because true baptism is always the baptism of a believer."

So it seems to me that one of the generations shortly after the apostles, perhaps as soon as the first or second generation, failed to pass on good theology regarding baptism. This led to the gradual but fairly uncontroversial acceptance of infant baptism (no vitriolic splits or accusations of heresy involved).

[Bootstrap]

Very thoughtful post all around, MattY.

Let me respond to just one point:

Tertullian was not one to hold back or restrain his condemnation of things he disagreed with; if he thought something should be condemned and was perverting the ordinance of the Lord, he would tell you so. He says waiting is "preferable" and says the reason to wait is to exercise caution and avoid baptizing people rashly, lest they fail to fulfill their promises. Yes, it's "let them wait till they can make their own decision", but it's not "this is not baptism, it's a perversion of the New Testament, and they need to be re-baptized because true baptism is always the baptism of a believer."

By this time, Tertullian had come to believe that baptism was your biggest chance for wiping away sin, so delaying baptism was a good strategy. After that, he thought there were severe limitations on what sins the church could forgive.

I think that was a major factor in his desire to delay baptism, just in case someone committed a grave sin that needed to be wiped away through baptism. You only get one chance.

I disagree with his theology, but I think it's helpful to keep it in mind to understand his thinking here.

[Bootstrap]

Here's Menno Simons:
http://www.mennosimons.net/ft009-baptism.html

Thus has the Lord commanded and ordered; therefore, let no other be taught, or practiced forever. The word of God abideth forever. Young children are without understanding and cannot be taught, therefore, baptism cannot be administered to them without perverting the ordinance of the Lord; misusing his exalted name, and doing violence to his holy word. In the New Testament there are no ordinances enjoined upon infants, for it treats, both in doctrines and sacraments, with those who have ears to hear, and hearts to understand...
Since we have not a single command in the Scriptures that infants are to be baptized, or that the apostles did practice it; we modestly confess, with a good conscience, that infant baptism is but human invention; a selfish notion; a perversion of the ordinance of Christ; a manifest abomination, standing in the holy place, where it ought, properly, not to be...
In the second place, it is evident, that infant baptism is an accursed, abominable and idolatrous institution...

And here's what Menno Simons wrote about Origen and Augustine in the same writing.

FWIW, I think Menno Simons was misinformed on Cyprian. Perhaps he had not read him directly? But the rest of it seems right to me.

In the last place, they appeal to Origen and Augustine, and say that these assert, that they have received infant baptism from the apostles.

To this we answer and inquire, Can Origen and Augustine prove this by the Scriptures? Have they done so? We desire to know; if not, then must we hear and believe Christ and his apostles, and not Augustine and Origen.

That this is not the case may readily be seen from Cyprian, because he neither enjoined nor condemned infant baptism, if those who for many years past have been preachers at Norlingen, have rightly informed me in their church records, and not deceived me in the meaning of the word Liberum.

Cyprian also was a Greek, as well as Origen, and lived twenty-five years after him. If then infant baptism was the doctrine of the apostles and practiced by them, as Origen and Augustine assert, it must first be proved by the Scriptures, and in that case Cyprian must have committed a great sin to leave the observance of the doctrines and practices of the apostles at liberty. For any thing that is apostolic, dare not be changed by any man. The word of Paul is indisputable, "Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed," Gal. 1:8. Else we would be constrained to acknowledge, that the twelve apostles with their doctrine, were not the twelve foundations and twelve gates of the new Jerusalem, Rev. 21:12.

If infant baptism is apostolic, why does Tertullian write and say, "They who are to be baptized, confess for a considerable time in the church, before the bishop, that they renounce the devil, his pomp and angels. After that they are," &c.

Revanus annotates on this passage and says: That it was the custom of old, that adults (grown persons) be baptized by the washing of regeneration.

That infant baptism was not apostolic may be distinctly seen from the insipid remarks of Athanasius, as Rufinus plainly shows; see Eusebius, 10 Libro Ecc. His., Cap. 14.

Remember also how the early writers contended about infant baptism. Had it been apostolic, and found in the gospel, why should they have thus wrangled.

Read also Erasmus Rotterod, in sua concion, i.e., in his public orations, Sebastus Frank's Chronicle, Ulrich Zuingli, in his book of Articles, Martin Cellarius, de immensis operi, Dei, i.e., Concerning the immense works of God, and you will find, that infant baptism is not the doctrine and practice of the apostles.