one of the worst things about the internet is somebody will post something who has no understanding of Church history and then someone else who has even less understanding of Church history will think it’s true and copy it.
the article is laughable.
first of all, let’s note that NO BAPTISTS were quoted in the ist three centuries, only Catholics are quoted.
second of all, all of the Catholics quoted ( Tertullian, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr ) all believed in BAPTISMAL REGENERATION ( something all Baptists think is a doctrine straight from the pit of hell, do i have that right BB? ) in addition, they all practiced infant baptism.
HOW DO I KNOW? i will post a link of an articel that quotes Iraneus directly supporting infant baptism.
i think it would be helpful to those who don’t know Church history to know who Irenaeus was. The Apostle John taught Polycarp, Polycarp taught Irenaeus and Irenaeus taught a Church Father named Hippolytus. so if anyone would know what Irenaeus thought about infant baptism, it would be Hippolytus.
Hippolytus wrote a book in 215ad titles “the apostolic tradition”. in it we find him saying “ baptize first the children, and if they can speak fo themselves, let them do so. Otherwise let their parents or other relatives speak for them”
i guess Hippolytus had a lot riding on this “myth”
again for those in rio linda land Jesus to John to Polycarp to Irenaeus to Hippolytus. by the way, Hippolytus says the Church received the practice of infant baptism from the Apostles.
but someone sitting in the comfortable 21st can attack great men of God such as Irenaeus and Hippolytus, men who risked being put to the sword by the Roman authorities.
folks, the reason there NEVER was a controversy over infant baptism until the 16th century, is the whole Church from the beginning practiced it.
Again, put your common sense hat on. does it pass the laugh test that the early Church practiced “believers baptism “ and then someone misinterpreted a passage from Irenaeus and then suddenly and without a protest from anyone, the whole Church ( including Athanasius ) went apostate by “dunking babies” it would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
by the way, what stake did Luther and Calvin have in perpetrating this “myth”? they held to “sola scriptura”, not the apostolic tradition.
Finally, regarding infant baptism, it is such a minor issue that I marvel that anyone has to make such a big production over it that they go so far as to deny fellowship to others who disagree with them or resort to labeling them "heretics" just because they think differently about a minor issue. And infant baptism IS a minor issue. I'll tell you why - babies or very young children do NOT have the capability to give their assent to belief in Jesus Christ so that makes the ordinance of baptism to be INEFFECTIVE for them. Scripture, when it speaks about baptism, NEVER mentions it outside of a person FIRST believing and then submitting to baptism. It was always done as an outward testimony of a heartfelt, inward change of heart - repentance. There is NO Scriptural reference about babies being baptized and, since the Gospels and epistles that make up the New Testament were written decades after the fact, no mention of a "tradition" of doing so.
I don't dispute that the concept DEVELOPED over time, but it was certainly NOT something the Apostles asserted had to be done. Should children be dedicated to the Lord and raise in the nurture and admonition of the Lord? Of course, but it is NOT the same as baptism. A strong factor to prove this assertion is simply the changes even the Roman Catholic Church has made about what happens to babies that die without being baptized. Some theologians said they went to hell. Some, thinking that was too harsh for a loving God, said they went to a place the called "Limbo" - though such a place is nowhere found in Scripture. Now what does the Roman church teach? They don't say either way anymore. Just something to the effect that God is merciful. Well DUH! That's what we've been saying all along. Babies aren't baptized because they cannot believe and they are innocent of personal sin and, though they have a sin nature inherited from Adam, the mercy and grace of God covers such innocents and they WILL be with Him in heaven.
Baptism should be reserved for the TRUE purpose it was created for - to testify to others that we have made a choice to follow Christ and live in newness of life. It is not the act that saves us but the faith behind the act. being baptized has NO effect at all unless there is faith and that is why it is faith that saves us. God saves us by His grace THROUGH faith. No outward acts supplement that but God saves us when we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant. Cardinal John Newman, former Anglican priest.
He also wrote, “On the Development of Doctrine.”