Reading and benefitting from media from the first centuries AD

[Bootstrap]

The points I am making are...
1. We don't know that infant baptism was practiced before 200 AD.
2. We don't know how common it was between 200 AD and 300 AD.

How is what you are saying different from what I am saying, or are you not trying to contrast?

If Tertullian was writing about infant baptism around 198–206 AD, and not treating it as something new or unusual, and infant baptism was part of formal church practice by ~215 AD (Hippolytus), then I think it very likely that infant baptism was being practiced before 200 AD. We don't know that for sure, but it seems likely.

And "we don't know" about a lot of things here. There just isn't a detailed record of what the church practiced where and when.

I agree that we don't know. That is my point.
I get weary of people making all sorts of statements about what was happening in the early church, without a single citation to verify their point, or without any indication that it was more than a localized practice. All such conclusions are speculation or conjecture.

I think the other big part of what I was doing was simply laying out the evidence we have, what is there and what is not, and putting it in perspective. If we're going to actually read and benefit from the early writings, I think we have to read them. If we're going to make claims about what they contain, making them with quotes from the sources is the right way to do it, giving a picture of what who said when and where, how much unity they have on a subject, how much diversity.

[JohnH]

I've noticed that a lot of otherwise wholesome people make claims that the early church's practice and belief just happen to be the same as their own desired beliefs and practices, emphasise evidence to support that, and ignore evidence to the contrary.

This also happens with Anabaptism, such as the hobby that many plain Anabaptists have of claiming 16th-century Anabaptists had a stance against divorce & remarriage or that they wore "plain" clothes.

[ken_sylvania]

I've noticed that a lot of otherwise wholesome people make claims that the early church's practice and belief just happen to be the same as their own desired beliefs and practices, emphasise evidence to support that, and ignore evidence to the contrary.

This also happens with Anabaptism, such as the hobby that many plain Anabaptists have of claiming 16th-century Anabaptists had a stance against divorce & remarriage or that they wore "plain" clothes.

How about the hobby that some have of claiming that claiming 16th-century Anabaptists allowed divorce & remarriage or that they didn't wear "plain" clothes?

[JohnH]

How about the hobby that some have of claiming that claiming 16th-century Anabaptists allowed divorce & remarriage or that they didn't wear "plain" clothes?

We have enough information to know what some of them thought about that exact thing; Michael Sattler, for example, laid out when he thought D&R was acceptable. Early Anabaptists didn't seem to be concerned much about clothing from a religious perspective at all. There is just barely anything written about it.

[ken_sylvania]

How about the hobby that some have of claiming that claiming 16th-century Anabaptists allowed divorce & remarriage or that they didn't wear "plain" clothes?

We have enough information to know what some of them thought about that exact thing; Michael Sattler, for example, laid out when he thought D&R was acceptable. Early Anabaptists didn't seem to be concerned much about clothing from a religious perspective at all. There is just barely anything written about it.

Uh-huh. Fascinating how that works, isn't it.

[JohnH]

How about the hobby that some have of claiming that claiming 16th-century Anabaptists allowed divorce & remarriage or that they didn't wear "plain" clothes?

We have enough information to know what some of them thought about that exact thing; Michael Sattler, for example, laid out when he thought D&R was acceptable. Early Anabaptists didn't seem to be concerned much about clothing from a religious perspective at all. There is just barely anything written about it.

Uh-huh. Fascinating how that works, isn't it.

I used to hold more of the "standard" conservative Anabaptist views, and often looked to early writings for confirmation bias. I was repeatedly disappointed, which eventually led to me changing my views.

I personally "like" the idea of "plain dress" but have a very difficult time justifying it from either the scripture or from history.

[ken_sylvania]

We have enough information to know what some of them thought about that exact thing; Michael Sattler, for example, laid out when he thought D&R was acceptable. Early Anabaptists didn't seem to be concerned much about clothing from a religious perspective at all. There is just barely anything written about it.

Uh-huh. Fascinating how that works, isn't it.

I used to hold more of the "standard" conservative Anabaptist views, and often looked to early writings for confirmation bias. I was repeatedly disappointed, which eventually led to me changing my views.

I personally "like" the idea of "plain dress" but have a very difficult time justifying it from either the scripture or from history.

FWIW I don't look to early Anabaptist teaching to justify/confirm plain dress, etc. either.