Just to note that yesterday we observed the commemoration of St. Justin, Martyr. The Treasury had an outstanding reading for June 1st from St. Justin's own hand. Great stuff on early liturgy (that sounds a LOT like liturgy still today!).
Do you think that Justin Martyr adhered to paedobaptism given his comment in the First Apology:
CHAP. LXI.--CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.(6) Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above;(7) he thus speaks: "Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it."(8)
And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the layer the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed.
I would be interested in your comments on this quote. My initial thoughts are that Justin seems to hold to the baptism of those who can choose to follow Jesus. When he says, "As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them," he seems to have in mind the baptism of older people, at least reasoning and understanding children, but not infants.
As in all missionary situations, there was a stress on the baptism of adults - but we know from elsewhere that children were also being baptized with their parents, whole families brought in at once.
So just from this text, you would say that Justin does not support or even know about infant baptism?
Given Justin's concern to report every Christian practice faithfully, I would expect him to mention the little detail that whole households are brought into the church. Wouldn't you?
I'm not trying to be an antagonist here, but what other places do we know of whole households being baptized in the second century?
I hope we can continue this dialogue because I am interested in this issue.
No, I wouldn't say that at all. I'd say that infants were not the primary thing in his view. He certainly says nothing that precludes their inclusion in Holy Baptism - the Church has always asked infants to confess the faith, the same as she asks adults. She baptizes infants as though they were adults and adults as though they were infants. But I'm on vacation at the moment, so I'll have to get back to you later.
I'm just wondering how an infant is persuaded and instructed to pray and fast.
Even more interesting is Justin's omission of the bringing in of the household since he is concerned not to omit anything from his explanation of Christian belief and practice.
We can resume this discussion when you get back from vacation. Enjoy it!
Have you considered the implications of Justin's First Apology 15:6?
Add to that how St. Irenaeus could confess that Christ came to save all who are born anew to God - which happens through baptism- including infants! Against Heresies 2:22:4
St. Polycarp at his execution claimed to have serve Christ for 86 years, indicating baptism as a child.
And certainly 75 years after St. Justin, we have Hippolytus describing the always conservative practice of the Roman Church including baptizing the children, who if they are too young to answer for themselves, have their parents or sponsors answer for them.
I'm pretty sure the discussion is over infant baptism, not child baptism.
Therefore, Justin's comments in 15.6 do not help your case. I hold that a young child can confess the faith, be instructed to pray and fast, and be persuaded of the truth of the gospel and be baptized in the presence of witnesses in accordance with Justin's description of baptism later in the Apology. I do not think an infant fits this description.
Furthermore, the argument from Polycarp is a silencio. We do not know when he was baptized, therefore he probably is not the best example.
I cannot seem to find the text of Hippolytus, but I do know of the debate in interpretation of the text you are referring to.
Also, you will have to explain what you think Irenaeus is saying in II.22.4. I do not see any reference to the baptism of infants in that text. I see a statement that may open the door for infant salvation, but I see no reference to baptism there.
And since we are adducing evidence from the early fathers, what is your view of Didache 7? Do you also interpret this text in a missionary context, thus infant baptism is not the focus and so unmentioned?
As a Lutheran, I believe that even the infant in arms DOES confess the faith, and DOES believe and DOES repent - even though not in the same manner as an adult.
In our liturgy, I ask whoever is being baptized (regardless of age):
Do you believe in God the Father? If the child can answer for himself, he does; but if an infant, then the parents and sponsors answer: "YES! I believe in God the Father almighty..."
All the way through the Creed. And this follows the renunciation of Satan: "Do you renounce the Devil? All his works? All his ways?"
So we (and I believe St. Justin) would have no qualms over speaking of the infant's believing and confessing and repenting.
St. Polycarp is a stronger argument than you admit. To speak of being a follower or disciple of Christ in the early Church was invariably linked to being baptized.
Here is the text from Hippolytus. It is from chapter XXI, par. 1-5
"And at the hour when the cock crows they shall first of all pray over the water. When they come to the water, let the water be pure and flowing. And they shall put off their clothes. And they shall baptize the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family. And next they shall baptize the grown men; and last the women."
Are you perchance familiar with Origen's famous words in his second volume on Luke? "Little children are baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Of what sins? Or when did they commit them? Or how can any reason be given for baptizing them, but only according to that sense which we mentioned a little before: 'none is free from pollution, though his life be but the length of one day on earth.' And for that reason infants are baptized, because by the sacrament of baptism the pollution of our birth is taken away." He also wrote in Homily 8 on Leviticus: "Besides all this, it may be learnt, since the baptism of the Church is given for the remission of sins; why, according to the usage of the Church it is likewise given to little children; whereas, if there was nothing in little children that needed remission and mercy, the grace of baptism would be superfluous to them."
I really don't have time to run through all the arguments for infant baptism - they are legion - but I would recommend an out of print book, which, if you can get your hands on, you might find helpful in researching this topic:
Infant Baptism tested by Scripture and History or The Infant's Claim to Churchmembership Defended and Established, on Testimony Scriptural and Historical by William Hodges, A.M. who was rector of the famous Bruton Parish in Williamsburg. It was published in 1844 in Philadelphia by Stavely and McCalla. He adduces much helpful data.
Thanks for adducing these references and for your time.
I know what Lutherans believe and practice in this regard. I have witnessed it firsthand, and there are many aspects about the baptismal service that I accede with. Confession is a crucial aspect to baptism (1 Tim. 6:10ff; Heb. 10:22 et al.) However, I see no evidence IN BAPTISM ACCOUNTS [i know about the paralytic in the gospels] for confession by proxy. Therefore the child must confess with his/her own lips at the time of baptism.
I think you are either playing fast and loose with the text of Justin or you are assuming that since infant baptism goes all the way back to the apostles, Justin's words must affirm the practice. The only aspect that the proxy view can't account for in the words of Justin is the persuasion of the individual. The individual must be convinced of the truth, and then brought and taught etc.
The problem is that none of the second century sources that we have mention the practice of infant baptism. The Didache, Justin, Melito, etc. The first mention of it is Tertullian, who seems to be arguing against a practice de novo.
I realize that Origen and others in the third century defend the practice, but that is to be expected. Even still the practice of infant baptism is not a universal practice until the fifth century. For example, I'm sure you are aware that Gregory of Nyssa was not baptized until c. 30 years old, and he was the son of a bishop.
Thanks for the book reference. Of course there are more recent treatments of the subject. Kurt Aland's book is a fine work. Also, the most recent work which I have only been able to skim is by Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church. He concludes that there is no evidence of infant baptism in the second century among many other interesting conclusions regarding mode and meaning of baptism.
Thanks again for your time. You have given some new things to think about in regard to baptism in the early church.
PS If I remember right, παιδιον/α is also used in Matt. 21 in the triumphal entry of Jesus where the children are running around and saying Hosanna to the son of David.
The word does not necessarily mean those under two, but it can mean that as in Matt. 2.
No, of course it doesn't necessarily mean infants, but it certainly does not preclude them - so Justin's earlier statement could certainly include them.
It is a fact beyond dispute that by the 4th century some catechumens procrastinated till adulthood or even near to death to receive Baptism. Throughout this period the Baptism of infants is attested everywhere.
Tertullian criticizes the practice - but he nowhere says that the Church does do it. His assumption is that it was happening and he didn't really see the need for it (having a weakened doctrine of original sin).
Origen and Augustine and numerous others testify that they had this as a custom they received from the Apostles.
Here's a letter than a godfather wrote to his godchild upon the occasion of the infant's baptism. It puts into beautiful words what we hold:
Dearest Mary,
Today God has chosen you to be part of His family. Through your baptism, our Lord has come to you in the water and declared that you are His child and that He will be your God. A greater day than this shall never be for you, because today you have become one of God's saints.
As you grow in years, you will be assaulted on all sides by people who will want to change your faith in the God who has chosen you today. There will be unbelieving people who will tell you that God does not exist or that He has abandoned this world and left us to fend for ourselves. There also will be people who strongly profess Christianity and who try to persuade you that you must accept God into your life - as if you had never known Him or had ever been accepted by Him. They will urge God upon you as though He were some product you must possess before any of His mighty acts become effective for you.
Our dear Mary, because of what has happened in your life today, you will be able to tell these people: 'God does exist, and He has shown Himself to me by coming to me in my baptism and graciously claiming me as His own.'
Rejoice and be glad, Mary, for God has promised to love you always. Each day of your life, He will be with you through prayer and through the Sacraments of His Church. So we pray that God's Spirit will guide you as you grow in faith and live in hope.
P.S. The focus is clearly on: is Baptism something WE do for God or is it something in which GOD does something for us? He can give faith, repentance, assent, you name it - and also to a little child!
παιδιον means child or infant, and the context of the word in a particular author's thought must decide. Matthew uses the word to refer to infants in chapter 2 but older children in 21.
In the case of Justin's 1 Apology there are two major problems with your view: 1) Despite the fact that Justin says that he is carefully recording church practice and baptism and he takes particular care NOT to OMIT anything, you continue to put words in his mouth. If the church was baptizing whole households and Justin knew about it but did not record it, then he has transgressed his own standard of reporting. I'm sorry, but Justin's silence about infant baptism is meaningful since he has claimed that he has not left anything out of his description of Christian practice. 2) Since Justin does not mention the practice of infant baptism and his positive description of baptism seems to include only individuals who are able to be persuaded and accept the truth and be instructed, his testimony precludes infant baptism. I don't know of anyone who claims that Justin's words can be read as you are reading them.
Tertullian is the first to mention the practice of infant baptism. Do we agree on this fact? The question arises then, is Tertullian arguing against infant baptism as an established practice of the church or is he arguing against infant baptism as an innovation of apostolic teaching?
I read the evidence in the latter sense. Tertullian treats infant baptism as a new practice, and again there is no explicit evidence of infant baptism in the second century sources, which seems to confirm my reading of Tertullian. At least you have not adduced a clear case in the second century. Rather, the Didache and Justin are two sources which present Church practice, and neither of these sources say anything about infant baptism.
How are we not agreed on this fact yet?
The letter you cite is interesting. What is the date of the letter? Is it dated to the second century? I'm not concerned with Origen and Augustine's testimony. Both of these are trying to legitimize the practice so it is easy for them to claim that their practice can be traced to the apostles. If this fact was so obvious, then why can we not trace it back to the period immediately following the apostles in sources which claim to be presenting apostolic practice without omission?
Now, I'm not sure we want to launch into the whole debate on this particular thread.
I will only say that baptists do not believe that baptism is something they do for God, as if this is something we do to gain God's favor. Many baptists are Calvinists, and we claim that God's grace supersedes any actions of our own. If we come to Christ and Christ comes to us, it is only sola gratia. We believe that by baptism accompanied by faith, God initiates us into his church. Some of us believe that we repent and are baptized for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). So of course, I believe God does something for us in baptism.
However, this does not exclude our responsibility to the text of Scripture and to the earliest church tradition. When I read the NT and the second century documents, I do not see the practice of infant baptism anywhere. Maybe it was happening, but there is no record of it.
Therefore, only the baptism accompanied by a confession of the faith and repentance is effectual. Yes, baptism is the place where God meets us, but 1 Peter 3:21 clearly says that baptism is a pledge/request TO God for a clean conscience. Most people miss this fact in the text. Baptism is εις θεον in 1 Peter 3:21.
It clarifies your position. And your position is in error. :)
It is an argument from silence to suppose that Tertullian is opposing a novum. If he were, then would not that be his strongest argument to put forward? But he does not say it is novel; he says he doesn't see the need for the practice.
The earliest document that supports infant baptism is, in my opinion, the NT. St. Peter specifically extends the invitation to repentance and baptism and the promise of the Spirit by saying: "the promise is for you and your children." The NT also explicitly witnesses the Baptisms of whole households.
If you are a baptist (I take it you are), I'd invite further study of the topic, for many is the person who through study of the evidence has realized that IF infant baptism were a novelty introduced in the 3rd or 4th century, there would have been a hue and cry over it, as there was over EVERY novelty that came along (consider when the use of icons was introduced, for example, and the numerous writings about this). Yet there is only silence - can you produce a single father, any one, who proclaims that it is a novelty? I can produce numerous fathers who hold it is a custom handed down from the Apostles.
P.S. Also of interest is that if it were a novelty, Augustine's opponent Pelagius would have had one powerful weapon in hand against him; but though he disagrees with Augustine on original sin, he does not dispute the apostolic foundations of baptizing the infants.
First off, you have not answered any of my questions, but that is ok because I will give you another chance :).
I will have to leave two comments since this is a little long .
You closed your comment with a challenge. You can adduce patristic testimony claiming that infant baptism can be traced back to the apostles. Ok. When does that patristic testimony begin? Your silence indicates to me that you realize your evidence does not begin till sometime in the third century or later. Even this evidence shows a non-universal practice in the 3rd and 4th centuries, which indicates that infant baptism is not handed down directly from the apostles, in say, the same way that the Lord's Supper was handed down, for I know of know dispute over whether they should or shouldn't partake of the Supper in the same centuries. I'm not going to put a matter of practice like infant baptism on the same level as the sorting out of the Trinity or some other such doctrine. They were either baptizing infants in accordance with the apostles or they weren't.
Justin and the Didache do not have to call infant baptism novum because the practice does not exist during their time. Therefore, until you synthesize these documents into your reply, you continue to mis-frame the question :).
Regarding Tertullian again. He does not call infant baptism novum, but how else can one read him? On your reading of him, he would simply be casting aside the apostolic tradition of infant baptism cavalierly. This is a poor reading of Tertullian and his view of tradition.
Rather, I think one has to assume my reading of Justin before coming to Tertullian. Tertullian assumes a credobaptism which requires active acceptance of the gospel and commitment to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Let me offer another example from Tertulian, which shows his commitment to tradition. In The Chaplet,3, he says, "And how long shall we draw the saw to and fro through this line, when we have an ancient practice, which by anticipation has made for us the state, i.e., of the question? If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed it. For how can anything come into use, if it has not first been handed down? Even in pleading tradition, written authority, you say, must be demanded. Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should not be admitted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be admitted, if no cases of other practices which, without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone, and the countenance thereafter of custom, affords us any precedent. To deal with this matter briefly, I shall begin with baptism. [372] When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel."
Notice that the tradition handed down refers to the thrice immersion of baptism. He recognizes that this is not in Scripture, but they do it simply because it is a long standing tradition.
What I want to conclude is that Tertullian defends and maintains the practice of triple immersion on the grounds of tradition, while he overtly rejects infant baptism (On Baptism, 18) without making any similar argument for it.
Therefore, I would conclude that Tertullian does NOT KNOW that infant baptism is commanded by the Lord or apostles OR that it is part of long standing tradition. Tertullian treats infant baptism as a new practice, which has no ancient pedigree, while he treats triple immersion and other such practices as on the level of long standing tradition and therefore worthy of practice.
This reading makes good sense of Tertullian and his relationship to the ealier sources of Justin and Didache.
So, no, Tertullian does not come out and say, "Infant baptism is novum", but he dismisses the practice without defense of it from either Scripture or tradition, which he does not do with the tradition of triple immersion for example.
Regarding the NT. Of course anyone can say they think the NT supports their case. Acts 2:39 can only be quoted in full here. Peter says, "the promise is for you and your children AND for those who are afar off, all whom our Lord will call." In my opinion this text no more supports the privileged status of believer's children than it does the Gentiles who are afar off. Furthermore, how do you know that God has called all children? Peter ultimately leaves to whom the promise pertains, to God's sovereignty.
"Household" or οικος texts have their problems, namely, they contribute to an a silencio argument. I have been thinking about Job 1:10 in this connection recently. There we have a reference to Job and his house. However, here is one explicit example of the so called οικος formula where we know for sure there are no infants. Job's sons and daughters are all grown and attending drinking parties. Therefore, here is at least one example where the οικος formula does not indicate the presence of infants in the house. How many more places does this so called formula occur and there are no infants present in the household?
Again, thanks for taking the time. I don't mind dialoguing as long as you don't.
I don't mind dialoging, but don't really have the time for this extended discussion at the moment - not being in seminary and having the responsibility of a parish!
The 3rd and 4th century fathers are indeed the ones who claim it is an apostolic tradition. And precisely if it was a novum, there would be howls of protest. But there are none.
Tertullian is a witness TO infant baptism, though he confesses he doesn't see the theological reason for it. Would he speak that way about something he was taught came from the Apostles? Well, I know many people who confess that they do not see the rationale for the head covering that Paul elicits in 1 Cor. 11, but don't dispute that the Apostle DID mandate it.
You bring up the Lord's Supper. That's interesting too because of what Justin teaches about it. Do you agree with him that when the prayer of thanks is offered by the Word of the prayer which is from him, that is it the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus Ap. 1:66.2?
Let me affirm again: as a Lutheran I also assume credobaptism. There is no other kind. I just know that God can give faith to an infant, as Ps 22:9 puts it: "You made me trust in you *on my mother's breast.*"
Certainly the three-fold application of water is an ancient practice that has universal attestation in the tradition - once for each of the persons of the Holy Trinity who are named. That Tertullian does not make the explicit argument that the baptism of infants should be retained *may* show that he did not regard it as part of apostolic tradition, but he doesn't reject it per se. He simply confesses he thinks it rather a waste. Like many in his generation, he thought of Baptism only working BACKWARDS, not also forwards.
Does Tertullian anywhere suggest (as the anabaptists do) that such a Baptism was not efficacious? That it should be REPEATED? That those so baptized were not really baptized? NO. He assumes that it has indeed washed away the little ones sins - a pity that they didn't have more sins accumulated to have washed away, he thinks.
You must be a Calvinist sort of Baptist to ask: how do you know that God called all the children? We know this because "the Lord wills ALL to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth" and "he is not willing that any should perish" and He specifically commands: "Let the little children come to me."
Just as choice is not involved in physical birth, so it is not involved in spiritual rebirth. You didn't create your physical life, but you can either nurture it or destroy it - you have the power to do either. So with your spiritual life - in regeneration it comes as total gift without your choosing or doing, and then it enlivens your choosing and doing in spiritual matters.
St. Peter joyfully announces on Pentecost that the gift of the Spirit which the Apostles received with wind and flame is for the crowd and for their children and for all who are far off - not just for those in that place. God calls ALL to Baptism because God wants to save ALL.
No one argues that oikos means that a household HAS to include infants, but it would be odd to have NO infants in any of the houses where whole families were brought to the Lord through Baptism, no?
But I really don't have time to continue further. I would ask you in all earnestness to bring this matter before God in prayer, to consider the witness of His Church, to search the Scriptures to see what the Holy Spirit teaches there about Baptism's power and working. I can't convince you, but I pray He will. I commend you into the hands of Him whom our Savior promised to us to "lead us into all truth." The Baptists have much truth, but the Scriptures teach more and the tradition of the holy Church witnesses to it.
I understand time constraints. I guess I will give the last word and then we can part for now :).
Tertullian says, "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." This is not a theological preference for him. On principle he denies infants the waters of baptism. He goes on, "For why is it necessary—if (baptism itself) is not so necessary..." Is baptism efficacious for Tertullian, yes and no. He concludes chapter 18 of On Baptism with this: If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation. Of course his view of child innocence is the reason for delay, but for Tertullian, faith alone secures salvation.
I think we would both agree with him here. I came to this conclusion while reading Lutheran sources: Baptism is not necessary for salvation, but it is normative for it. God can save an infant who dies before baptism by giving it faith if he chooses, but baptism is not necessary for salvation in this case.
I still think your reading of Tertullian is wrong. I don't know what his view of head coverings is, do you? My point is that you have Tertullian cavalierly dismissing infant baptism on principle, while I don't think Tertullian dismisses ancient tradition in this way. Rather, since we know he is PRO traditions and maintains them, he would keep infant baptism if he knew of it as an ancient practice. But remember, the sources which precede him do not record anything of this practice either :).
How interesting would our discussion of the Lord's Supper be :)? Here, also, I am a Calvinist and I will leave it at that :).
References to breast feeding are irrelevant in my opinion, since ancient breast feeding practices can indicate a child from the ages of 0-5. Indeed, read in Second Macc. 7, where the mother confesses that she gave her son to suck for three years. Often times it was much later than that. Maybe the Psalmist believed as an infant. I don't deny that infants can believe by God's grace. What I deny is that they DO in each case, when they are baptized.
Again, Tertullian on principle rejects infant baptism. If it was tradition, he would call it such and he would not dismiss it so simply.
I am a Calvinist, and here we have a major disagreement which would occupy too much space. Suffice it to say, I believe that God's calling is efficacious and that those he calls, he also justifies and that those he justifies he also glorifies (Rom. 8:30). He does not simply resuscitate a person's will so that he can choose one way or another. That is free will rationalism or semi-Pelagian, and not Augustinian in the slightest.
Let the little children come. I love Tertullian on this verse in On Baptism 18: 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...
I plan to post on my own blog on Acts 2:38-41. You have missed the image of "those who are afar off." Read Isaiah 57:19 and Paul's allusion to it in Eph. 2. The reference is to Gentiles, not other Jewish families, which is completely in accord with the book of Acts. Thus the promise is for three types of people, the crowd and their children and the Gentiles, and all three of these groups are modified and limited by the relative clause: all whom our Lord will call. What you say about the children, you MUST say about the Gentiles. Otherwise, one is reading one's theology into this text.
Well, the household texts are arguments from silence. That is why some argue that the formula, "he and his house" is a technical phrase which indicates the presence of infants in the house. I simply don't think it works. Maybe there were infants, maybe there weren't.
Mr. Weedon, thanks again for your time and acumen in this discussion. I thank you also for your prayers for me. May the Lord guide us both into all truth by his Spirit as we search the Scriptures and the tradition.
I confess that the first time I read Tertullian's mention of "let the little children" I wondered if he were responding to something that was already in place in the Baptismal liturgy - the Roman liturgy had it early on and thus it remains in our liturgy as well. We read it regardless of whether baptizing a child or an adult. Baptism itself we regard as the preeminent way for children to be allowed to come to the Jesus and not hindered. He has gifts for them to receive!
Just to note that yesterday we observed the commemoration of St. Justin, Martyr. The Treasury had an outstanding reading for June 1st from St. Justin's own hand. Great stuff on early liturgy (that sounds a LOT like liturgy still today!).
Mr. Weedon,
ReplyDeleteDo you think that Justin Martyr adhered to paedobaptism given his comment in the First Apology:
CHAP. LXI.--CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.(6) Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above;(7) he thus speaks: "Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it."(8)
And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the layer the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed.
I would be interested in your comments on this quote. My initial thoughts are that Justin seems to hold to the baptism of those who can choose to follow Jesus. When he says, "As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them," he seems to have in mind the baptism of older people, at least reasoning and understanding children, but not infants.
Would you agree?
As in all missionary situations, there was a stress on the baptism of adults - but we know from elsewhere that children were also being baptized with their parents, whole families brought in at once.
ReplyDeleteMr. Weedon,
ReplyDeleteThanks for responding to my comment.
So just from this text, you would say that Justin does not support or even know about infant baptism?
Given Justin's concern to report every Christian practice faithfully, I would expect him to mention the little detail that whole households are brought into the church. Wouldn't you?
I'm not trying to be an antagonist here, but what other places do we know of whole households being baptized in the second century?
I hope we can continue this dialogue because I am interested in this issue.
John,
ReplyDeleteNo, I wouldn't say that at all. I'd say that infants were not the primary thing in his view. He certainly says nothing that precludes their inclusion in Holy Baptism - the Church has always asked infants to confess the faith, the same as she asks adults. She baptizes infants as though they were adults and adults as though they were infants. But I'm on vacation at the moment, so I'll have to get back to you later.
Mr. Weedon.
ReplyDeleteFair enough.
I'm just wondering how an infant is persuaded and instructed to pray and fast.
Even more interesting is Justin's omission of the bringing in of the household since he is concerned not to omit anything from his explanation of Christian belief and practice.
We can resume this discussion when you get back from vacation. Enjoy it!
Shall I consider this conversation as ended?
ReplyDeleteSorry, John. Just forgot.
ReplyDeleteHave you considered the implications of Justin's First Apology 15:6?
Add to that how St. Irenaeus could confess that Christ came to save all who are born anew to God - which happens through baptism- including infants! Against Heresies 2:22:4
St. Polycarp at his execution claimed to have serve Christ for 86 years, indicating baptism as a child.
And certainly 75 years after St. Justin, we have Hippolytus describing the always conservative practice of the Roman Church including baptizing the children, who if they are too young to answer for themselves, have their parents or sponsors answer for them.
Mr. Weedon,
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure the discussion is over infant baptism, not child baptism.
Therefore, Justin's comments in 15.6 do not help your case. I hold that a young child can confess the faith, be instructed to pray and fast, and be persuaded of the truth of the gospel and be baptized in the presence of witnesses in accordance with Justin's description of baptism later in the Apology. I do not think an infant fits this description.
Furthermore, the argument from Polycarp is a silencio. We do not know when he was baptized, therefore he probably is not the best example.
I cannot seem to find the text of Hippolytus, but I do know of the debate in interpretation of the text you are referring to.
Also, you will have to explain what you think Irenaeus is saying in II.22.4. I do not see any reference to the baptism of infants in that text. I see a statement that may open the door for infant salvation, but I see no reference to baptism there.
And since we are adducing evidence from the early fathers, what is your view of Didache 7? Do you also interpret this text in a missionary context, thus infant baptism is not the focus and so unmentioned?
Thanks for continuing the discussion.
John,
ReplyDeleteAs a Lutheran, I believe that even the infant in arms DOES confess the faith, and DOES believe and DOES repent - even though not in the same manner as an adult.
In our liturgy, I ask whoever is being baptized (regardless of age):
Do you believe in God the Father? If the child can answer for himself, he does; but if an infant, then the parents and sponsors answer: "YES! I believe in God the Father almighty..."
All the way through the Creed. And this follows the renunciation of Satan: "Do you renounce the Devil? All his works? All his ways?"
So we (and I believe St. Justin) would have no qualms over speaking of the infant's believing and confessing and repenting.
St. Polycarp is a stronger argument than you admit. To speak of being a follower or disciple of Christ in the early Church was invariably linked to being baptized.
Here is the text from Hippolytus. It is from chapter XXI, par. 1-5
"And at the hour when the cock crows they shall first of all pray over the water. When they come to the water, let the water be pure and flowing. And they shall put off their clothes. And they shall baptize the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family. And next they shall baptize the grown men; and last the women."
Are you perchance familiar with Origen's famous words in his second volume on Luke?
"Little children are baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Of what sins? Or when did they commit them? Or how can any reason be given for baptizing them, but only according to that sense which we mentioned a little before: 'none is free from pollution, though his life be but the length of one day on earth.' And for that reason infants are baptized, because by the sacrament of baptism the pollution of our birth is taken away." He also wrote in Homily 8 on Leviticus: "Besides all this, it may be learnt, since the baptism of the Church is given for the remission of sins; why, according to the usage of the Church it is likewise given to little children; whereas, if there was nothing in little children that needed remission and mercy, the grace of baptism would be superfluous to them."
I really don't have time to run through all the arguments for infant baptism - they are legion - but I would recommend an out of print book, which, if you can get your hands on, you might find helpful in researching this topic:
Infant Baptism tested by Scripture and History or The Infant's Claim to Churchmembership Defended and Established, on Testimony Scriptural and Historical by William Hodges, A.M. who was rector of the famous Bruton Parish in Williamsburg. It was published in 1844 in Philadelphia by Stavely and McCalla. He adduces much helpful data.
P.S. Note that the word that St. Justin uses is the same that Matthew used in chapter 2 to denote the children 2 and under killed under Herod. FWIW.
ReplyDeleteMr. Weedon,
ReplyDeleteThanks for adducing these references and for your time.
I know what Lutherans believe and practice in this regard. I have witnessed it firsthand, and there are many aspects about the baptismal service that I accede with. Confession is a crucial aspect to baptism (1 Tim. 6:10ff; Heb. 10:22 et al.) However, I see no evidence IN BAPTISM ACCOUNTS [i know about the paralytic in the gospels] for confession by proxy. Therefore the child must confess with his/her own lips at the time of baptism.
I think you are either playing fast and loose with the text of Justin or you are assuming that since infant baptism goes all the way back to the apostles, Justin's words must affirm the practice. The only aspect that the proxy view can't account for in the words of Justin is the persuasion of the individual. The individual must be convinced of the truth, and then brought and taught etc.
The problem is that none of the second century sources that we have mention the practice of infant baptism. The Didache, Justin, Melito, etc. The first mention of it is Tertullian, who seems to be arguing against a practice de novo.
I realize that Origen and others in the third century defend the practice, but that is to be expected. Even still the practice of infant baptism is not a universal practice until the fifth century. For example, I'm sure you are aware that Gregory of Nyssa was not baptized until c. 30 years old, and he was the son of a bishop.
Thanks for the book reference. Of course there are more recent treatments of the subject. Kurt Aland's book is a fine work. Also, the most recent work which I have only been able to skim is by Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church. He concludes that there is no evidence of infant baptism in the second century among many other interesting conclusions regarding mode and meaning of baptism.
Thanks again for your time. You have given some new things to think about in regard to baptism in the early church.
PS If I remember right, παιδιον/α is also used in Matt. 21 in the triumphal entry of Jesus where the children are running around and saying Hosanna to the son of David.
ReplyDeleteThe word does not necessarily mean those under two, but it can mean that as in Matt. 2.
No, of course it doesn't necessarily mean infants, but it certainly does not preclude them - so Justin's earlier statement could certainly include them.
ReplyDeleteIt is a fact beyond dispute that by the 4th century some catechumens procrastinated till adulthood or even near to death to receive Baptism. Throughout this period the Baptism of infants is attested everywhere.
Tertullian criticizes the practice - but he nowhere says that the Church does do it. His assumption is that it was happening and he didn't really see the need for it (having a weakened doctrine of original sin).
Origen and Augustine and numerous others testify that they had this as a custom they received from the Apostles.
Here's a letter than a godfather wrote to his godchild upon the occasion of the infant's baptism. It puts into beautiful words what we hold:
Dearest Mary,
Today God has chosen you to be part of His family. Through your baptism, our Lord has come to you in the water and declared that you are His child and that He will be your God. A greater day than this shall never be for you, because today you have become one of God's saints.
As you grow in years, you will be assaulted on all sides by people who will want to change your faith in the God who has chosen you today. There will be unbelieving people who will tell you that God does not exist or that He has abandoned this world and left us to fend for ourselves. There also will be people who strongly profess Christianity and who try to persuade you that you must accept God into your life - as if you had never known Him or had ever been accepted by Him. They will urge God upon you as though He were some product you must possess before any of His mighty acts become effective for you.
Our dear Mary, because of what has happened in your life today, you will be able to tell these people: 'God does exist, and He has shown Himself to me by coming to me in my baptism and graciously claiming me as His own.'
Rejoice and be glad, Mary, for God has promised to love you always. Each day of your life, He will be with you through prayer and through the Sacraments of His Church. So we pray that God's Spirit will guide you as you grow in faith and live in hope.
Your Godparents
(p. 48,49 *These Are the Sacraments*)
P.S. The focus is clearly on: is Baptism something WE do for God or is it something in which GOD does something for us? He can give faith, repentance, assent, you name it - and also to a little child!
ReplyDeleteOops - Tertullian "nowhere does he say that the Church DOESN'T do it."
ReplyDeleteMr. Weedon,
ReplyDeleteπαιδιον means child or infant, and the context of the word in a particular author's thought must decide. Matthew uses the word to refer to infants in chapter 2 but older children in 21.
In the case of Justin's 1 Apology there are two major problems with your view: 1) Despite the fact that Justin says that he is carefully recording church practice and baptism and he takes particular care NOT to OMIT anything, you continue to put words in his mouth. If the church was baptizing whole households and Justin knew about it but did not record it, then he has transgressed his own standard of reporting. I'm sorry, but Justin's silence about infant baptism is meaningful since he has claimed that he has not left anything out of his description of Christian practice. 2) Since Justin does not mention the practice of infant baptism and his positive description of baptism seems to include only individuals who are able to be persuaded and accept the truth and be instructed, his testimony precludes infant baptism. I don't know of anyone who claims that Justin's words can be read as you are reading them.
Tertullian is the first to mention the practice of infant baptism. Do we agree on this fact? The question arises then, is Tertullian arguing against infant baptism as an established practice of the church or is he arguing against infant baptism as an innovation of apostolic teaching?
I read the evidence in the latter sense. Tertullian treats infant baptism as a new practice, and again there is no explicit evidence of infant baptism in the second century sources, which seems to confirm my reading of Tertullian. At least you have not adduced a clear case in the second century. Rather, the Didache and Justin are two sources which present Church practice, and neither of these sources say anything about infant baptism.
How are we not agreed on this fact yet?
The letter you cite is interesting. What is the date of the letter? Is it dated to the second century? I'm not concerned with Origen and Augustine's testimony. Both of these are trying to legitimize the practice so it is easy for them to claim that their practice can be traced to the apostles. If this fact was so obvious, then why can we not trace it back to the period immediately following the apostles in sources which claim to be presenting apostolic practice without omission?
Now, I'm not sure we want to launch into the whole debate on this particular thread.
I will only say that baptists do not believe that baptism is something they do for God, as if this is something we do to gain God's favor. Many baptists are Calvinists, and we claim that God's grace supersedes any actions of our own. If we come to Christ and Christ comes to us, it is only sola gratia. We believe that by baptism accompanied by faith, God initiates us into his church. Some of us believe that we repent and are baptized for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). So of course, I believe God does something for us in baptism.
However, this does not exclude our responsibility to the text of Scripture and to the earliest church tradition. When I read the NT and the second century documents, I do not see the practice of infant baptism anywhere. Maybe it was happening, but there is no record of it.
Therefore, only the baptism accompanied by a confession of the faith and repentance is effectual. Yes, baptism is the place where God meets us, but 1 Peter 3:21 clearly says that baptism is a pledge/request TO God for a clean conscience. Most people miss this fact in the text. Baptism is εις θεον in 1 Peter 3:21.
Does this clarify my position any?
It clarifies your position. And your position is in error. :)
ReplyDeleteIt is an argument from silence to suppose that Tertullian is opposing a novum. If he were, then would not that be his strongest argument to put forward? But he does not say it is novel; he says he doesn't see the need for the practice.
The earliest document that supports infant baptism is, in my opinion, the NT. St. Peter specifically extends the invitation to repentance and baptism and the promise of the Spirit by saying: "the promise is for you and your children." The NT also explicitly witnesses the Baptisms of whole households.
If you are a baptist (I take it you are), I'd invite further study of the topic, for many is the person who through study of the evidence has realized that IF infant baptism were a novelty introduced in the 3rd or 4th century, there would have been a hue and cry over it, as there was over EVERY novelty that came along (consider when the use of icons was introduced, for example, and the numerous writings about this). Yet there is only silence - can you produce a single father, any one, who proclaims that it is a novelty? I can produce numerous fathers who hold it is a custom handed down from the Apostles.
P.S. Also of interest is that if it were a novelty, Augustine's opponent Pelagius would have had one powerful weapon in hand against him; but though he disagrees with Augustine on original sin, he does not dispute the apostolic foundations of baptizing the infants.
ReplyDeleteMr. Weedon,
ReplyDeleteAlright this is getting good :).
First off, you have not answered any of my questions, but that is ok because I will give you another chance :).
I will have to leave two comments since this is a little long .
You closed your comment with a challenge. You can adduce patristic testimony claiming that infant baptism can be traced back to the apostles. Ok. When does that patristic testimony begin? Your silence indicates to me that you realize your evidence does not begin till sometime in the third century or later. Even this evidence shows a non-universal practice in the 3rd and 4th centuries, which indicates that infant baptism is not handed down directly from the apostles, in say, the same way that the Lord's Supper was handed down, for I know of know dispute over whether they should or shouldn't partake of the Supper in the same centuries. I'm not going to put a matter of practice like infant baptism on the same level as the sorting out of the Trinity or some other such doctrine. They were either baptizing infants in accordance with the apostles or they weren't.
Justin and the Didache do not have to call infant baptism novum because the practice does not exist during their time. Therefore, until you synthesize these documents into your reply, you continue to mis-frame the question :).
Regarding Tertullian again. He does not call infant baptism novum, but how else can one read him? On your reading of him, he would simply be casting aside the apostolic tradition of infant baptism cavalierly. This is a poor reading of Tertullian and his view of tradition.
Rather, I think one has to assume my reading of Justin before coming to Tertullian. Tertullian assumes a credobaptism which requires active acceptance of the gospel and commitment to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Let me offer another example from Tertulian, which shows his commitment to tradition. In The Chaplet,3, he says, "And how long shall we draw the saw to and fro through this line, when we have an ancient practice, which by anticipation has made for us the state, i.e., of the question? If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed it. For how can anything come into use, if it has not first been handed down? Even in pleading tradition, written authority, you say, must be demanded. Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should not be admitted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be admitted, if no cases of other practices which, without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone, and the countenance thereafter of custom, affords us any precedent. To deal with this matter briefly, I shall begin with baptism. [372] When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel."
Notice that the tradition handed down refers to the thrice immersion of baptism. He recognizes that this is not in Scripture, but they do it simply because it is a long standing tradition.
What I want to conclude is that Tertullian defends and maintains the practice of triple immersion on the grounds of tradition, while he overtly rejects infant baptism (On Baptism, 18) without making any similar argument for it.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteTherefore, I would conclude that Tertullian does NOT KNOW that infant baptism is commanded by the Lord or apostles OR that it is part of long standing tradition. Tertullian treats infant baptism as a new practice, which has no ancient pedigree, while he treats triple immersion and other such practices as on the level of long standing tradition and therefore worthy of practice.
This reading makes good sense of Tertullian and his relationship to the ealier sources of Justin and Didache.
So, no, Tertullian does not come out and say, "Infant baptism is novum", but he dismisses the practice without defense of it from either Scripture or tradition, which he does not do with the tradition of triple immersion for example.
Regarding the NT. Of course anyone can say they think the NT supports their case. Acts 2:39 can only be quoted in full here. Peter says, "the promise is for you and your children AND for those who are afar off, all whom our Lord will call." In my opinion this text no more supports the privileged status of believer's children than it does the Gentiles who are afar off. Furthermore, how do you know that God has called all children? Peter ultimately leaves to whom the promise pertains, to God's sovereignty.
"Household" or οικος texts have their problems, namely, they contribute to an a silencio argument. I have been thinking about Job 1:10 in this connection recently. There we have a reference to Job and his house. However, here is one explicit example of the so called οικος formula where we know for sure there are no infants. Job's sons and daughters are all grown and attending drinking parties. Therefore, here is at least one example where the οικος formula does not indicate the presence of infants in the house. How many more places does this so called formula occur and there are no infants present in the household?
Again, thanks for taking the time. I don't mind dialoguing as long as you don't.
I don't mind dialoging, but don't really have the time for this extended discussion at the moment - not being in seminary and having the responsibility of a parish!
ReplyDeleteThe 3rd and 4th century fathers are indeed the ones who claim it is an apostolic tradition. And precisely if it was a novum, there would be howls of protest. But there are none.
Tertullian is a witness TO infant baptism, though he confesses he doesn't see the theological reason for it. Would he speak that way about something he was taught came from the Apostles? Well, I know many people who confess that they do not see the rationale for the head covering that Paul elicits in 1 Cor. 11, but don't dispute that the Apostle DID mandate it.
You bring up the Lord's Supper. That's interesting too because of what Justin teaches about it. Do you agree with him that when the prayer of thanks is offered by the Word of the prayer which is from him, that is it the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus Ap. 1:66.2?
Let me affirm again: as a Lutheran I also assume credobaptism. There is no other kind. I just know that God can give faith to an infant, as Ps 22:9 puts it: "You made me trust in you *on my mother's breast.*"
Certainly the three-fold application of water is an ancient practice that has universal attestation in the tradition - once for each of the persons of the Holy Trinity who are named. That Tertullian does not make the explicit argument that the baptism of infants should be retained *may* show that he did not regard it as part of apostolic tradition, but he doesn't reject it per se. He simply confesses he thinks it rather a waste. Like many in his generation, he thought of Baptism only working BACKWARDS, not also forwards.
Does Tertullian anywhere suggest (as the anabaptists do) that such a Baptism was not efficacious? That it should be REPEATED? That those so baptized were not really baptized? NO. He assumes that it has indeed washed away the little ones sins - a pity that they didn't have more sins accumulated to have washed away, he thinks.
You must be a Calvinist sort of Baptist to ask: how do you know that God called all the children? We know this because "the Lord wills ALL to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth" and "he is not willing that any should perish" and He specifically commands: "Let the little children come to me."
Just as choice is not involved in physical birth, so it is not involved in spiritual rebirth. You didn't create your physical life, but you can either nurture it or destroy it - you have the power to do either. So with your spiritual life - in regeneration it comes as total gift without your choosing or doing, and then it enlivens your choosing and doing in spiritual matters.
St. Peter joyfully announces on Pentecost that the gift of the Spirit which the Apostles received with wind and flame is for the crowd and for their children and for all who are far off - not just for those in that place. God calls ALL to Baptism because God wants to save ALL.
No one argues that oikos means that a household HAS to include infants, but it would be odd to have NO infants in any of the houses where whole families were brought to the Lord through Baptism, no?
But I really don't have time to continue further. I would ask you in all earnestness to bring this matter before God in prayer, to consider the witness of His Church, to search the Scriptures to see what the Holy Spirit teaches there about Baptism's power and working. I can't convince you, but I pray He will. I commend you into the hands of Him whom our Savior promised to us to "lead us into all truth." The Baptists have much truth, but the Scriptures teach more and the tradition of the holy Church witnesses to it.
In Christ!
Mr. Weedon,
ReplyDeleteI understand time constraints. I guess I will give the last word and then we can part for now :).
Tertullian says, "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." This is not a theological preference for him. On principle he denies infants the waters of baptism. He goes on, "For why is it necessary—if (baptism itself) is not so necessary..." Is baptism efficacious for Tertullian, yes and no. He concludes chapter 18 of On Baptism with this: If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation. Of course his view of child innocence is the reason for delay, but for Tertullian, faith alone secures salvation.
I think we would both agree with him here. I came to this conclusion while reading Lutheran sources: Baptism is not necessary for salvation, but it is normative for it. God can save an infant who dies before baptism by giving it faith if he chooses, but baptism is not necessary for salvation in this case.
I still think your reading of Tertullian is wrong. I don't know what his view of head coverings is, do you? My point is that you have Tertullian cavalierly dismissing infant baptism on principle, while I don't think Tertullian dismisses ancient tradition in this way. Rather, since we know he is PRO traditions and maintains them, he would keep infant baptism if he knew of it as an ancient practice. But remember, the sources which precede him do not record anything of this practice either :).
How interesting would our discussion of the Lord's Supper be :)? Here, also, I am a Calvinist and I will leave it at that :).
References to breast feeding are irrelevant in my opinion, since ancient breast feeding practices can indicate a child from the ages of 0-5. Indeed, read in Second Macc. 7, where the mother confesses that she gave her son to suck for three years. Often times it was much later than that. Maybe the Psalmist believed as an infant. I don't deny that infants can believe by God's grace. What I deny is that they DO in each case, when they are baptized.
Again, Tertullian on principle rejects infant baptism. If it was tradition, he would call it such and he would not dismiss it so simply.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteI am a Calvinist, and here we have a major disagreement which would occupy too much space. Suffice it to say, I believe that God's calling is efficacious and that those he calls, he also justifies and that those he justifies he also glorifies (Rom. 8:30). He does not simply resuscitate a person's will so that he can choose one way or another. That is free will rationalism or semi-Pelagian, and not Augustinian in the slightest.
Let the little children come. I love Tertullian on this verse in On Baptism 18: 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...
I plan to post on my own blog on Acts 2:38-41. You have missed the image of "those who are afar off." Read Isaiah 57:19 and Paul's allusion to it in Eph. 2. The reference is to Gentiles, not other Jewish families, which is completely in accord with the book of Acts. Thus the promise is for three types of people, the crowd and their children and the Gentiles, and all three of these groups are modified and limited by the relative clause: all whom our Lord will call. What you say about the children, you MUST say about the Gentiles. Otherwise, one is reading one's theology into this text.
Well, the household texts are arguments from silence. That is why some argue that the formula, "he and his house" is a technical phrase which indicates the presence of infants in the house. I simply don't think it works. Maybe there were infants, maybe there weren't.
Mr. Weedon, thanks again for your time and acumen in this discussion. I thank you also for your prayers for me. May the Lord guide us both into all truth by his Spirit as we search the Scriptures and the tradition.
John,
ReplyDeleteI confess that the first time I read Tertullian's mention of "let the little children" I wondered if he were responding to something that was already in place in the Baptismal liturgy - the Roman liturgy had it early on and thus it remains in our liturgy as well. We read it regardless of whether baptizing a child or an adult. Baptism itself we regard as the preeminent way for children to be allowed to come to the Jesus and not hindered. He has gifts for them to receive!
Pax!