Dyering the Waters of Baptism

Mr. Dyer has posted some quotes to, I assume, prove his position (and that of Orthodoxy) on infant baptism.

Note, the links in this article are to articles written by Jason Engwer.

Mr Dyer writes:

Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and Saviour?"

Polycarp,Martyrdom of Polycarp,9(A.D. 156),in ANF,I:41

Oh, I see, the logic is "Polycarp was very old when he died, ergo, he was baptized as an infant." You're begging the question. Even the Presbyterians when arguing with Baptists don't argue for infant baptism on this ground.

"And many,both men and women, who have been Christ's disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixtey or seventy years..."
Justin Martyr,First Apology,15:6(A.D. 110-165),in ANF,I:167

And how is this a reference to infant baptism? It's not.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/03/justin-martyr-and-infant-baptism.html

"And when a child has been born to one of them[ie Christians], they give thanks to God[ie baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins."

Aristides,Apology,15(A.D. 140),in ANF,X:277-278

This is a frequent passage cited. You're assuming without argument that "they give thanks to God" is a reference to baptism. Jeremias (Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries) says the latter phrase can hardly refer to the innocence of children per se, but would rather be interpreted as innocence because of the remission of sins. The whole passage deals with the exemplary character of a Christians whose purity is acclaimed in their way of living. Thus the baby who dies in infancy can more easily attain this purity than an elderly person. Aland (Did The Early Church Baptize Infants?) argues that the term is straightforward and to the point. It alludes, in his view, to the thankfulness of the new convert for his conversion and does not signify any baptismal rites.

"For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God--infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men."

(And St. Irenaeus believed in baptismal regeneration

Isn't it rather pretentious for you to assume that any reference to the new birth is also a reference to baptism? It makes better sense to inquire into the nature of the argument. Where is the supporting argument

In your selected text, Irenaeus is refuting the teachings of the Valentinians and Marcionites. Among other things,they maintained that when Jesus was baptized @ the age of 30, that number corresponded to the 30 Aeons. These Aeons caused Jesus to become Christ @ his baptism. Then 12 caused him to preach for only one year afterwards.

Iranaeus refutes them from traditions allegedly handed down from the Apostles that Jesus preached to the age of 50. He even says Jesus lived to the time of Trajan,which would have made Jesus very old. He is exagerrating to illustrate that Jesus lived through all the ages of man, and thus He can save men of all phases of life, from infancy to old age. The sentence you have lifted from its context simply tells us that the redemptive work of the Lord extends to whatever person of any age. It's purpose isn't addressing baptism at all. It says nothing, not a word, about the age people were baptized, and its focus is not on baptism but the redemptive life and work of Christ, set in a framework that is designed to answer the arguments of his opponents,who argued that Jesus was the Christ for simply a year.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/02/irenaeus-and-infant-baptism.html

Here Tertullian comments on his preference of delaying baptism in deference to the traditional & universal practice of baptizing infants writes:
"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 childrem."
Tertullian,On Baptism,18(A.D. 200/206),in ANF,III:678

Infant baptism "universal" and "traditional?" in Tertullian's, time?

The treatise ends with him repeating stringent injunction to be obeyed by those baptized.

They who are about to enter baptism out to pray with repated preayers, fasts, bendings of the knee, and vigils all through the night, and with the confession of all bygone sins, that they may express the meaning of the baptism of John: "They were baptized," says (the Scripture),"confessing their own sins"..."The" someone will say,"it becomes us, too rather to fast after baptism." Well, and who forbids yu, unless it be the necessity for joy, and the thanksgiving for salvation.

As Jason asks: If infant baptism was "common" when Tertullian wrote, then why don't we see it in the earlier documents? Those documents often discuss baptism, and they sometimes address infant salvation. Yet, infant baptism is never mentioned. To the contrary, a source like Justin Martyr will discuss baptism as something resulting from choice, contrasting the people baptized with infants who make no choice to be born (First Apology, 61). As the patristic scholar David Wright mentioned in my earlier citation of him, infant baptism isn't mentioned much in the early centuries, even after it's first advocated in the third century. If it was "common" in Tertullian's day, why don't the pre-Tertullian sources discuss it?

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

If was "common" how does it follow it was "universal"and "traditional." You like to assume what you need to approve, don't you?

"And they shall baptise 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."
Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition,21(c. A.D. 215), in AT,33

The Greek version,if I recall, does not exist. We only have Latin translations, and many, like Aland, have pointed out that this phrase is likely a late addition to the text, coming from the 4th century or afterwards, when infant baptism was becoming more popular. What this text shows, at most, and only if you affirm that the Latin faithfully represents the Greek, which we do not possess, is that infant baptism originates in the 3rd century.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/03/hippolytus-and-infant-baptism.html

He later uses Origen. That's fair enough, but credobaptists don't argue that infant baptism didn't become more common and popular and had done so by that time. That citation isn't really relevant. However, it's worth noting that Mr. Dyer is yet again using Origen as an authentic witness to his communion's traditions, while calling Jews "wicked." Not only would he do well to avoid arguing while wearing his Klan sheets and pointed hat, he'd do well to consider that heresy is just as wicked as the wickedness he ascribes to the Jews. If their witness to something like the OT canon is to be excluded, why does Origen get a free pass, when Origen is accounted a heretic?