Ernie wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 2:41 pm
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.
Ernie wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 2:41 pmFrom 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.
Ernie wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 2:41 pmFrom 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.