Customer Reviews

The Origins of Infant Baptism: A Further Study in Reply to Kurt Aland

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Along with his Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, this book established Jeremias as the main defender of the ancient and biblical practice of infant baptism based upon scripture, patristics, and archeology. This book is short enough to read in a few hours, and will certainly challenge any arguments against the practice.

I would also recommend the following books for the defense of infant baptism upon biblical/theological and historical grounds (however, the Reformed authors do not believe in regenerative baptism at any age): Infant Baptism and the Silence of the New Testament, To a Thousand Generations: Infant Baptism ~ Covenant Mercy to the Children of God, Common Ground: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity for the American Christian, For the Life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy, Swear to God: The Promise and Power of the SacramentsChristian Baptism

Enjoy!

In "Origins of Infant Baptism" Joachim Jeremias rebuts Kurt Aland's critique of his first book on the subject, "Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries." Arguement by arguement Jeremias addresed the problems Aland found with the first book and turns the tables on him with sound arguement and further evidence. Jeremias corrects errors and updates changes in his view as well, but by and large defends his thesis as it stood in the first book that infant baptism has been practiced since the founding of the church.

A weakness of this second effort is it does not prove a strong arguement from the New Testament that infants and small children too young to make a profession of faith were actually in the housedholds baptized in Acts. He does, however, go a long way toward proving that "household" means everyone in the household, including young children that might or might not have been present.

Jeremias also uncovers a false assumption on the part of Aland that infant baptism would have been superfluous in the early church b/c they did not believe that children were born sinful, therefore there was no need to baptise them. Jeremias did an excellent job of showing from the scriptures that children are born in sin and in need of the cleansing work of Christ, and that most early church fathers believe this. However, Jeremias puts too much emphasis on the power of baptism to cleanse people from sin. At points it appears that he equates baptism and salvation or at the minimum sees it as integral to the process.

"The Origins of Infant Baptism" and "Baptism in the First Four Centuries" persuaded me that infant baptism might be a practice handed down from the Apostles, but I am still not convinced. What I am convinced of is that it can be shown to have been practiced as far back as the beginning of the second century. I am still unconvinced that it actually was done in the New Testament or that it should be done today. On with the search for truth!

I made a trip in the late 1970s to St. Louis University in order to hear Joachim Jeremias speak. He spoke with a confident authority that captivated the audience. That same spirit is evident in this work. Although the debate over infant baptism has continued for almost five hundred years and will not likely be resolved until the Parousia, Jeremias persuasively argues the case for paedobaptism in response to Kurt Aland.
For a more thorough presentation of Jeremias' case a reader will also want to purchase "Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries." Infant baptism in the first four centuries (The Library of history and doctrine)
-- Bill Tucker, St. Louis, Missouri