Payton, Jr, Getting the Reformation Wrong , pp. Baptists, rather, are the spiritual heirs of the English Reformation of the 16thth centuries. As such, the 17th century theology of credo-baptism was quite new, even by the timeline of the Reformation. There is no real historical precedent for the view before the 17th century and no place where it was practiced outside of England. In contrast, the paeo-baptist position was practiced and defended biblically and theologically from the onset of the Reformation and in every place where the Reformation spread up to the present day.
To the time before the Reformation: no one disputes that the practice of the ancient and medieval Church was universally paedo-baptist after the time of Augustine.
From the 5th century onward, there is no question as to the universal practice of the Church in baptizing the infants of believing parents. However, in the earliest centuries of the church before Augustine the evidence for infant baptism is scant and many credo-baptists will argue based on this that believers-only baptism was the first practice of the church until Constantine got a hold of things. The Constantine thing is always a red herring.
Almost nothing he is credited or blamed for in the Church is accurate. As I said above, Augustine was the one who closed the book on infant baptism. Constantine himself never weighed in on it and still evidenced the flawed early church baptismal practice in his own life which I will talk about below. Yet the argument for credo-baptism in the early church is not sustained by the historical evidence.
It is true that the writings we have access to today give overwhelming evidence to adult baptism and to many folks delaying their baptisms well into their adult life. However, this evidence for delaying baptism does not support the credo-baptist position for the following reasons. Many of the stories told in the very early church are of converts, and so many were converting from paganism to Christianity that the stories of infant baptism get lost.
The story of the early church is one of conversion. Thus the baptism of professing believers is the story told. This is not therefore evidence against infant baptism or for believers-only baptism. It is evidence that people were converting to Christianity in droves and being baptized. If the Early Church was credo-baptist by conviction, you would expect much polemic against infant baptism.
One specific example is found in the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus late 2nd to early 3rd c. In this text a baptismal rite is described that includes infants. There are other examples of this in the early church. The practices of baptism in the early church are covered in much greater detail in unit 5 of the Church History online course , taught by Everett Ferguson.
Sign up today and get a limited-time introductory discount. To learn how you can offer this online course at your church or school, contact us today! Categories New Testament Online Courses. But was immersion the only way? If you look at the accounts of baptism in the early church, two things are clear: First, in the early church, baptism was an extended event.
What about infant baptism? Keep learning The practices of baptism in the early church are covered in much greater detail in unit 5 of the Church History online course , taught by Everett Ferguson. ZA Blog Books and articles that equip you for deeply biblical thinking and ministry. Your form could not be submitted. Please check errors and resubmit.
Subscribe to the Blog Get expert commentary on biblical languages, fresh explorations in theology, hand-picked book excerpts, author videos, and info on limited-time sales. Email Address. The fact is, the Bible gives us no way of bringing anyone to Jesus apart from baptism. Does this mean unbelieving spouses should be baptized? Of course not. But infants have no such impediment. The kingdom is theirs, Jesus says, and they should be brought to him; and this means baptism.
Thus, like circumcision, baptism can be given to children as well as adults. The difference is that circumcision was powerless to save Gal. The first explicit evidence of children of believing households being baptized comes from the early Church—where infant baptism was uniformly upheld and regarded as apostolic.
In fact, the only reported controversy on the subject was a third-century debate whether or not to delay baptism until the eighth day after birth, like its Old Testament equivalent, circumcision! See quotation from Cyprian, below; compare Leviticus —3. Consider, too, that Fathers raised in Christian homes such as Irenaeus would hardly have upheld infant baptism as apostolic if their own baptisms had been deferred until the age of reason. Since he was born in a Christian home in Smyrna around the year , this means he was probably baptized around He was also probably baptized by the bishop of Smyrna at that time—Polycarp, a personal disciple of the apostle John, who had died only a few decades before.
0コメント