Wednesday, March 14, 2007

HISTORICITY OF INFANT BAPTISM DOUBTFUL

As I have listened once again and studied up once again on paedobaptistic arguments, the area of history, at least, seems to call into question the paedobaptist view. David Wright, who is professor of Patristic and Reformed Christianity at the University of Edinburgh (and, I might add, a paedobaptist), warns us against the dangers of trying to use the historical record as one of the proofs for infant baptism. I will let my readers click on the link to read his excellent article:

www.baptism.org.uk/wright.htm


Also, two articles on the Triablogue website I thought were helpful in this regard as well:

www.triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/02/patristic-rejection-of-infant-baptism.html

and

www.triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/03/history-of-infant-baptism.html

Please read the articles, but they make the point that infant baptism was not the common practice of the church until well into the sixth century, and did not even show up until the second century (although it may had been around in small spurts before Tertullian).

The case is also made that modern historical scholarship is admitting (even admitted by paedobaptists) that credobaptism seems to have been the apostolic practice.

The articles certainly help shed some light on the question at hand.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Where is the historical practice of modern, reformed, covenantal credo baptism to be found in history?

Nathan said...

"History" shows that the apostles were all for Craedobaptism eh? I have never heard of a PB basing his entire defense of PB on the early church practice of it, except for Sproul, but who cares bout' him anyways? It is really annoying. Master's College teaches that the only argument for Paedobaptism is the church tradition, and I think that that is total BS (Baptist Shiites). The argument for Paedobaptism lies in their belief of the continuity of Scripture, namely in the Covenants, and the fact that Jesus Himself was baptized as an infant. Basing an argument for PB on the historicity of the early church is incredulous. How about basing it on the practice of God's people from mid-Genesis. I have come to this point in my life where when I am asked 15 times a day why I immerse infants(sigh*)...I just tell them that God tells me to in my dreams...and then I speak in tongues, to my church of homosexual Christians...of which my cousin Hilary is the Pastor...and then we celebrate by drinking the blood and eating the body of Christ, literally.
No, but really, I am weary with battle scars...hit me back Josh. Immerse me in consolance.

Josh Brisby said...

Nate,

Good to hear from you, even if you do have a fiery keyboard. :0)

I haven't heard paedobaptists argue that Jesus was baptized as an infant before. What case would you make for this?

I am sorry that you are weary with battle scars. I would like to give you a call on your cell. Perhaps we can encourage each other.

Your Servant In Christ,
Josh Brisby

Nathan said...

lol. I forgot to put a ": )" by that comment. I was simply referring to His circumcision. It was more of a joke, really. I have no desire to start this up. My cell is (619)213-8566. Call me anytime. How are Angela, Gabriel, Aaron, and your daughter doing? I can't remember the name of wee little girl.

Anonymous said...

Josh,
Is not the argument put forth from Modalist that Trinatarianism wasnt an early church belief until Tertuellian? Paedo Baptism dates back as far as Trinatarian theology, right?

Josh Brisby said...

Anonymous,

Modalists make that claim, but, as shown in Ankerberg and Weldon's Knowing the Truth About the Trinity, the Trinity was spoken of before Tertullian, even in the first century. I refer you to that excellent booklet.

--Josh

Anonymous said...

Josh,

I think anonymous has a point. None of those early quotes are things Modalists wouldn't agree with. I've read them. It seems you'd have to grant modalists the same argument against the trinity as your argument against the paedobaptist.