What do you think?
Rate this book
Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries
Everett Ferguson’s work here is a compendium of almost everything that is currently known about the Christian ritual of baptism, with extensive citations to the primary and secondary literature, and as such is destined to be an extremely valuable reference work.
975 pages, Hardcover
First published September 15, 2008
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
March 16, 2022
Extremely impressive and thorough. An exhaustive account of baptismal references and practices in the first four centuries of the church.
Some notable findings: early Christians were unanimously of the belief that baptism was for the forgiveness of sins. Even heretics did not assert that people are saved without baptism. Nothing like the “faith only” view of the Protestants existed in this time. Reading each of these thousands of references is a bit shocking.
-John 3:5 and Titus 3:5 were unanimously believed to refer to baptism, including “baptismal regeneration.”
-Ferguson posits that infant baptism developed as an emergency problem in cases of sickness, then slowly grew more normalized. It is extremely significant that Augustine argues that original sin is true because infant baptism is already happening, not that infant baptism needs to happen bc original sin is true. The rest of Christian history works from doctrine to practice.
-Ancient baptism was nude!
-Often involved renunciation of satan, sometimes exorcism, often anointing with oil
-Some believed so much in baptism’s power that they started to delay it to “get the most out of it”.
Sometimes Ferguson is unnecessarily conservative—he seems to really push back on the growing connection between baptism and circumcision, moving from immersion to pouring/sprinkling, and the development of the original sin doctrine. I suspect this is a reaction to other scholars (esp pedobaptists) going the other way with the evidence.
This book is often very dry and has a lotttt of repetition. But it is an excellent reference work for the topic.
Some notable findings: early Christians were unanimously of the belief that baptism was for the forgiveness of sins. Even heretics did not assert that people are saved without baptism. Nothing like the “faith only” view of the Protestants existed in this time. Reading each of these thousands of references is a bit shocking.
-John 3:5 and Titus 3:5 were unanimously believed to refer to baptism, including “baptismal regeneration.”
-Ferguson posits that infant baptism developed as an emergency problem in cases of sickness, then slowly grew more normalized. It is extremely significant that Augustine argues that original sin is true because infant baptism is already happening, not that infant baptism needs to happen bc original sin is true. The rest of Christian history works from doctrine to practice.
-Ancient baptism was nude!
-Often involved renunciation of satan, sometimes exorcism, often anointing with oil
-Some believed so much in baptism’s power that they started to delay it to “get the most out of it”.
Sometimes Ferguson is unnecessarily conservative—he seems to really push back on the growing connection between baptism and circumcision, moving from immersion to pouring/sprinkling, and the development of the original sin doctrine. I suspect this is a reaction to other scholars (esp pedobaptists) going the other way with the evidence.
This book is often very dry and has a lotttt of repetition. But it is an excellent reference work for the topic.
May 7, 2018
For just over a year, this book was a key component of my Monday morning recovery from preaching twice and teaching on Sunday. Ferguson sought to address comprehensively and fairly the doctrine and practice of baptism during the first five centuries of Christian history. He considered literary documents, artwork from the period, and archaeological work connected with the design and dimensions of baptismal pools/fonts from the period. Ferguson quoted writers from across the spectrum of Christian belief during the period, identifying their geographic, time, and doctrinal contexts. He considered how doctrinal disputes may have shaped changes in baptismal practice, while taking care to introduce in his conclusion scholars who disagree with him in interpretation of some data. He addressed aspects of baptismal practice that were widely practiced in some places or eras, such as use of women to assist with baptism of women, association of anointing or exorcism with baptism, nude baptism, being immersed three times, and reasons for increased baptism of small children as time passed. He noted how writers from the period almost unanimously connected baptism with salvation and forgiveness of sins. Numerous photographs, footnotes, and extensive indices with bibliography will help greatly those who wish to study more. I have read frequently in on-line forums that the writing style in this book is "dry," which seems unfortunate in a study of baptism. Despite that, I highly recommend the reading of this book. Take your time and digest it thoroughly.
September 7, 2020
This is an excellent biblical and historical study of the question of baptism. Although hard to find, the author is a Church of Christ member, though he doesn't argue explicitly for Church of Christ doctrine. His study of the meaning of the words behind baptism and baptize are amazing and extensive. He not only survey Christian literature after the New Testament, but begins by surveying the New Testament up until Augustine. That's the reason why it's a huge book.
Though I generally disagreed with the biblical interpretation of the author, simply equating any reference to be baptism as water baptism, connecting forgiveness of sins and regeneration to it (Church of Christ doctrine), his historical survey was amazing. It must be admitted that we as modern evangelicals and me, as a Reformed Baptist, do not baptize people for the same reasons that the early church did. John 3:5 was, first of all, used to refer to baptism and the work of the Holy Spirit, and send, it was used to argue that baptism is absolutely necessary. Some fathers even spoke of martyrdom as a baptism for catachumens who were not yet baptized. Their baptism in blood was the baptism they needed for salvation. It is fair to say that there was generally the error of confusing the sign for the thing signified.
This is also attested to when we see the development of infant baptism. I think we are often impressed or silenced by paedobaptist when they endlessly proclaim infant baptism to be practiced in the early church without ourselves surveying the evidence. Up until the time of Augustine and the 5th century, adult baptism was the norm. Infant baptism began to be developed out of clinical baptism. Since they associated baptism closely with regeneration and salvation, the church saw an urgency to baptize adults who were sick and on their deathbed lest they go into eternity without the seal of baptism. Gradually baptism began to be given to infants and children who were in danger of death lest they depart from this world without the seal. Even Pelagius the heretic, argued that baptism was necessary for salvation. Even though he disagreed with Augustine on original sin and contended that infants are sinless, yet they must receive baptism for the kingdom of heaven. Augustine contended that unbaptized infants were damned because they have original sin and they don't meet the requirement of John 3:5. Some others contended that they were in a kind of limbo (between heaven and hell). The West and the East had also different reasons for baptizing infants which raises a lot of doubts about infant baptism being an apostolic practice. Some fathers used the argument of apostolic practice and tradition of the church, but if one is honest some of the things they claim are wild and certainly not apostolic. I mean, if someone is defending a doctrine which they believe, they are not likely going to say that it is something novel which places a lot of doubts about appeals to apostolic tradition.
Overall, this was an extensive and great study. The only downside (aside from Church of Christ interpretations) is that it did not provide a summary chapter or table at the end of each century for what each father taught. A lot of early church theologians were surveyed and it was not easy to remember what each one contributed to the discussion of baptism. It would have been great if the contributions of each could have been summarized and given in a table for reference.
Though I generally disagreed with the biblical interpretation of the author, simply equating any reference to be baptism as water baptism, connecting forgiveness of sins and regeneration to it (Church of Christ doctrine), his historical survey was amazing. It must be admitted that we as modern evangelicals and me, as a Reformed Baptist, do not baptize people for the same reasons that the early church did. John 3:5 was, first of all, used to refer to baptism and the work of the Holy Spirit, and send, it was used to argue that baptism is absolutely necessary. Some fathers even spoke of martyrdom as a baptism for catachumens who were not yet baptized. Their baptism in blood was the baptism they needed for salvation. It is fair to say that there was generally the error of confusing the sign for the thing signified.
This is also attested to when we see the development of infant baptism. I think we are often impressed or silenced by paedobaptist when they endlessly proclaim infant baptism to be practiced in the early church without ourselves surveying the evidence. Up until the time of Augustine and the 5th century, adult baptism was the norm. Infant baptism began to be developed out of clinical baptism. Since they associated baptism closely with regeneration and salvation, the church saw an urgency to baptize adults who were sick and on their deathbed lest they go into eternity without the seal of baptism. Gradually baptism began to be given to infants and children who were in danger of death lest they depart from this world without the seal. Even Pelagius the heretic, argued that baptism was necessary for salvation. Even though he disagreed with Augustine on original sin and contended that infants are sinless, yet they must receive baptism for the kingdom of heaven. Augustine contended that unbaptized infants were damned because they have original sin and they don't meet the requirement of John 3:5. Some others contended that they were in a kind of limbo (between heaven and hell). The West and the East had also different reasons for baptizing infants which raises a lot of doubts about infant baptism being an apostolic practice. Some fathers used the argument of apostolic practice and tradition of the church, but if one is honest some of the things they claim are wild and certainly not apostolic. I mean, if someone is defending a doctrine which they believe, they are not likely going to say that it is something novel which places a lot of doubts about appeals to apostolic tradition.
Overall, this was an extensive and great study. The only downside (aside from Church of Christ interpretations) is that it did not provide a summary chapter or table at the end of each century for what each father taught. A lot of early church theologians were surveyed and it was not easy to remember what each one contributed to the discussion of baptism. It would have been great if the contributions of each could have been summarized and given in a table for reference.
May 8, 2020
كتاب أكاديمي دراسي بشكل كويس جدًا.
بيبحث في فصوله حوالين القراءات اليهودية للاغتسالات والطقوس المشابهة للمعمودية في القرون الأولى للمسيحية وماذا ورثت المسيحية من تلك الممارسات وماذا رفضت ولماذا، وفيه تركيز كبير على السياق اللغوي اللي للكلمة اليونانية بتاعة المعمودية في الأدبيات اليونانية القديمة، الكتاب فيه جزء دراسي كويس عن المعمودية في نصوص العهد الجديد مع طرح موضوعي جدًا للقراءات والآراء المختلفة.
الكاتب مطلع بشكل كبير على النقد النصي للنصوص اللي هو بيناقشها ودي ميزة كبيرة.
الترجمة كويسة واحترافية جدًا فيما عدا شوية غلطات نحوية.
بيبحث في فصوله حوالين القراءات اليهودية للاغتسالات والطقوس المشابهة للمعمودية في القرون الأولى للمسيحية وماذا ورثت المسيحية من تلك الممارسات وماذا رفضت ولماذا، وفيه تركيز كبير على السياق اللغوي اللي للكلمة اليونانية بتاعة المعمودية في الأدبيات اليونانية القديمة، الكتاب فيه جزء دراسي كويس عن المعمودية في نصوص العهد الجديد مع طرح موضوعي جدًا للقراءات والآراء المختلفة.
الكاتب مطلع بشكل كبير على النقد النصي للنصوص اللي هو بيناقشها ودي ميزة كبيرة.
الترجمة كويسة واحترافية جدًا فيما عدا شوية غلطات نحوية.
January 2, 2024
This is a great book. So interesting to get a bit of history and insight into the sacrament of baptism.
April 6, 2026
Ferguson is not a disinterested historian of the movement; he is a participant in its confessional tradition, and the omissions in his book are systematic and unidirectional. Every piece of evidence that would undermine the Anabaptist claim to apostolic precedent is absent- and this evidence is overwhelming and crushing. The book is useful as an introduction to sixteenth-century Anabaptist history (although it is missing alot about Conrad Grabel, the violence of the movement and the Anti-Trinitarianism). Zwickau Prophets, Melanchthon's letters, Spalatin and the other Radicals are barely mentioned. So this work should not be mistaken for a reliable treatment of the question on which the movement's theological legitimacy depends. It is mostly about intra-protestant arguments and combing through records to cherry pick what fits these pre-conceived theological convictions. Irenaeus and the Apostolic fathers are categorically ignored, since they explicitly record infant Baptism.
Here are just a couple things:
First & Second Centuries
The Didache (c. 50-120 AD), Chapter 7, prescribes baptism using the Trinitarian formula, permits affusion when immersion is unavailable, regulates water type and fasting duration, but specifies no minimum age for candidates. The silence is significant given the text's meticulous attention to every other practical rubric. A community that excluded infants as a theological principle would have had reason to say so. Ferguson does not engage this silence. (Critical text: J.-P. Audet, La Didache: Instructions des Apotres, Paris: Gabalda, 1958.)
Justin Martyr, 1 Apologia 15.6 (c. 150 AD), states that many Christians aged sixty or seventy "have been Christ's disciples from childhood" (ek paidon ematheteuthesan to Christo), indicating incorporation into the Christian community at a very young age, no later than c. 80-90 AD for these individuals. In 1 Apologia 61, Justin describes baptism for those who are "persuaded and believe," but this passage addresses adult converts from paganism in a missionary context, not the children of believers. The Anabaptist habit of citing chapter 61 while ignoring chapter 15 is characteristic of the selective reading that pervades this field. Ferguson engages neither passage.
Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus Haereses II.22.4 (c. 180 AD), provides the most consequential testimony Ferguson omits. Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John, states that Christ came to save all who through him are "born again to God" (renascuntur in Deum) and lists infantes first among the categories of the regenerated. Throughout Adversus Haereses, Irenaeus uses regeneration as a technical synonym for baptism; in III.17.1, he explicitly identifies the "power of regeneration unto God" with the baptismal command of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19). He is not defending infant baptism against opponents; he is using it as an uncontested premise in an argument about the ages of Christ (the doctrine of Recapitulation). One does not build an argument on a disputed premise. Irenaeus assumes his readers across Asia Minor, Rome, and Gaul accept infant baptism as settled practice. This is a writer one generation from the Apostle John. Ferguson does not cite this passage.
Third Century
Tertullian, De Baptismo 18 (c. 200-206 AD), recommends delaying baptism "especially" (maxime) for little children (parvuli). Tertullian does not frame infant baptism as a "recent innovation," a point that matters because novelty arguments were available and commonly deployed in early Christian polemic. Tertullian's objection is prudential (risk of post-baptismal sin, sponsor obligations), not doctrinal. He does not claim the practice is unapostolic, theologically invalid, or absent from the tradition. His argument presupposes that infant baptism was already practiced widely enough to require a sustained recommendation against haste. The distinction between "delay it" and "it should not exist" is categorical, and Ferguson collapses it.
Hippolytus of Rome, Traditio Apostolica 21 (c. 215 AD, but preserving second-century practices), prescribes: "the first to be baptised should be the little children... otherwise one of their family should speak." This liturgy is "designed for adults" into which "small children are included," with parents or family answering on behalf of those too young to speak. The text also prescribes that nursing infants receive the Eucharist after baptism, which presupposes prior baptism. The probative force of church orders is higher than that of homiletic exhortation because they regulate enacted rites, not theoretical possibilities. Ferguson does not cite this document.
Origen of Alexandria, Commentarii in Romanos V.9 (c. 230-250 AD), states: "Ecclesia ab apostolis traditionem suscepit etiam parvulis baptismum dare" ("The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants"). The term traditio is technical vocabulary for apostolic transmission. In Homiliae in Leviticum 8.3 and Homiliae in Lucam 14.5, Origen explains the theological rationale in terms of inherited sin from Adam. Origen traveled extensively and was familiar with practices in Egypt, Palestine, Rome, and Greece. He never mentions any church that refused to baptize infants or any controversy about the practice. Ferguson's framing treats infant baptism as a product of Augustinian original-sin theology, ignoring that Origen made the same theological connection approximately two hundred years before Augustine and explicitly attributed the practice to apostolic tradition.
Cyprian of Carthage, Epistula 64 ad Fidum (c. 253 AD), reports a council of 66 bishops who unanimously ruled that infant baptism should not be delayed until the eighth day after birth. Cyprian writes: "no one ought to be hindered from baptism and from the grace of God." And this reproduces the core argument: "the mercy and grace of God must be denied to no man born." The debate is about timing, not legitimacy. By 253, infant baptism was so firmly established across North African churches that sixty-six bishops could vote unanimously on a question of days. Ferguson does not engage this distinction.
The Dura-Europos baptistery (preserved c. 256 AD when the city fell to the Sassanid Persians and was buried under a siege embankment) contains a purpose-adapted baptismal chamber with a functional basin and wall paintings engaging water, healing, and salvation themes. Jensen (2012, pp. 108-111) describes the room's architectural features but notes that nothing about the font size or imagery requires infant candidates; the room is consistent with adult immersion and catechetical instruction. The evidence for infant baptism from the architecture is non-diagnostic as to candidate age. The wall paintings, including a panel showing Jesus healing the paralytic at the pool, function within baptismal typology. Ferguson does not cite this site.
A Vatican Museums sarcophagus lid fragment (late third century, Museo Pio Cristiano collection) depicts "the baptism of Christ as a child," with John sprinkling "the infant" with Jordan water. The depiction of Christ as an infant accentuates baptism-as-new-birth imagery. Charles Rufus Morey ("The Christian Sarcophagus in S. Maria Antiqua," The Art Bulletin, 1905, pp. 148-152) contextualizes such imagery as symbolic: in sarcophagus baptism scenes "Christ is always a boy." The evidence for infant baptism practice from this object is ambiguous; its value lies in confirming the early Christian theological association of baptism with new birth and regeneration.
Fourth Century
The S. Maria Antiqua sarcophagus, Rome (first half of the fourth century per Morey's report of earlier attributions; discovered 1901), depicts the Baptism of Christ on one end panel: "the Baptist stands on the bank, Christ is represented 'as a boy,' nude in a stream, with the descending dove above." Morey (1905, pp. 148-151) explicitly states that the childlike depiction is a conventional iconographic choice for baptism-of-Christ scenes and is evidence for baptism symbolism and typological exegesis, not direct depiction of baptized infants. Evidence for infant baptism practice from this sarcophagus is ambiguous.
The Lateran Baptistery, Rome (constructed mid-330s under the Constantinian basilica complex; fifth-century inscription attributed in scholarship to Leo I), is the earliest surviving large-scale Roman baptistery after Dura. Jensen (2012, pp. 109-110) describes its octagonal design and large immersion font (piscina) designed for adult candidates in major public rites. A fifth-century inscription includes language about "ancestral sin" and rebirth by water and Spirit, consistent with a theology in which baptism addresses inherited sin. The monumental font does not exclude infant baptism; it indicates that at least one major modality was built around adult catechumen ceremonies. Evidence for infant baptism from the font itself is non-diagnostic as to age.
The funerary inscription ICVR 13226, Via Appia "ad Catacumbas," Rome (fourth century), records the epitaph of "Victori," described as a "neofitus" (newly baptized), who "vixit d(ies) LXXX" (lived 80 days). The catalogue explicitly glosses neofitus as "neobattezzato." This is the strongest single piece of archaeological evidence for infant baptism in the fourth-century record: an 80-day lifespan combined with neophyte status is impossible to reconcile with a generalized claim that baptismal delay was normative for Christian children. This is not a theological inference but a practice inscription tied to a specific deceased child. Ferguson does not cite this inscription.
Additional Roman epitaphs use formulae linking "faith" and "grace received" with baptismal identity for children. The inscription ICUR NS X, 26329 reads: "Aproniane, crededisti in deo, vives in XP," addressing a child as a believer in language consistent with baptismal incorporation. The inscription Diehl ILCV 1531 records "Tyche dulcis, vixit anno uno, mensibus X, dib. XV, accepit VIII k[al...], reddidit die s.s.," where "received" and "rendered back" in Christian epitaphic context refer to receiving baptismal grace. (Corpus references: E. Diehl, Inscriptiones latinae christianae veteres, Berlin: Weidmann, 1925-1931, no. 1531; Inscriptiones Christianae Urbis Romae, Nova Series, vol. X, no. 26329.)
Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 40 (In Sanctum Baptisma), section 28 (c. 381 AD), recommends baptism at approximately age three but stipulates that in danger of death, baptism should be administered immediately, "even as infants; for it is better to be sanctified without awareness (anaisthetos hagiasmenon) than to depart unsealed and uninitiated (asphragiston kai ateleton)." Gregory's reasoning is pastoral, not theological; he affirms validity at any age. His recommendation of age three, not adulthood, presupposes that the baptism of pre-rational children is normal and valid
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses Mystagogicae 1-5 (c. 350 AD), teaches the newly baptized that triple immersion represents Christ's three days in the tomb. The mode is imitative (kata mimesin) but the effect is real (kat' aletheian). Baptism effects what it signifies. This sacramental realism is incompatible with the Anabaptist position that baptism is a human testimony signifying a prior internal change.
John Chrysostom, Catecheses Baptismales (c. 388-390 AD; full text rediscovered by Antoine Wenger in 1955 at the Stavronikita Monastery, Mount Athos), describes baptismal immersion as descent into the tomb of Christ. Chrysostom uses paradothenta ("things handed down") and paradosis ("tradition") to describe the baptismal practices, the same technical vocabulary Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15. His sacramental theology makes no distinction between adult and infant baptism in terms of effect; the transformation occurs through God's action in the water, not through the recipient's cognition.
The Ravenna Neonian Baptistery (late fourth to mid-fifth century, construction through decoration under Bishop Neon), features a dome mosaic centered on the Baptism of Christ surrounded by apostolic procession imagery. Annabel Jane Wharton ("Ritual and Reconstructed Meaning: The Neonian Baptistery in Ravenna," The Art Bulletin 69.3, 1987, pp. 360-372) frames the image of Christ's baptism as functioning as a typos for the rite, citing patristic language (including Ambrose) that treats Christ's baptism as the model. Wharton explicitly notes that "despite increasing infant baptism, many Christians delayed baptism" in this period, which is evidence for coexisting practices, not a single norm. The Ravenna material does not directly evidence infant candidates; evidence for infant baptism from its architecture and mosaics is non-diagnostic for age.
North African baptismal spaces of the fourth and fifth centuries (including sites at Hippo, Djemila, Timgad, and Tunisian examples) show a regional pattern distinct from Italian freestanding baptisteries: African baptisteries were often annexed or integrated into church complexes and organized candidate movement through sequential spaces. Jensen (2012, pp. 121-123) discusses these patterns but notes that the African architectural type is compatible with both adult catechumenate cycles and infant baptism without deciding frequency or normativity.
Fifth Century
The Council of Carthage, 418 AD, Canon 2 (contra Pelagians), condemns anyone who "denies that newborns (recens ab uteris matrum) are to be baptized, or says that baptism is indeed administered for the remission of sins but that they derive no original sin from Adam which must be expiated by the laver of regeneration." The council treats infant baptism as established apostolic practice and uses it to prove the doctrine of original sin. If infants had no inherited sin, the Church's universal custom of baptizing them "for the remission of sins" would be unintelligible. By 418, denying infant baptism is a formally condemned heresy. Ferguson does not cite this canon.
Augustine of Hippo, De peccatorum meritis et remissione et de baptismo parvulorum (c. 412 AD), states: "The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants must not be disregarded... this custom originated from the tradition of the Apostles" (Ecclesiae consuetudo... ab apostolorum traditione veniens). In Contra Julianum (c. 421-422), Augustine challenges the Pelagians to name a single church that does not baptize infants or a single authority that introduced the practice as a novelty. They cannot. Augustine's own argument inverts the relationship Ferguson's narrative assumes: the practice of infant baptism is the evidence from which the doctrine of original sin is inferred, not the reverse. The practice is attested by Irenaeus (c. 180), Origen (c. 230-250), Hippolytus (c. 215), and Cyprian (c. 253), all predating Augustine's birth in 354 by more than a century.
The Missing "Age of Accountability" idea from the first 5th centuries
No church father states that infant baptism was introduced as a novelty. No council introduces infant baptism as a new practice. No council debates whether infants should be baptized, only when. No inscription records a community practicing adult-only baptism. No heretical or schismatic group claims adult-only baptism as the original practice. No ancient historian, Christian or pagan, records a transition from adult-only to infant baptism. No liturgical text restricts baptism to candidates above a specified age. Silence in missionary-conversion narratives cannot bear the weight of a negative inference about childhood baptism, and that the Apostolic Tradition's positive evidence for infant baptism in the early third century is exactly the point where silence arguments lose force.
If believer's baptism had been the apostolic norm and infant baptism a later corruption, the transition would have been the most consequential liturgical change in the history of the early church. It would have affected every Christian community. It would have generated controversy, resistance, and written defense. The Anabaptist position requires that this revolution occurred silently, universally, and without a single recorded objection across five centuries and three continents. The evidence records no transition because there was no transition.
January 3, 2021
Everett Ferguson presents a major gift to students interested in the Patristic area, by tracing in detail the baptismal developed from St. John the Baptist to St. Augustine. Ferguson, as a baptists scholar, does focus a fair amount of time arguing that the normal practice of the Patristic age is to baptize believes through immersion. Paedo-baptism arises out of the Church first baptizing infants out of an emergency although this only makes sense if the Patristic Theologians viewed baptism as regenerative (that Ferguson also argues against). One element of baptism theology that stands out in Ferguson's work is his treatment on how the second century has traces of Patristic Fathers discussing baptism for the dead that sheds some light on Paul's discussion of its practice in 1 Corinthians 15. For those looking for a treatment on baptism in the Patristic age, Ferguson's work is a must have even though I would differ with him on some interpretations of how Paedo-baptism plays a role in the Patristic age.
November 20, 2024
Well, if nothing else this book deserves 5 stars for the following reasons:
1. It must have taken forever to collect this research
2. It an excellent reference work and introduction to disputes surrounding particular works and interpretations (though not touching on overarching argumentation).
There is a lot to reflect on here for Christians. It seems to me that, like with many theological issues, the early church had to work through key questions on baptism. Likewise, each believer today will have to wrestle with these issues and determine which tradition most closely aligns with their convictions. One thing is clear: Baptism has been ascribed the utmost importance in the church from the very beginning.
Here I will detail a couple of the author's conclusions. First, "The New Testament and early Christian literature are virtually unanimous in ascribing a saving significance to baptism" (p. 854). It is my opinion that anyone who reads through NT passages and the apostolic fathers' views on baptism will see how the author reaches this conclusion. Furthermore, "Two fundamental blessings are often repeated: the person baptized received forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit" (p. 854). In other words, baptismal regeneration is clearly apostolic.
On the other hand, we have the question of infant baptism. The author essentially concludes that a delay of baptism was the norm at first, but people baptized infants on their deathbeds since baptism was so closely linked with salvation (of course, this suggests that they considered the baptism of infants exceptional rather than invalid). Eventually, this practice replaced the former. Ultimately, I think people have to look at the arguments as laid out by the church fathers and decide if this development in the norm was correct (e.g., acceptance of original sin seems to necessitate infant baptism). After all, there are many issues that take time to be fully clarified within the church. In any case, the early church placed too much importance on baptism to treat this as a tertiary issue.
The author also asserts that baptism by immersion was the norm early on. However, I think inconsistencies arise in how people treat this. Though this was the "norm," that does not imply other forms were considered invalid (e.g., the Didache explicitly gives an alternative). My question for those who appeal to immersion as the only valid form of baptism would be, why neglect every other early baptismal tradition? Where is the baptismal regeneration? Where is the renunciation of the devil? Where is the nudity of the one being baptized? Where is the laying on of hands? Where is the fasting? In my view, to appeal to tradition for anti-pedobaptism and simultaneously reject baptismal regeneration (and all other traditions) is completely untenable.
Heavenly Father, grant us grace and wisdom in our search for truth from your abundant mercy, through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.
1. It must have taken forever to collect this research
2. It an excellent reference work and introduction to disputes surrounding particular works and interpretations (though not touching on overarching argumentation).
There is a lot to reflect on here for Christians. It seems to me that, like with many theological issues, the early church had to work through key questions on baptism. Likewise, each believer today will have to wrestle with these issues and determine which tradition most closely aligns with their convictions. One thing is clear: Baptism has been ascribed the utmost importance in the church from the very beginning.
Here I will detail a couple of the author's conclusions. First, "The New Testament and early Christian literature are virtually unanimous in ascribing a saving significance to baptism" (p. 854). It is my opinion that anyone who reads through NT passages and the apostolic fathers' views on baptism will see how the author reaches this conclusion. Furthermore, "Two fundamental blessings are often repeated: the person baptized received forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit" (p. 854). In other words, baptismal regeneration is clearly apostolic.
On the other hand, we have the question of infant baptism. The author essentially concludes that a delay of baptism was the norm at first, but people baptized infants on their deathbeds since baptism was so closely linked with salvation (of course, this suggests that they considered the baptism of infants exceptional rather than invalid). Eventually, this practice replaced the former. Ultimately, I think people have to look at the arguments as laid out by the church fathers and decide if this development in the norm was correct (e.g., acceptance of original sin seems to necessitate infant baptism). After all, there are many issues that take time to be fully clarified within the church. In any case, the early church placed too much importance on baptism to treat this as a tertiary issue.
The author also asserts that baptism by immersion was the norm early on. However, I think inconsistencies arise in how people treat this. Though this was the "norm," that does not imply other forms were considered invalid (e.g., the Didache explicitly gives an alternative). My question for those who appeal to immersion as the only valid form of baptism would be, why neglect every other early baptismal tradition? Where is the baptismal regeneration? Where is the renunciation of the devil? Where is the nudity of the one being baptized? Where is the laying on of hands? Where is the fasting? In my view, to appeal to tradition for anti-pedobaptism and simultaneously reject baptismal regeneration (and all other traditions) is completely untenable.
Heavenly Father, grant us grace and wisdom in our search for truth from your abundant mercy, through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.
April 3, 2020
The most exhaustive text you will find on the history of Baptism through the first 5 centuries. Any bible scholar who is after the truth of baptism and it’s history in the church should look no further. Ferguson’s book is a work of Art - brilliance. He starts with the antecedents of baptism and ends with baptismal fonts across those 5 centuries. He reviews the Holy Scriptures, the apocrypha, writings from the early church fathers, and others. He truly examines everything that’s available to us.
I found the chapter on the origins of infant baptism to be fascinating. I also enjoyed the burial inscriptions and how they demonstrated children were not routinely baptized until well after the 5th century. It leaves the scholar to wonder - why not before then? You learn the origins of infant baptism are credited to the traditions of men and not the Holy Scriptures.
I found the chapter on the origins of infant baptism to be fascinating. I also enjoyed the burial inscriptions and how they demonstrated children were not routinely baptized until well after the 5th century. It leaves the scholar to wonder - why not before then? You learn the origins of infant baptism are credited to the traditions of men and not the Holy Scriptures.
January 10, 2025
This is not an easy read. It's massive both in size and literary content. By the grace of God I made it through the entire thing front to back and I'm so glad I did. This book opened the door to countless papers and other books I've since read, so if you have a thirst for Christian history knowledge, this book is worth it's weight in gold.
December 3, 2022
I'm glad I read this, and I genuinely found it interesting. But it is what it is, and what it is is a long, dry, scholarly tome.
Read
December 29, 2022This work is massive. I admit to skimming certain sections & only thoroughly reading the parts that particularly interested me plus each topic's conclusions. Very impressive & interesting study.
July 28, 2025
Must read for anyone weighing on this subject.
November 8, 2025
I love when a book confirms my priors.
April 14, 2015
This is a comprehensive survey of written and artifactual evidence concerning baptism. Ferguson reaches three primary conclusions. First, baptism was primarily done by immersion throughout this time period. Other modes were used only in emergency situations. Second, paedobaptism emerged slowly over time. Not until the fourth century did it become widely accepted. Third, baptism was considered to be the point of regeneration, reception of the Spirit, and the reception of other salvific blessings. Ferguson is a member of the Churches of Christ. The conclusions he reaches are consistent with Churches of Christ doctrine. In general, however, I thought that Ferguson was giving a fair presentation of the data. I remain unconvinced, however, of his claim to find baptismal regeneration in the New Testament texts (though I grant that it is clearly found in the church fathers). He also seemed averse to finding the doctrine of original sin in fathers prior to Augustine. These caveats aside, this is the resource that has collected all the data on baptism in the early church.
August 7, 2013
A very thorough examination of primary source documents detailing baptismal practices from before the advent of Christ through the 5th century AD. Yes, very thorough, over 1,000 pages, and some great information, such as when infant baptism crept in, and other controversial practices. But very, very, very dry. Bring water to your reading chair, or dip into as a reference. Again, I cannot stress enough that Ferguson has clearly researched the topic exhaustively, it's just unfortunate that the end result was also a little exhausting to read!
September 13, 2015
This book was extremely informative and comprehensive. I look forward to reading Jeremias' book on baptism which dives into justifying infant baptism. This author I feel is against it and perhaps weaves his theology into the book a bit. Many of the things I wondered about were in fact ancient customs which surprised me a tad. I would encourage those who study baptism or those entering seminary to give this lengthy book a read. I did not feel it was too dry and it gives you some practice reading Greek.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews