Status Updates From Baptism in the Early Church

Very interesting book. Two paedobaptist authors versed in patristic doctrine display how modern arguments for infant baptism make misleading arguments from cherry-picked quotations of the church fathers stripped of context, while ignoring other texts from these same authors that give leverage towards believer’s baptism.

Clement, Tertullian, the Didache, etc. display credobaptism so far from the book’s author.

Fascinating book. With the almost universal understanding at the time of baptismal regeneration, the first "little ones" baptisms were for the purpose of regeneration of one not able to "choose" Christ, but the sacrament was applied to save the little one who was on their deathbed. None of the Abrahamic Covenant convention that is now used. And that, according to the book, wasn't until the mid-third century.

So far Stander has made it clear that infant baptism is nowhere to be found until the third century. When it does appear then, it has nothing to do with covenant children and it is never linked to circumcision. It is understood to be regenerative and is almost exclusively applied to dying infants to secure their place in heaven.

This is the second early church history source I’ve read recently that points out that the normative practice in the early third century/late second century was to baptize completely nude. The several church fathers that record this claim it was an oral tradition passed down from the apostles. Taking off clothes at the baptismal symbolized leaving behind the old man. Wild.

This book is a paedobaptist showing that paedobaptism is not present in church history until the 3rd century and that the early church fathers credobaptists. Weird but true lol

Excellent so far