Why did Protestants stop baptizing infants when it was done by Early Christian Church?

Question

"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin . . . In the Church baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Origen - Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 244]).

"Where there is no scarcity of water the stream shall flow through the baptismal font or pour into it from above; but if water is scarce, whether on a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available. Let them remove their clothing. Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (Hippolytus - The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen



"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries [sacraments], knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Origen - Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 244]).

Gregory of Nazianz

"Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!" (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 381]).

Thank you Linda, I stand corrected. But a lot of people who call themselves Christian still say that baptizing infants is wrong.

sannaparis,

so you are telling me that Protestants are substituting their interpretation of scripture for the early father of the Christian church. Does this mean that some future teacher may substitute his interpretation for the present day interpretation?

witness,
going back to teh Acts of the Apostles, we see that Peter baptized ENTIRE HOUSEHOLDS. I think it is safge to assume that entire households included the children, even infants.

forjj,
You are assuming that believe must come before baptism. That verse tells me that in order to be saved a person must do two things, believe and be baptized. For an infant, the baptism comes first, then later in life, he or she comes to believe.

seeking truth,
You are incorrect. Baptism of infants occurred in Acts of the Apostles and was verified in the second century - look at the quotes I posted

Dedicated,
The issue is not how the baptism is done. Yes, many catholics church now do immersion baptism, though pouring water over the head is just as valid.

Tagan,
Thank you for admitting that you are not sure that infants were excluded from baptism in the early church. What I have posted is evidence that infant baptism WAS practiced in the 2nd century of the Christian Church.

Tagan,
Where is your Biblical proof that infants were excluded from Baptism?

Tagan,
I wish you would stay on subject. Regarding purgatory, look at 1 Corinthians 3:14–15: "If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire." You see, the Latinate word purgatory means a purgation or burning by fire. Paul in these verses refers to a purgation process whereby a man is saved even though his works are burned away. This is precisely what the Catholic Church teaches.

Tagan,
Please show me in the Bible where it says that the Scripture is the ONLY source of truth for faith and morals.

Consider that there was no Bible for hundreds of years. What was the source for truth before the Bible? The Church.

Tagan,
You might be catching on to what the catholic church teaches about Purgatory. What you just said is what the Catholic Church says about Purgatory. it is a place for the saved, not the unsaved.

Answer 1

I'll support ya. Origen was right, but only "partially" right because of so much other evidence that supports infant baptism. Credo baptists do as paedo-baptists do, everyone starts with an a priori belief and finds scripture to fill that belief. And so Origen gets his ad hominem attacks, and no mention is made of the credos' own sources, which are also man's interpretations. The Bible's authors have spoken their piece and left the building, and we are left with only what was written down. I simply believe Origen was closer to the tone and context of scripture.

Answer 2

Give me one passage that CLEARLY teaches that infants should be baptized, and I'll convert to Catholicism on the spot... can't do it, can you?

You see, even the passage you use where Paul baptized the ENTIRE household, you said that you could assume that meant infants too. But, how do you know that infants were in that household? It could have been grown or teenage kids, not infants, so, your response is as much conjecture as mine... you can't prove it.

AND, is it not ironic that you did NOT quote scripture, you quoted CATHOLIC authorities and TRADITIONS, not the Bible... Again, if you can give ROCK HARD PROOF that infants SHOULD BE BAPTIZED, I'll convert to Catholicism.

Also, when you read the Biblical commandments and teachings surrounding baptism, you will find that it is for BELIEVERS and DISCIPLES, not unsaved infants who are not yet capable of making that decision.

=================
<>
---------------
Oh, by the way, if you look in scripture (I'm not too sure how often you actually do that) you will also see that baptism ALWAYS came AFTER the belief. A person BELIEVED, and was Baptized. Never the other way around like you said, where babies are baptized and belief comes later.... not biblical!
========================
<>
To your comment to me: easy! Where do you find them baptized??? Umm..... nowhere! So they are excluded in every passage dealing with baptism!

Your turn for proof... I'm waiting...
========================
<>
I just found your first comment to me... Your proof is from 2nd Century CATHOLICS, not in the Bible. Catholics created many new things after the passing of the apostles. For instance, Purgatory was not "believed" or "adopted" until around 500-600 A.D. So, again, your proof falls far short of your point.

Oh, and by the way, I didn't say I was unsure, I merely stated that it is not proven or mentioned in God's Word. This is NOT about what I believe or want to believe, but rather what the Bible teaches.
=====================
<>

Your Bible verse referencing Purgatory is speaking of the Judgement seat of Christ, which is for believers only, not the unsaved, so those there will already have a home in heaven. This judgement, if you'll read it in context, is judging to see if our works were done for Christ or self... not some purgatorial limbo... which is what the RCC teaches.

Next, about your "TRUTH" in the church, there was no church before the Bible, so your argument is invalid. The Bible teaches that ITSELF contains EVERYTHING that pertains to life and godliness.... which is everything we need to get to heaven, and purgatory nor infant baptism is included. Church is merely a place of worship where God's Word, which contains all we need for life and godliness, is preached to us and expounded upon. The Church itself is not necessary for salvation.

AGAIN, you've yet to prove your point.... I'm ALL EARS!
============================
<>
That passage says that the WORKS will be burned, not the person. The RCC teaches that the PERSON burns. NOT SO. Read the Bible.

Answer 3

Baptism in the Holy Spirit is when the Spirit makes a dwelling inside you.

Baptism with water is your public "coming out" and proclaiming to the world that your old self has died and now you live for Jesus Christ.

I have a one year old boy and 5 and 6 year old girls. Although they inherited "original sin", they haven't the mind to understand sin being the denial of God yet. There is nothing wrong with a "dedication" to the body of Christ, in my opinion, but true baptism doesn't make sense for babies or little kids yet.

P.S. When you want to describe the early church to protestants or un believers, go to the book of Acts, not 300 yrs later when the Roman Catholic church started.

Answer 4

Admits the New Catholic Encyclopedia: “It is evident that Baptism in the early Church was by immersion.” Not surprisingly, then, we find newspaper headlines like these: “Catholics Bring Back Immersion Baptism” (The Edmonton Journal, Canada, September 24, 1983), “Baptism by Immersion Catches On With Catholics Here” (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, April 7, 1985), “Many Catholics Choosing Baptism by Immersion” (The New York Times, March 25, 1989), and “Immersion Baptisms Enjoying Revival” (The Houston Chronicle, August 24, 1991).
Further-----------------
At Matthew 28:19, 20, we read the command regarding baptism that the risen Christ gave to his disciples before he ascended to heaven. “Go, therefore, make disciples of all the nations; baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teach them to observe all the commands I gave you.” (The Jerusalem Bible) Clearly, baptism is required of Christian disciples—those who have been taught to observe Christ’s commands—not infants. This harmonizes with the fact that all the baptisms described in the Scriptures involved disciples who evidently were completely immersed in water. This was obviously the case when Christ Jesus himself was baptized by John the Baptizer. The Bible account says that upon being baptized, Jesus “came up from the water” of the Jordan River. (Matthew 3:16, JB) Indeed, the Scriptures indicate that John chose his baptismal sites carefully in order to have plenty of water available.—John 3:23.

Later, in describing the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch, the Bible tells us that “Philip went down into the water with the eunuch and baptized him,” after which “they came out of the water.” (Acts 8:38, 39, The New American Bible) These baptisms by immersion are in keeping with the general meaning of the Greek word ba·pti′zo, “to baptize,” from ba′pto, meaning “to dip in or under,” which is the root of the English word “baptism.”

Answer 5

The Bible would not say explicitly that toddlers could be baptized. yet no longer something stated interior the Bible limit toddler baptism. The Catholics say that toddler baptism is implied and that that could be a suitable prepare. The Orthodox and assorted mainstream Protestant believe the Catholics on toddler baptism. The baptists, anabaptists, adventists and fundie cultists reject toddler baptism in accordance with their very own interpretation of the Bible. because of the fact the Catholic Church compiled and canonized the Christian Bible, i'll settle for its interpretation quite than the translation of heretics. thinking the fact that each and every of the human authors who wrote the hot Testmenat (below the education of the Holy Spirit) have been Catholic, all of them could have believed in toddler baptism.

Answer 6

To give you a simple answer, it is called "believers baptism" and is based on numerous scriptures, but I think this is the one that is most on point:
Mark 16
15He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Whoever BELIEVES & is BAPTIZED. the conclusion that I make is that an infant CANNOT BELIEVE...

Answer 7

There is a simple answer: Protestants only rely on the Scriptures, in other words, the New and Old Testament. For church practice, they will try to refer to the New Testament, obviously. (their well known "sola scriptura").

Of course there are many practices in the Protestant branch of Christianity that have since evolved, and that are sometimes taken for granted and not questioned or tested according to the bible. However, those are their practices. When it comes to catholic practices, it is of course much easier for Protestants to distinugish tradition from Scripture.

However, returning to your question, "According to the usage of the church" or "Apostolic Tradition" are not valid reasons for them to accept anything as God-given.

To convince them you would have to find the Scriptures Origen bases his beliefs on. If there are none, then Origen must be either giving his own opinion, misinterpreting the scriptures of the new testament, or ignoring any relevant scriptures he might know. In all of the cases, Protestants will, accordingly, ignore him.

Answer 8

The act of baptising babies started (noticeable) in the 4th century AD. It started in Africa through fear that a child would not be able to enter Heaven because they had not yet reached an age that they could accept Jesus as their personal saviour. The Bible makes no reference to infant baptism and in fact Jesus says quite plainly that children are guaranteed entry into His presence (into Heaven) (Check your concordance in the back of your Bible). The problem comes when a child reaches an age that they are able to rebel against God and 'walk' away from Him. There is also a difficulty that people assume that being baptised as an infant grants them entry into Heaven but Jesus tells us that we can only get to the Father through Him and that although many people will claim to know Him and do many great things in His name that He will reject them because He does not know them. It is our relationship with Jesus that causes us to be saved not from infant baptism, as most people seem to think. It is from this relationship that we choose to be baptised, not have it 'forced' on us as a baby (I use the word forced due to our lack of ability to consent to the act not due to any perceived wrongdoings inherent within it.)

Answer 9

Where on earth did you get the idea that Protestants don't baptize babies? Baptists don't baptize babies. Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians and a host of other Protestants DO baptize babies.

Answer 10

Most protestant sects do infant baptism.