Hello and welcome. In this article, we'll examine relevant texts from Justin Martyr to understand who the proper recipients of baptism are and whether he aligns with Credobaptism or Paedobaptism. For background context, we recommend reading our brief introductory article on the proper recipients of baptism from historical perspectives, available here.
REVIEWING COMMON CLAIMS FROM PAEDOBAPTISTS
In the apologetic landscape, Paedobaptists defending their practice routinely claim that the baptismal practice of Christians always included infants, going back to the apostles. They argue that the practice of believers being the only proper recipients of baptism has no attestation until the 1500s, and that Paedobaptism was the universal practice before then.
“Since the Apostles themselves, paedobaptism was practiced and handed off to the Apostolic Fathers, who handed it off to the next generation, known as the Early Church Fathers. It must be noted that since the early church itself, dating back to the Apostles, paedobaptism has always been practiced.” - Trey Soto, Do Christians have to believe in Paedobaptism?
“Infant baptism was the universal practice of the church until after the Protestant Reformation.” - Theopolis Institute, Infant Baptism in the History of the Church
“Infant baptism is the universal practice of the Christian church for over the first 1500 years of its existence.” - Kim Riddlebarger, The Biblical Case for Infant Baptism, VI.D
“It is not infant baptism which is an odd practice, rather it is the rejection of infant baptism which is a novelty and only represents a single strand of Protestantism…. If we are going to compare opinions then I am convinced that it is only reasonable to believe that the earliest Christians, taught by the Apostles, had the correct understanding, and that any novel ideas, which are contrary to 1500 years of unanimous Christian teaching, cannot be authentic Christianity.” - St. George Orthodox Ministry, Infant Baptism?
“Infant baptism was the universal practice of the church until after the Protestant Reformation.” - Tim Lecroy, Infant Baptism in the History of the Church
“For fifteen hundred years after Christ, the practice of infant baptism was universal; that to this general fact there was absolutely no exception,” - Samuel Miller, cited by Booth in, Children of the Promise, p. 179
In this article, we will examine Justin Martyr.
WHO WAS JUSTIN MARTYR?
Justin Martyr was a Christian writer and apologist who lived roughly from AD 100–165. He was born in Samaria and studied different philosophical traditions before becoming a Christian. After his conversion, Justin devoted himself to explaining and defending Christianity, particularly in response to objections from the pagan world. His writings are especially valuable for studying early Christianity because they offer a window into Christian beliefs and practices in the second century, only a few decades after the New Testament period.
Justin is perhaps best known for his First Apology and Dialogue with Trypho, where he discusses topics such as the identity of Jesus, the resurrection, Christian worship, baptism, the Old Testament, and the relationship between Christianity and Judaism. Because Justin is an early witness, his writings are frequently mentioned in discussions on the development of Christian doctrine.
JUSTIN MARTYR ON THE RECIPIENTS OF BAPTISM
“As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated.” - First Apology, Chapter LXI
“And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed.” - First Apology, Chapter LXI
In Justin's First Apology, chapter 61 is devoted entirely to the practice of Christian baptism. He continues in the pattern set by earlier sources that indicate the practice of Credobaptism, like the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas, which we have covered separately. Let's review.
The Didache says:
“But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize {in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit} in living (running) water. But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able; and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.” - The Didache, Chapter 7
To read our article on the Didache, see here. In chapter 7, we are told that prayer and fasting precede baptism. Justin also includes this in his chapter on baptism, but he adds the detail that persuasion and belief in Christian teaching come first. This further strengthens the interpretation that the Didache envisions only those with a developed mind and body past infancy as candidates for baptism. In the first quote of Justin, he gives the sequence of personal persuasion in teaching, faith, prayer, fasting, and lastly baptism. Justin provides no other categories or sequences that would include infants as proper recipients.
The Epistle of Barnabas says:
"Ye perceive how He pointed out the water and the cross at the same time. For this is the meaning; Blessed are they that set their hope on the cross, and go down into the water; for He speaketh of the reward at his proper season; then, saith He, I will repay. But now what saith He? His leaves shall not fall off; He meaneth by this that every word, which shall come forth from you through your mouth in faith and love, shall be for the conversion and hope of many." - Barnabas 11:8
"Next what saith He? And there was a river streaming from the right hand, and beautiful trees rose up from it; and whosoever shall eat of them shall live forever. This He saith, because we go down into the water laden with sins and filth, and rise up from it bearing fruit in the heart, resting our fear and hope on Jesus in the spirit. And whosoever shall eat of these shall live forever; He meaneth this; whosoever, saith He, shall hear these things spoken and shall believe, shall live forever." - Barnabas 11:10-11
To read our article on the Epistle of Barnabas, see here. In chapter 11, baptism is described as being preceded by and coinciding with someone hearing the word, believing, and setting their hope on the cross. In other words, it's preceded by knowledge and choice. Justin continues this pattern by saying that while we had no knowledge or choice at our birth, the second birth when someone is born again is by their personal choice. If baptism either causes, coincides with, or follows being born again, then baptism comes after a person's personal knowledge and choice and is therefore on a credo basis. Justin does not include an exception or category for those born again without their own knowledge and choice, which would make accommodation for infant baptism.
We see then that Justin's conception of who is to be baptized is entirely occupied by the view of Credobaptism. He describes persuasion, belief, knowledge, choice, prayer, fasting, repenting of sins, calling on the Lord, and like details as preceding baptism.
Paedobaptists might object that Justin isn't addressing the subject of what to do with infants born to Christian parents, and that he's just talking about what to do with adult converts from paganism. In which case, it makes sense for Justin to only mention Credobaptism while still affirming infant baptism. However, this objection doesn't work. For one, many non-Christian adults have young children. If Justin has adult converts to Christianity in mind, and he affirmed infant baptism, there is still the question of what to do with their young children. It would be reasonable to think that he would include that category in a chapter about baptism, if it was a category he had in view as proper recipients. For infant baptism to remain within the realm of what Justin affirms, he would then need to be speaking about baptism for only adult converts from paganism who happen to not have young children. But Justin himself never makes this clarification or hints that this is the category of baptism he is referring to.
Secondly, this objection doesn't fit the overall flow of what Justin discusses. This is not a random throwaway mention of baptism in passing where there would be more grounding to argue that he is just referring to one category of proper recipients out of multiple. Justin covers Christian baptism in chapter 61, administering the sacraments in chapter 65, the Eucharist in chapter 66, and weekly worship of Christians in chapter 67. So Justin is addressing common Christian practices. He's not just commenting on adult converts to Christianity from non-Christian homes. He's detailing common and recurring Christian practices. In which case, it would be reasonable to expect a mention of infant baptism, if he indeed affirmed the practice; but such a mention does not exist in his writings.
As a result, when we consider what Justin says about baptism, compare with statements from earlier sources, and do not force a narrow category onto him that he does not detail, we come away with a clear alignment to Credobaptism.
PAEDOBAPTISTS ON JUSTIN'S BAPTISMAL THEOLOGY
But what have Paedobaptist theologians said about this? Have they come to similar conclusions about Justin's baptismal theology?
“We turn our attention at once to Justin, since he can be quickly dismissed. From Justin, to whom allusion has already been made, we have a detailed description of baptism, in the so-called First Apology, chapter 61. It, too, probably presupposes adults exclusively, but certainly not infants….All these features make the presupposition of a participation of infants in the baptismal event appear unthinkable.” - Aland, Did the Early Church Baptize Infants, p. 54-55
“In the light of Justin’s detailed discussion on baptism in the second century, it is surprising that modern scholars still endeavor to quote him as ‘proof’ for the practice of infant baptism. They ignore the above explicit accounts but prefer to resort to vague statements which can be interpreted either way.” - Stander & Louw, Baptism in the Early Church, p. 49-50
“The case is not different when we come to Justin Martyr, whose Apology was probably written before the middle of the second century. In the picture which he gives us of the baptismal arrangements of the Church in his own day, infant baptism finds no place.” - John C. Lambert, The Sacraments in the New Testament, p. 206
Some Paedobaptists do, in fact, see Justin Martyr's comments the same way that we do. Aland sees it as "unthinkable" to include infants in Justin's description of baptism. Lambert says there is "no place" for infant baptism in Justin's writings. Stander & Louw criticize other Paedobaptists who ignore Justin's explicit statements and argue from vague ones that he did approve of infant baptism.
“St. Justin Martyr was born around A.D. 100 and martyred about the year 165. He discussed baptism in his writings, including chapters 61 and 65 of his First Apology, although he did not address infant baptism in particular. Apparently it wasn’t an issue in his writings." - Catholic Answers, Was Infant Baptism an Issue for St. Justin Martyr?
Even the more reserved comment from Tom Nash at Catholic Answers acknowledges that Justin did not mention infant baptism in his writings. So at a minimum, there is no clear positive evidence for the practice from Justin. However, Nash goes on to read the practice back into Justin's time from comments made by later Christian sources which he believes support infant baptism.
As Stander & Louw acknowledged, there are texts from Justin that are used as arguments for infant baptism. We will cover those later here. For now, we wanted to point out that we are not alone in our observations and find agreement among some Paedobaptist theologians.
JUSTIN MARTYR ON THE RECIPIENTS OF THE LORD'S SUPPER
Beginning four chapters later, Justin discusses Christian ordinances and the Lord's Supper. In them, we find additional details that contribute to and strengthen the view that he was a Credobaptist in his baptismal theology.
“But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized person,” - First Apology, Chapter LXV
When Justin discusses the people baptized in this chapter, he says they were first convinced and had assented to Christian teaching. Justin continues the pattern of framing baptism exclusively on a credo basis without any mention of a category or distinction that would allow for the baptism of infants or anyone else who had not first heard and believed themselves.
“And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.” - First Apology, Chapter LXVI
In the next chapter, Justin discusses the prerequisite requirements for receiving the Lord's Supper. Following the same pattern after baptism, he says only those who have heard and believe can partake. So Justin also frames communion on a credo basis. Here, we have a question about consistency of interpretation. If Paedobaptists agree that Justin sees only believers as valid recipients of the Lord's Supper, we ask why this same standard of interpretation should not apply to his comments on baptism, which are even more detailed. The Credobaptist perspective can interpret Justin's comments consistently on both accounts without needing to add categories or caveats that Justin never mentioned. However, the Paedobaptist side seems pressed to either add additional categories to one or both accounts that Justin never mentioned. Hypothetically, if Justin explicitly affirmed infants as valid recipients of communion, Paedobaptists would probably at least infer that Justin likely affirmed infant baptism if there were no clear statements to the contrary. So it seems fair for us to see the lack of explicit evidence for infant baptism combined with the statements indicating Credobaptism and Credocommunion as strong evidence that Justin was in fact a Credobaptist.
JUSTIN MARTYR ON SPIRITUAL CIRCUMCISION
In Justin's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, he speaks about circumcision. Several comments on this topic from him are relevant to the question of his baptismal theology, and there is an argument we've found from some Paedobaptists on a comment from Justin here that is used to claim that he implicitly affirmed Paedobaptism. We will address that specific argument here, and deal with another later.
“And we, who have approached God through Him, have received not carnal, but spiritual circumcision, which Enoch and those like him observed. And we have received it through baptism, since we were sinners, by God’s mercy; and all men may equally obtain it.” - Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter XLIII
This is the text on circumcision that is used to argue that Justin believed in infant baptism. Let's read a Paedobaptist source commenting on what Justin says here.
"Who cannot see here how Justin identifies baptism as the true circumcision of Christians? The analogy he draws between the two sacraments is undeniable proof that the early Church viewed baptism as succeeding circumcision in covenant function — a clear testimony against those who would deny any such correspondence between the Old and New Covenant initiatory signs." - Protesting Catholics, Elijah Waller, An Absolute Defense of Infant Baptism: Part 4
This is all they said after providing the above quote from Justin. Unfortunately, they did not flesh out the argument as much as they could have to provide more clarity, so we will try to develop it more. The argument largely rests under the umbrella of the covenantal unity argument for Paedobaptism, and applies their conclusions from that to this statement from Justin.
This argument sees one singular covenant stretching through redemptive history beginning with Adam after the fall. This covenant is one in internal substance throughout history but has various external administrations. The Mosaic, Abrahamic, and New covenants are considered this singular covenant of grace. Because a sign and ordinance were always given to infants in the covenant of grace throughout history, and the new covenant is the covenant of grace, infants should be given the sign and ordinance of the new covenant Christian church. This means that infants should be baptized. We have addressed this argument elsewhere on our blog, which you can read here.
Applied to Justin, this text is interpreted to mean that he believed baptism is the continuation or succession of circumcision. From this, it is inferred that he also believed infants should be baptized because infants were also circumcised.
Multiple problems with this interpretation of Justin render the argument unpersuasive.
1. The first problem is that Justin grounds the reception of this "spiritual circumcision" on a credo basis, just like he does with the reception of baptism. He says it's received by those who approach God through Jesus. This should inform how we understand his belief on who should be baptized. What Justin says here is remarkably consistent with his comments on what precedes baptism.
2. The second problem is that the example Justin uses as an instance of "spiritual circumcision" does not strengthen the argument that he meant to convey that there is a 1:1 correlation between the Old Testament ordinance of circumcision and the New Testament ordinance of baptism in such a way that the categories of valid recipients transfer over completely, including infants. Justin says Enoch observed this "spiritual circumcision". What's the relevance of this? Enoch lived seven generations before Abraham, so before the ordinance of circumcision was instituted in a covenant. If Justin wanted to draw a closer connection between the ordinance of circumcision in the old covenant and baptism in the new, there are arguably much better examples to use, like someone who lived under a covenant with circumcision as an ordinance. Therefore, Justin's appeal to someone who received "spiritual circumcision" hundreds of years before the administration of circumcision as a covenant ordinance informs us that he likely does not mean that this event, its prerequisites, and who qualifies as a proper recipient can be substituted directly from the ordinance of circumcision.
3. The third problem is that what we know about Enoch further leads us to the conclusion that Justin was not setting up circumcision and baptism in a way where all of the prerequisites and qualifications transfer from one to the other.
Gen 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
Heb 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
Based on the little information we can gather about Enoch in the Bible, it seems that Justin likely understood Enoch as an example of someone acceptable to God through walking with him and pleasing Him. In other words, as Justin said, he "approached" Him. There is no evidence that Enoch's spiritual circumcision was received through a covenantal federal household principle, where the faith of his father qualified him to receive it in infancy. Rather, much like everything else Justin has said, it seems Enoch received it on a credo basis, giving us further reason to dismiss this argument that Justin implicitly affirmed infant baptism.
4. The fourth problem with this argument is that other statements from Justin in the dialogue with Trypho directly point toward receiving this "spiritual circumcision" on a credo basis, and therefore reinforcing our view that Justin was a Credobaptist, since he says in the previous quote that spiritual circumcision is associated with those who had been baptized.
"Jesus Christ circumcises all who will - as was declared above - with knives of stone; that they may be a righteous nation, a people keeping faith, holding to the truth, and maintaining peace." - Dialogue With Trypho, Chapter XXIV
Going back before the Paedobaptist prooftext of chapter XLIII, Justin indicates that there is a circumcision for "all who will," suggesting it is preceded by personal persuasion and desire. In other words, it's on a credo basis.
"But though a man be a Scythian or a Persian, if he has the knowledge of God and of His Christ, and keeps the everlasting righteous decrees, he is circumcised with the good and useful circumcision, and is a friend of God, and God rejoices in his gifts and offerings." - Dialogue With Trypho, Chapter XXVIII
A few chapters later, Justin says it's those with knowledge of God and Christ, and who keep the decrees, who are circumcised. Again, we see the pattern of knowledge and personal persuasion connected to this circumcision.
"Those too in circumcision who approach Him, that is, believing Him and seeking blessings from Him, He will both receive and bless." - Dialogue With Trypho, Chapter XXXIII
In chapter XLII, Justin said, “And we, who have approached God through Him, have received not carnal, but spiritual circumcision," Before that, here in chapter XXXIII, he frames the "approaching" mentioned in the prooftext on a credo basis on believing God. Again, we see this circumcision framed on a credo basis.
"For your first circumcision was and is performed by iron instruments, for you remain hard-hearted; but our circumcision, which is the second, having been instituted after yours, circumcises us from idolatry and from absolutely every kind of wickedness by sharp stones, i.e., by the words preached by the apostles of the corner-stone cut out without hands. And our hearts are thus circumcised from evil, so that we are happy to die for the name of the good Rock, which causes living water to burst forth for the hearts of those who by Him have loved the Father of all, and which gives those who are willing to drink of the water of life." - Dialogue With Trypho, Chapter CXIV
Later on, Justin says that this Christian circumcision is by "sharp stones," like he also said in chapter XXIV. But he now clarifies that by this, he means the preaching of God's word. As a result, hearts are circumcised, and living water bursts forth from the hearts of those who love the Father by Christ. Justin lays out the same pattern here that we have seen time and time again across his writings. The circumcision is connected to those who hear the word preached and love God. It is again framed on a credo basis.
We repeatedly see Justin frame this circumcision in the context of activities and experiences that are only compatible with people who have developed in body and mind, to where they can hear God's word, be personally persuaded of it, and believe. This is the only category of recipients that Justin seems aware of. He does not mention some other category in passing, and he does not mention or seem remotely aware of a covenantal household principle where the faith of a parent merits or qualifies an infant child, who would otherwise be disqualified, as a valid recipient of this spiritual circumcision.
So we see that Justin's comments on spiritual circumcision do not lend support to the idea that he implicitly affirmed infant baptism, or affirmed it and just didn't mention it for one reason or another. On the contrary, his comments further lead us to the conclusion that he was a Credobaptist, since he also sees communion and spiritual circumcision as occurring and being qualified for on a credo basis.
JUSTIN MARTYR ON CHILDREN
When we look at what Justin said about children and how guilt of sin is accounted to humans, we see additional evidence supporting Credobaptism.
"He submitted to be born and to be crucified, not because He needed such things, but because of the human race, which from Adam had fallen under the power of death and the guile of the serpent, and each one of which had committed personal transgression. For God, wishing both angels and men, who were endowed with free-will, and at their own disposal, to do whatever He had strengthened each to do, made them so, that if they chose the things acceptable to Himself, He would keep them free from death and from punishment; but that if they did evil, He would punish each as He sees fit." - Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter LXXXVIII
"But in the version of the Seventy it is written, 'Behold, ye die like men, and fall like one of the princes, in order to manifest the disobedience of men,--I mean of Adam and Eve,--and the fall of one of the princes, i.e., of him who was called the serpent, who fell with a great overthrow, because he deceived Eve. But as my discourse is not intended to touch on this point, but to prove to you that the Holy Ghost reproaches men because they were made like God, free from suffering and death, provided that they kept His commandments, and were deemed deserving of the name of His sons, and yet they, becoming like Adam and Eve, work out death for themselves; let the interpretation of the Psalm be held just as you wish, yet thereby it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming "gods," and of having power to become sons of the Highest; and shall be each by himself judged and condemned like Adam and Eve. Now I have proved at length that Christ is called God." - Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter CXXIV
"But since sensation remains to all who have ever lived, and eternal punishment is laid up (i.e., for the wicked), see that ye neglect not to be convinced, and to hold as your belief, that these things are true. For let even necromancy, and the divinations you practise by immaculate children, and the evoking of departed human souls, and those who are called among the magi, Dream-senders and Assistant-spirits (Familiars), and all that is done by those who are skilled in such matters —let these persuade you that even after death souls are in a state of sensation;" - First Apology, Chapter XVIII
When Justin talks about the reasons Jesus came and died, he mentions the fall of Adam. But curiously, the only category of sin and transgression he mentions for Jesus' coming is "personal transgression". Justin does not mention a category of impersonal sin from Adam that is perpetually inherited. Justin then grounds punishment on each person's own evil and abuse of free will. We then see Justin place the blame and cause of our death and condemnation on ourselves, rather than because we descend from Adam and have inherited his guilt. He says that people work out death for themselves and that it's by ourselves that we're condemned like Adam and Eve. Speaking of children, Justin says they're "immaculate" in the context of pagan child sacrifice. We know the word immaculate has meanings that include being free from sin. The age of the children he's referring to isn't clearly known. However, it seems reasonable to conclude that he doesn't view humans as guilty from conception. Justin also had a high view of free will and humans being condemned for their own sins.
"But since God in the beginning made the race of angels and men with free-will, they will justly suffer in eternal fire the punishment of whatever sins they have committed. And this is the nature of all that is made, to be capable of vice and virtue. For neither would any of them be praiseworthy unless there were power to turn to both [virtue and vice]." - Second Apology, Chapter VII
So how does this support Credobaptism? Well, remember in the texts we looked at for Justin's thoughts on baptism, he categorically assumes that those who are baptized have committed prior sins. If Justin only seems aware of candidates for baptism who have committed prior sins, and he does not believe infants have committed sins, it follows that he does not see infants as proper recipients of baptism.
It's noteworthy that Justin continues the line of thought that we have observed in other sources which support Credobaptism on our blog. Earlier sources like the Epistle of Barnabas, Aristides of Athens, and the Shepherd of Hermas all indicate that infants are not guilty of sin.
One reason why some Paedobaptist traditions baptize infants, and a major reason historically, is the concept that infants are guilty of sin, which needs to be remitted through baptism for the child not to be damned and be able to enter heaven. We have written extensively on this topic in other articles, so we won't go in much depth here. Let's look at three sources displaying this from the 5th century.
"Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother’s wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema. For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, “By one man sin is come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned,” than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration." - Council in 418, Canon II
“Let there be then no eternal salvation promised to infants out of our own opinion, without Christ’s baptism; for none is promised in that Holy Scripture which is to be preferred to all human authority and opinion." - A treatise on the merits and forgiveness of sins, and on the baptism of infants, Chapter 33
“What do we understand by the darkness but sin? And whatever else it may embrace in its meaning, at any rate he who believes not in Christ will “abide in darkness,”—which, of course, is a penal state, not, as the darkness of the night, necessary for the refreshment of living beings. So that infants, unless they pass into the number of believers through the sacrament which was divinely instituted for this purpose, will undoubtedly remain in this darkness.” - A treatise on the merits and forgiveness of sins, and on the baptism of infants, Chapter 35
“For only the little ones who do not yet have their own actions, whether good ones or bad ones, will be condemned by reason of original sin alone, if the grace of the savior does not come to their aid by the bath of rebirth. But all the rest who, in using free choice, have added their own personal sins on top of original sin, if they are not rescued from the power of darkness by the grace of God and transferred to the kingdom of Christ, will receive judgment, not only according to the merits of their origin, but also according to merits of their own will.” - Second Letter of Augustine to Abbot Valentine, AP4 WSA 1.26.47
“Consider also the case of the whole multitude of children. In none of them do you find deserts, neither past nor future, only the sin in which the whole human race is born unto damnation. We speak now of children before the use of reason and before they are able to make any use of their free will. Some are regenerated in baptism and pass on to eternal happiness, others are not reborn and go to unending misery.” - The call of all nations, Book 1, Chapter 16
What we see in these three examples is that one prominent reason for baptizing infants is to remove the sin they are guilty of, so they aren't damned if they die and can go to heaven. What's the relevance of this to Justin Martyr?
This reason to baptize infants is premised on the idea that infants are guilty of sin. If a person in early Christianity like Justin didn't seem to believe that infants were guilty of sin, it would mean they wouldn't affirm infant baptism for that particular reason. Without clear affirmation of the practice, the rejection of certain concepts often used as justification for the practice makes it less likely that the person affirmed the practice and failed to mention it in their writings. Therefore, since Justin indicated that young children weren't guilty of sin, it becomes less likely that he affirmed the practice of baptizing infants.
ADDRESSING OTHER PAEDOBAPTIST ARGUMENTS
We have a remaining Paedobaptist stronghold in Justin Martyr, which is appealed to by some as evidence that he affirmed the practice of infant baptism.
“And many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples from childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years; and I boast that I could produce such from every race of men.” - First Apology, Chapter XV
The key here is how "disciples from childhood" is interpreted. Let's see where some Paedobaptists take this comment from Justin.
“The men and women mentioned by Justin were consequently baptized ‘as children’ in the time between AD 80 and 95.” - Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, p. 72
“The third of these references comes to us from the pen of Justin Martyr. In his First Apology, written around 150-55 AD, he mentions “many men and women of the age of sixty and seventy years who have been disciples of Christ from childhood,” and who had kept their Christian faith untarnished throughout all of those years. Jeremias notes that the use of the passive word for ‘becoming a Christian’ which Justin employed here implies that he was making reference to their baptisms. If so, then we have in Justin’s account another indirect reference to infant baptism which carries us all the way back to apostolic times, since the people mentioned by him would have received baptism in the last two decades of the first century, a period when the apostle John was still alive.” - Holstrom, Infant Baptism and the Silence of the New Testament, p. 88
“Now think about someone like Justin Martyr. He says that babies were baptized in his lifetime, in the mid-100s.” - River Devereux, New Kingdom Media, A Defence of Infant Baptism, 2:55-3:00
When Justin says "have been Christ's disciples", these Paedobaptists insert baptism. When Justin says "from childhood", these Paedobaptists infer infancy as the timeframe reference point for when baptism occurred. In River Devereux's comment, he doesn't provide a quote or source for this claim. However, he is almost certainly referring to the above quote from Justin.
From the outset, we must point out that this argument is not grounded in what Justin has said when he explicitly frames the conversation around baptism, Christian ordinances, or anything else we have covered so far. Everything Justin says in those contexts decisively fits within the Credobaptism perspective with no clear evidence for infant baptism.
Mat 14:21 And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children.
Mrk 5:23 And besought him greatly, saying, My little daughter lieth at the point of death: I pray thee, come and lay thy hands on her, that she may be healed; and she shall live.
Mrk 5:39 And when he was come in, he saith unto them, Why make ye this ado, and weep? the damsel is not dead, but sleepeth.
Mrk 5:42 And straightway the damsel arose, and walked; for she was of the age of twelve years. And they were astonished with a great astonishment.
Luk 7:32 They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept.
Jesus also refers to παίδων (paidōn) sitting and talking to one another. This is not meant to identify infants. Clearly, an age older than infancy within a pre-pubescent range is likely in mind.
Besides words like νεότητος (neotētos) and παίδων (paidōn), there is a Greek word that explicitly refers to newborn infants rather than categorical age ranges. That word is βρέφος (brephos). This is the word that's used to describe John the Baptist leaping in Elisabeth's womb and Jesus lying in a manger. If Justin wanted to specify Christians who were blameless and disciples from infancy, he could have, but his word choices don't lend to that conclusion. Yet, that's the exact conclusion some Paedobaptists come to when they see statements like Justin's. They then extrapolate proof of infant baptism from such statements.
But even some Paedobaptists don't buy the argument from this prooftext.
“All the earlier evidence is vulnerable to some element of uncertainty or qualification. For example, Justin Martyr, who had experience of Christianity in Asia Minor as well as Rome, declares that he knows of ‘many men and women of the age of sixty and seventy years who have been disciples of Christ from childhood ’. Jeremias argues that this last phrase and the verb used must mean that these persons were baptized as infants ‘in the time between A.D. 80 and 95’. But may well denote ‘from childhood’ rather than ‘from babyhood’ or ‘from birth’, and this would accord better with the force of Aland, for whom the sentence means ‘they had been instructed in Christian faith from childhood, and grown up as members of a Christian family’, succeeded in eliciting a more precise analysis from Jeremias, although the latter still insists that it was ‘in early childhood’ that they ‘had become disciples of Christ’ and that we have here a definite allusion to baptism.” - Wright, Infant Baptism in Historical Perspective, p. 8
As David F. Wright noted, Justin's comment may well denote "childhood" rather than referencing back to birth, as Kurt Aland also argues.
CONCLUSION
In this article, we have examined what Just Martyr said to determine if he demonstrates the practice of Credobaptism in early Christianity. When Justin speaks of baptism, he says that being born again is a choice and that those who are first persuaded and believe are baptized. He does not mention a category or distinction that would allow for the baptism of infants.
When Justin speaks of communion, he also says it's only for those who are believers.
When Justin talks about spiritual circumcision, he says it's given to those who have knowledge of Christ and approach the Father through him.
As additional evidence, Justin does not find agreement with the idea that infants are guilty of sin, which is a prominent historical and theological reason given for baptizing infants.
As a final piece of supportive evidence, various Paedobaptist theologians have made the same observation that Justin Martyr provides positive evidence for believer-oriented baptismal practice, while offering no clear positive evidence or provision for infant baptism, and in fact offering evidence to the contrary. What little arguments there are for infant baptism in Justin's writings are either impersuasive or better support Credobaptism when examined closely. As a result, we have Credobaptism in Justin Martyr.
Thanks for reading. That concludes this article.
No comments:
Post a Comment