One important contribution that David [Wright] has made is to remind us of the need to be critical of the early sources for infant baptism. In particular, we need to bear in mind the genre of our sources. There are sermons and other writings that contain exhortations either to baptise or not to baptise babies. These testify to the views of the authors and show what views were considered acceptable, but do not in themselves prove that anyone actually followed the advice given. Then there is evidence as to when specific individuals were baptised, either through literary biographical information or from inscriptions. In between these two types are church orders and other works regulating practice. These do not give hard statistical information but are clearly a far more reliable indicator as to what actually happened than are exhortatory sermons. So, for example, Cyprian’s account of the controversy over whether baptism should be delayed until the eighth day might lead one to suppose that the practice of infant baptism was universal, but other evidence indicates that it was not. On the other hand, the controversy would not have occurred were significant numbers of babies not being baptised. ["Baptism in the Thought of David Wright," Evangelical Quarterly 78, no. 2 (April 2006), 140.](For those who don't know, Steve Hays and Jason Engwer have written a good deal about infant baptism at Triablogue. One method of finding these articles is to browse the results of an advanced Google search. Also consider the posts here, here and here.)
Monday, December 12, 2011
Genre and Early Church Evidence for Infant Baptism
A.N.S. Lane, commenting on patristic scholar David Wright's material, makes a good observation about interpreting the evidence for infant baptism in the early church:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The baptismal practices were still quite unsettled in the latter half of the 4th century; the famous emperor Theodosius, raised by pious Christian parents, did not get baptized until at the age of 34:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14577d.htm
"His father, the Comes Theodosius, was a distinguished general; both he and the mother Thermantia were Catholics at a time when Arianism was at its strongest. ... Early in the same year a severe sickness at Thessalonica made him seek baptism, and he was baptized by the Catholic Bishop of Thessalonica, Ascholios. Socrates (Church History V.6) says that since Theodosius "was a Christian from his parents and professed the faith of the Homoousios" he first assured himself that the bishop was not an Arian (cf. Sozomen; Church History VII.4)."
And the same practice had been followed by his father, Theodosius Sr., as well:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_Theodosius
"However, following this latest victory, Theodosius was arrested, taken to Carthage, and executed in early 376. The reasons for his execution are not clear, but it is thought to have resulted from a factional power struggle in Italy after the sudden death of Valentinian I. Shortly before his execution, Theodosius was baptized, a common practice at the time, even for lifelong Christians."
This practice of late-life baptism was apparently based on the idea that baptism removed all prior sins. Thus, people sometimes deferred so that they could get their sinning in before the baptism.
ReplyDeleteHow is that "apparent", TF?
ReplyDeleteCD:
ReplyDeleteIt is apparent from the literature of the day. Sorry for not being more precise, but I meant merely to shed some light on the topic, rather than argue the point.
-TurretinFan
I see, thank you.
ReplyDelete