This discussion is for mature Christians who can handle really thinking through their views.

First I would like to say that I do no believe in infant baptism. I am, however, interested in the issue of baptism. I am also interested in seeing how the teaching of the Bibel fits with the beliefs of the Christians in the early years of Christianity

The following selection is taken from an article in a Reformed Journal at

The arguments from Polycarp and Justin seem rather weak, but what are your views ontehr est of them.

Issues, Etc. Journal - Spring 1997 - Vol. 2 No. 3

Infant Baptism in Early Church History

by Dennis Kastens

From the beginning of New Testament Christianity at the Feast of Pentecost (Acts 2: 38-39) to our time, unbroken and uninterrupted; the church has baptized babies. Entire households (Jewish, proselytes and Gentiles) were baptized by Christ’s original 12 Apostles (I Corinthians 1: 16; Acts 11: 14, 16: 15, 33, 18: 8) and that practice has continued with each generation.

The Early Church

Polycarp (69-155), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant. This enabled him to say at his martyrdom. "Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 9: 3). Justin Martyr (100 - 166) of the next generation states about the year 150, "Many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples since childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years" (Apology 1: 15). Further, in his Dialog with Trypho the Jew, Justin Martyr states that Baptism is the circumcision of the New Testament.

Irenaeus (130 - 200), some 35 years later in 185, writes in Against Heresies II 22: 4 that Jesus "came to save all through means of Himself - all. I say, who through him are born again to God - infants and children, boys and youth, and old men."

Church Councils and Apologists

Similar expressions are found in succeeding generations by Origen (185 - 254) and Cyprian (215 - 258) who reflect the consensus voiced at the Council of Carthage in 254. The 66 bishops said: "We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God..... especially infants. . . those newly born." Preceding this council, Origen wrote in his (Commentary on Romans 5: 9: "For this also it was that the church had from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants. For they to whom the divine mysteries were committed knew that there is in all persons a natural pollution of sin which must be done away by water and the Spirit."

Elsewhere Origen wrote in his Homily on Luke 14: "Infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins. Cyprian’s reply to a country bishop, Fidus, who wrote him regarding the Baptism of infants, is even more explicit. Should we wait until the eighth day as did the Jews in circumcision? No, the child should be baptized as soon as it is born (To Fidus 1: 2).

To prevent misunderstanding by rural bishops, perhaps not as well-schooled as other or even new to the faith, the Sixteenth Council of Carthage in 418 unequivocally stated: "If any man says that newborn children need not be baptized . . . let him be anathema."

Augustine

Augustine (354 - 430), writing about this time in De Genesi Ad Literam, X: 39, declares, "The custom of our mother church in baptizing infants must not be . . . accounted needless, nor believed to be other than a tradition of the apostles."

He further states, "If you wish to be a Christian, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin." And again, "Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without participation in His sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise the), cannot possibly be vivified in Christ."**************** ***** end quoted material

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2001

Answers

Seem rather weak?? Let's take a look at what the Word has to say...

Romans 10: 13 For, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." 14 But how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him? 15 And how are they to proclaim him unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!" 16 But not all have obeyed the good news; for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?" 17 So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.

Can they call on Him if they do not believe? Can they believe in one if they have not heard about Him? Does an infant have the capability to hear and understand the gospel? Not all have obeyed the good news… can an infant obey the good news? Faith comes from hearing the word… Does an infant have faith?

Luke 13:3…but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. Can an infant repent?

Ephesians 5:17…do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. This is just one of but many verses on understanding what the will of the Lord is. A person must be able to understand/comprehend the will of God in order to do His will, something that is beyond an infant or a young child.

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2001

"""From the beginning of New Testament Christianity at the Feast of Pentecost (Acts 2: 38-39) to our time, unbroken and uninterrupted; the church has baptized babies. Entire households (Jewish, proselytes and Gentiles) were baptized by ChristÂ’s original 12 Apostles (I Corinthians 1: 16; Acts 11: 14, 16: 15, 33, 18: 8) and that practice has continued with each generation."""

First, there is no record, in the New Testament or out of it, that babies were baptized in New Testament times. To say, "since an entire household was baptised then so were the babies" is to assume that there were babies where there may well have been none. If all my household were to be baptised today, even including my extended family of aunts, uncles, cousins, and their families, all at once, not one baby would be baptised because there is not one baby in the extended family at this time. To say that these passages indicate the baptism of babies is to assume much more than can be reasonably asserted, based on what the passages say.

"""Polycarp (69-155), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant. This enabled him to say at his martyrdom. "Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 9: 3). Justin Martyr (100 - 166) of the next generation states about the year 150, "Many, both men and women, who have been ChristÂ’s disciples since childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years" (Apology 1: 15)."""

There is no record of Polycarp being baptised as an infant. To say that one has served the Lord all one's life is NOT necessarily to claim infant baptism. I can easily say, "I've loved barbecue all my life", and here in North Carolina, almost everyone around would so, "So have I." But that clearly does not mean that I loved barbecue as a newborn baby. A figure of speech must be understood as it is commonly understood in general conversation, unless there is compelling reason to do otherwise.

"""Justin Martyr (100 - 166) of the next generation states about the year 150, "Many, both men and women, who have been ChristÂ’s disciples since childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years" (Apology 1: 15)."""

Again, to say this does not necessarily indicate baptism as an infant. The above example shows how the language is used.

"""Further, in his Dialog with Trypho the Jew, Justin Martyr states that Baptism is the circumcision of the New Testament."""

There is a certain analogy between circumsion and baptism, I believe. But analogies by their nature are not to be taken to silly extremes. For example, circumcision was done only to male children. Shall we then baptise only males? Of course not. there is also the fact that the above quote is not scripture, but the opinion of the writer, and therefore is to be accepted only as far as it agrees with scripture. Which is not at all, as far as infant baptism is concerned.

"""Irenaeus (130 - 200), some 35 years later in 185, writes in Against Heresies II 22: 4 that Jesus "came to save all through means of Himself - all. I say, who through him are born again to God - infants and children, boys and youth, and old men.""""

Again, the words of a man, not the words of scripture, and the words of a man speaking in a very general sense. Notice that he left out women. Does that mean that Irenaeus did not think that Jesus came to save women? Of course not.

As far as church councils, Origen and Augustine -- lovely men, I'm sure, but just that -- men, who sometimes wrote and said things that were mistaken. They clearly do not agree with scripture on this issue. Put the weight of an argument on the scriptures, rather than on those writing about them, and you will be going the true way.

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2001