I'm retracing my own steps when I switched from being a proponent of infant baptism to being a proponent of believers' baptism. And as I've mentioned, I used a title lawyer approach. I did just what we're doing now: I went chronologically from Jesus's instructions to Acts, through the early church, you know, on through.
Now, when I examine land titles as an attorney, I always started at the beginning when the state owned the property, and then I went forward in chronological order, deed by deed and will by will, up until the present date. And that's what we're going to be doing today; that's what we've already started doing. We began with Jesus's instructions, and then we've looked at every baptism described in the New Testament. I mean, that's how you write a title opinion.
In earthly affairs, dealing with land and houses, the law doesn't allow you to throw in a lot of speculations and presuppositions and, well, what if, what if, you know, this or that. You have to stick to the known facts, to the evidence that's in front of you. Now, I may think that, for example, Joanna Martin is a great person, and I'd like to see her be declared to be the owner of a particular tract of land. But when I'm doing a title opinion, I don't have that luxury. I have to stick to the historical facts.
My own wishes have no place in the process. Nor when I was doing title work did I have the liberty to throw in any, well, what ifs, when I was examining documents. You know, I couldn't say, well, what if John Smith actually had 4 children and he accidentally left the oldest one out of the will? Or when James Brown deeded the land to his brother, what if he meant his sister instead?
Or the affidavits of record show that Mary Richards died with no husband or children, but what if there was a child who no one knew about? Well, see, you don't get to do that when writing a title opinion, and for good reason. I mean, none of us could depend upon our land titles, on the title to the house we own, if speculation could be introduced to contradict the clear statements in the documents of record. So when I came to my convictions on believers' baptism, I didn't allow these what ifs to enter the picture.
I stuck to the New Testament record, and then I examined the historic record of the early Christians to see what light it might shed on the New Testament. And that's exactly what we're doing. Okay. As I've mentioned, we've looked at Jesus's instructions on baptism, we've looked at the descriptions of baptism in the New Testament.
Before going into the early Christian writings, we need to see what Jesus and the apostles taught about the meaning of baptism, because it is going to make a difference when we get into the early church record. Now, I go into more detail on this subject in an earlier message I recorded many years ago entitled, "What the Early Christians Believed About Baptism." Now, if you haven't heard that message, I encourage you to listen to it when you finish this series.
Because when we look at the history of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century, it's going to be hard for you to grasp how the early Christians looked at the matter of believers' baptism and infant baptism unless you understand what they believed about baptism itself. So let's look at what the New Testament teaches about baptism to see if it indicates it's for believers or if it's for infants as well. And just like we did before, we're going to start with what Jesus said, and then we're going to go forward.
The passage where Jesus talks about the meaning of baptism is John 3:3-6. It says, "Jesus answered and said to him"—it's Nicodemus—"Most assuredly I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." That doesn't say anything about baptism, but Jesus goes on to explain what he means about born again.
It says, "Jesus answered"—again answering Nicodemus—"Most assuredly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Now, I realize that most Christians who embrace believers' baptism would deny that this passage has anything to do with water baptism. Well, all I can say is that view is only a few centuries old. It's a very recent view in the history of Christianity.
Historically, all Christians understood this passage to be talking about water baptism and baptism in the Holy Spirit. Of course, in itself, the passage sheds no light on the age of baptism. It becomes significant, though, in our discussion in the 5th century when Augustine said, "See, unless an infant is baptized, it cannot enter the kingdom of God." So we need to baptize infants. So this passage does play an important role in history. Okay, moving on.
The next passage is Acts 2:38, which says, "Then Peter said to them"—and of course we've already read this, but now we're looking at it for the meaning—"Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." So here Peter says that baptism is for the remission or forgiveness of sins. And again, historically, Christians have understood that past sins are forgiven or washed away in baptism.
Of course, when it comes to baptizing infants, the question arises: well, what's the point? They have no sins to wash away. Now, this question got complicated when we get to the 3rd century, and people had different answers on that. Because in the 3rd century, you start seeing the introduction of the doctrine of original sin. So we'll be returning to this. Okay, now we go to Acts 22:14-16.
It says, "Then he said, The God of our fathers has chosen you, that you should know his will, and see the just one, and hear the voice of his mouth." This, I believe, is Ananias talking to Paul. "For you will be his witness to all men of what you have seen and heard. And now, why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Okay, so here again we get to the teaching that sins are washed away—past sins, that is—in baptism.
Now, of course, this is only possible through the blood of Christ. No one is saying that water itself has the ability to wash away sins. The question is: how is the blood of Jesus Christ applied to it, to us? Is it when we go forward and say a sinner's prayer, or is it when we go forward and get baptized? But as with Acts 2:38, here we're talking about a mature person. This is Paul, who both believes and he has sins that need to be washed away. All right.
Our next passage is Romans 6:1-7, where Paul writes, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? Certainly not. How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus, were baptized into his death? Therefore, we were buried with him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in the newness of life.
For if we have been united together in the likeness of his death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of his resurrection. Knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin." Now, here Paul obviously assumes that the person being baptized is a mature believer. He has a past life he needs to die to, so that he can arise to a new life in Christ.
Paul says that in baptism, and the conversion and repentance that precedes it, our old man is crucified so that we should no longer be slaves of sin. Now, when has an infant ever been a slave to sin? When an infant is baptized, has his old man been crucified? Does he walk in newness of life? I mean, I've observed thousands of people who've been baptized as infants, and they're obviously not walking in newness of life. I mean, some of them might be, but not as a general rule. All right.
So again, the point is he's assuming a mature believer and that baptism, we die to our old life, we arise to a new life in Christ Jesus. Next passage is Romans 10:9-11. Paul says, "That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
For the Scripture says, Whoever believes on him will not be put to shame." Now, this passage may not sound like it has anything to do with baptism, but the early Christians understood Paul to be talking about baptism here. Because when a person was about to be baptized, he or she confessed that they believed in the Lord Jesus, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit. And Paul says we need to make this confession to be saved.
Yet an infant cannot confess with his mouth that Jesus is Lord, and he cannot believe in his heart that God raised Jesus from the dead. I mean, even if a person does not wish to believe that this passage is applying to baptism, it's still important to our discussion. That's because if a person wants to apply John 3 to say that unless an infant is baptized, he cannot enter the kingdom of God, what is that person going to do with this passage?
Whether he's baptized or unbaptized, an infant can't do what the Scripture requires for salvation in this passage. And Paul doesn't say that a third party can do this confessing and this believing for us. So either all infants, baptized or unbaptized, are lost, or else the Scriptures teach something else about infants, which we're going to be discussing in this series of messages. All right, moving on. Galatians 3:26-27. Paul says, "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." So Paul says that we are sons of God through faith. He says when we were baptized into Christ, we put on Christ. Now, has an infant put on Christ? Now, those who argue that infants have put on Christ make a mockery of everything Paul teaches about surrendering our lives to Christ. If the average Catholic or Orthodox or Lutheran or Anglican adult who was baptized as an infant has put on Christ, I have to ask: where is the evidence of it?
I've lived among Catholics and Lutherans. I've been around Anglicans for years. I've been around many Orthodox. Where's the evidence of this new birth? I don't mean it doesn't exist in any of them, but I mean, as a general rule, all of the millions of them who have been baptized as infants. All right, now we go to Titus 3:3-6. Paul says, "For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another.
But when the kindness and the love of God, our Savior, toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, our Savior." Again, Paul assumes the candidates for baptism are mature believers. They have lived long enough to have sins that needed to be washed away. Okay.
And I'm sorry to be if this gets tedious, and we only have a couple more—in fact, two more—but I want to be thorough. Let's look at every verse that talks about the meaning of baptism. Just like doing a title opinion, it got tedious, but I looked at every deed, every will that had any application to the land I was examining. Okay. So Hebrews 10:21-23. "And having a high priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith.
Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water, let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful." So here the writer mentions our assurance of faith and our confession of hope that we had at the time of our baptism, when our bodies were washed with pure water. It assumes that there was a confession of faith made. All right, our final passage is 1 Peter 3:21.
And here we read, "There is also an antitype which now saves us: baptism. Not the removal of the filth of the flesh"—it's not the washing of your physical skin—"but the answer of a good conscience toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." So Peter says that baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God. Now, how can it be an answer if we haven't requested it? Can an infant have a good or bad conscience?
Okay, so in summing all of these verses up, I think anyone would have to admit that in each case, it is assumed that the person being baptized is old enough to believe, and that he or she has sins that need to be repented of, sins that need to be cleansed. In other words, baptism of believers is assumed to be normative. I mean, you really have to do considerable gyrations to make those passages we've just read fit infant baptism.
In short, the doctrine of baptism taught in the New Testament fits hand in glove with the examples of baptism in the book of Acts. That is, it is believers who are being baptized. In the examples in Acts, a person can say that all those persons were new converts, and so obviously they weren't infants. But what about all of these doctrinal passages? Surely some of the—well, we know some of these were written decades after those baptisms that we read about in Acts.
Are we to say that there were no offspring of the believers who were baptized there in the book of Acts and other ones that we don't read about from that time period? I don't think anyone would make that claim. So if Christians were baptizing their offspring when they were infants, why did the New Testament writers never make mention of that? Why do they only talk about baptisms—baptism—in terms of someone who has lived long enough to have actual sins, hate, envy, etc., that need these sins need to be washed away?
Why do the Bible writers talk about this radical transformation in Christ if they knew that many of those being baptized were infants to whom none of this applied? Well, in summary, all three—the instructions of Jesus, the descriptions of baptism, and the doctrinal passages about baptism—make nearly an airtight case for believers' baptism. Nevertheless, as I mentioned earlier, we have two narrow gaps in the evidence from the New Testament.
Number one, we don't know how old the children were, if any, in the households that were baptized. Again, there's no reason to think any infants were baptized there, but perhaps there were children. So that's the first gap. The second one is we do not have any descriptions of or discussions about the baptisms of the offspring who were born to believers. Again, there's no evidence for infants being baptized, but there's just no direct reference to the issue.
In short, we have no passages in Scripture that specifically address the subject of infant baptism. It is neither specifically permitted by the Scriptures, nor is it specifically prohibited by the Scriptures. We're dependent on logical deductions based on all of the things that we've just read. And for that reason, we're going to look at the witness of the early Christians to see if what they say sheds any further light on this subject of infant baptism. We'll begin by looking at the witness of the second century.
These people lived in the century that followed the death of the Apostle John. However, I'm going to forewarn you, just like the New Testament, there's nothing specific said in the second century on the subject of infant baptism. As far as the evidence goes, if infant baptism existed, its existence remained a secret from the time of Christ until the third century. What should strike us as odd for the existence of believers' baptism in this period is open, clear, and well-documented.
Now, if infant baptism were being practiced in the New Testament period, but somehow the Scriptures simply failed to mention it, then we should see some clear evidence coming forth in the second century. If the problem is simply that no New Testament writers mention infant baptism, even though it was being practiced, is it believable that such an omission could continue on for another whole century? Because that's what we come upon in the second century.
Just as there's no direct reference to infant baptism in the first century, there is likewise no direct reference to it in the second century. So let's just go through the writings in chronological order. Probably our earliest writing outside the New Testament is the Didache, and it says this about baptism: "And concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water.
But if you have not living water, immerse into other water, and if you cannot in cold, immerse in warm. But if you have not either, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism, let the baptizer fast and the baptized, and whatever others can.
But you shall order the baptized"—that is, the one who's getting baptized—"to fast one or two days before." So we see the same assumption we saw in the New Testament, that the person being baptized is a mature believer. This is the assumption. They're instructed to fast one or two days before the baptism. This is not an infant, obviously. Also, it indicates that immersion is the normal mode of baptism. However, it says if there is not enough water to immerse in, then you can pour water three times.
Notice it does not say that if this is an infant, then pour water three times. In other words, there's nothing in the procedure that would indicate that infants are being baptized in this early period right after the New Testament. And yet surely there were infant children of believers. You know, this is now, whatever, 70 years after Acts. All right, next we come to Barnabas, and this is what he says: "Blessed are they who, placing their trust in the cross, have gone down into the water.
We indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement. However, we come up bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear of God and the trust in Jesus in our spirit." Once again, Barnabas states that the ones being baptized place their trust in the cross before going down into the water. They come up having the fear of God in them. These are mature believers he's talking about. And here's the significant point: this is now anywhere from 70 to 90 years after the baptisms of Acts.
By now, tens of thousands of the offspring of believers have been baptized. Yet when baptism is described, it is still the baptism of believers that's described. If infants are being baptized, why is there this complete absence of evidence? Okay, next we have Hermas. This is now the year 150.
He says this: "These are those who have heard the word and wish to be baptized in the name of the Lord, but when the chastity demanded by the truth comes into their recollection, they draw back and again walk after their own wicked desires." I heard, sir, some teachers maintain that there is no other repentance than that which takes place when we descended into the water and received remission of our former sins. That was sound doctrine which you heard, for that really is the case.
"For he who has received remission of his sins ought not to sin any more, but to live in purity." These passages assume that the person has heard the word, wishes to be baptized, and has sinned in the past. He is told not to sin any more. Hermas is talking about believers, not about infants. Now, this next passage is key. It's from Justin Martyr, and it dates to about the year 160. More than a century now has passed since the baptisms in Acts.
If infant baptism is around, surely there is some evidence of it by now, we would think. But look at what Justin has to say. He writes, "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 ourselves were regenerated." Okay, so once again, these are clearly believers being baptized. Okay, because it says that they fast and pray, pray about their sins. But now look at what he says next.
He writes, "At our birth, we were born without our own knowledge or choice, but by our parents coming together, 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, and in the name of Jesus Christ and in the name of the Holy Spirit."
When I was re-examining my whole position on infant baptism 25 years ago, this passage had a dramatic impact on me.
Justin says that in our natural birth, we have no say in the matter. In fact, we're ignorant of the whole thing. But in the new birth, he says, we become the children of choice and knowledge. We make our own choice in the matter, and we understand what we're doing. And I remember thinking to myself, I can't imagine anybody making the statement that Justin Martyr has just made if infant baptism was being practiced in his day, particularly if it was a normal, widespread practice.
Because infant baptism basically refutes everything that Justin has just said. It's a return to our natural birth where we are the children of necessity and ignorance. Something is done to us that we have no say in and no knowledge of. Okay, before leaving Justin, I want to share one more quote.
He says this: "By reason therefore of this font of repentance and knowledge of God, which has been ordained on account of the transgression of God's people"—as Isaiah cries—"we have believed and testified that that very baptism which he announced is alone able to purify those who have repented." So the point is, baptism is for those who have repented. All right, now we come to Theophilus.
This is about the year 180, and he says this: "In Genesis, the creatures proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men's being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins through the water and font of regeneration. As many as come to the truth and are born again and receive blessing from God." Again, Theophilus ties baptism into repentance and coming to the truth. Next, we have Irenaeus, also from 180. And he writes, "When do we bear the image of the heavenly?
Doubtless when he says, 'You have been washed, believing in the name of the Lord and receiving his Spirit.'" So Irenaeus ties baptism in with believing in the name of the Lord. Now, there's a controversial quote from Irenaeus that we're going to come back to. That's because we're going to be analyzing it in detail. Either it shows the existence of infant baptism in AD 180, or it's one of the most misused proof texts of the whole Pre-Nicene Church. So like I say, we're going to come back to that.
But let's move on and close out the second century with three quotations from Clement of Alexandria. These are around the year 185, 190. He says this: "Being baptized, we are illuminated. Illuminated, we become sons." This work is variously called grace, illumination, perfection, and washing. Washing by which we cleanse away our sins. Grace by which the penalties accruing to transgressions are remitted. Illumination by which that holy light of salvation is beheld. That is, by which we see God clearly.
Now, I'd have to ask, does an infant see God clearly after he's been baptized? I don't think so. That's quite a stretch. Okay, Clement continues. He says, "Our transgressions were taken away by one divine medicine, the baptism of the Word. We are washed from all our sins and are no longer entangled in sin.
This is the one grace of illumination that our characters are not the same as before our washing." And again, he says, "In the same way, therefore, we also repent of our sins, renounce our iniquities, and are purified by baptism. Thereby, we speed back to the eternal light as children of the Father." So at the close of the second century, baptism is still assumed to be that of mature believers. Repenting of our sins and confessing our iniquities still precede baptism.
No mention of, well, for adults and for infants, it's this. It's assumed everybody is in the same situation, that they first need to repent. In summary, we see this incredible consistency in the things written in the second century about baptism. Every discussion of baptism assumes that the recipient is old enough to believe and repent. Now, this isn't surprising because we see the exact same thing back in the New Testament.
In short, there's little difference between the witness of the second century and that of the New Testament. The biblical and textual scholar Kurt Aland makes this statement: "Before the end of the second century, there is not a single piece of evidence granting concrete testimony to the practice of infant baptism." I would independently corroborate what Dr. Aland says. I don't normally quote from secondary sources. The reason I'm making an exception here is that Dr.
Aland was a Lutheran seminary professor who was a strong believer and advocate of infant baptism. So his assertion carries considerable weight since it is not the assertion of someone who promoted believers' baptism. Both Dr. Aland and I would agree that the reason we don't see any concrete evidence of infant baptism in the second century is because of the universal belief back then that infants and children are innocent.
It's only in the third century, when the idea became popular that we inherit Adam's fallen nature, that we see clear evidence of the baptism of infants and small children. Now, why did the second century Christians believe in the innocence of children? They based their belief on a number of biblical passages. One of these was Ezekiel 18:20. And I'll read to it that. It says, "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son.
The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." So God does not hold an infant responsible for the sins of his father. Logically then, he has not held responsible for the sin of Adam and Eve. Sin is a matter of personal transgression and is not passed down from one generation to another. Another key passage is Jesus' words.
This is Matthew 18:3-5, where he said, "Unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. And whoever receives one little child like this in my name, receives me." So if adults have to become like little children to enter the kingdom, then obviously little children are already suited to enter the kingdom without baptism. Again, this is now Matthew 19:14.
But Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not forbid them, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." So Jesus represents the age of childhood as an age of innocence. Finally, we have the important passage from Paul. This is in 1 Corinthians 7:14, where he says, "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband.
Otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy." So Paul says that the children of a believer, even if it is in a divided household, are holy. Now, Paul says nothing whatsoever about these children needing to get baptized in order to be holy. Rather, it's through their relationship with their believing parent. Based on all these passages, the second century Christians and many Christians beyond believed in the innocence of infants and young children. Here are just a few sample quotes.
Barnabas writes, he says, "Since therefore, having renewed us by the remission of our sins, he has made us after another pattern, so that we should possess the soul of children inasmuch as he has created us anew by his Spirit." Another one, the earliest Christian apologist of all, his name was Aristides.
He wrote around the year 130, and he says this: "And if any righteous man among the Christians passes from the world, they rejoice and offer thanks to God, and they escort his body as if he were setting out from one place to another. And when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God.
Moreover, if it happens to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who has passed through the world without sins." Hermas writes this: "They are like infant children in whose hearts no evil enters, nor did they know what wickedness is, but always remained as children. Such accordingly, without doubt, dwell in the kingdom of God.
Because they defiled in nothing the commandments of God, but they remained like children all the days of their life in the same mind." And we'll end these second century quotes with Irenaeus, who writes, "Who are they that have been saved and have received the inheritance?
Those doubtless who believe God and have continued in his love, as did Caleb of Jephunneh and Joshua of Nun, and innocent children who had no sense of evil." In summary, the second century Christians believed that children were innocent and obviously didn't need baptism in order to be saved. Okay, I'd mentioned earlier that there's this proof text quote from Irenaeus that believers in infant baptism point to quite often. So let's return to it, as I said I would, and examine this in more detail.
This quote is used to argue that infant baptism existed in the year 180. Now, in this quote, if Irenaeus were talking about infant baptism, then it would go against all the evidence of the second century, and it would stand alone by itself. Plus, it would seem to contradict Irenaeus himself, who taught the innocence of children. So let's read this passage and analyze it. And I'll read it to you.
Irenaeus writes this: "Being 30 years old when he came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a teacher, Jesus came to Jerusalem so that he might be properly acknowledged by all as a teacher. Being a teacher, therefore, he also possessed the age of a teacher, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in himself that law which he had appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age by that period corresponding to it which belonged to himself.
For he came to save all through means of himself," and this is the key part, "all I say who through him are reborn to God, infants, children, boys, youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants, and a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission, a youth for youth, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord.
So likewise, he was an old man for old men, that he might be a perfect teacher for all." As with any written passage, particularly one that is out of place with all other similar texts, the first thing we have to do is to examine the context. Now, this passage is from Irenaeus' lengthy work entitled Against Heresies. In it, he discusses every known heresy in his day in painstaking detail. The current passage is taken from his discussion of a Gnostic group who believed that Jesus had only a one-year ministry.
Now, that in itself isn't the greatest heresy in the world. What's important is that Irenaeus uses that false belief as a launching point to go into his theory of recapitulation. Now, in this oral message, I don't have the time to thoroughly explain Irenaeus' theory of recapitulation. My plans are to expand this series of messages into a book, a Kindle book, if nothing else.
And in the book version, perhaps I can spend a bit more time on it, because it's key to this passage, and this passage is a key passage in the whole discussion of infant baptism. Anyway, throughout his work Against Heresies, Irenaeus goes into his theory of recapitulation. He doesn't do it, however, in just one chapter or something like that. It's scattered here, there. Whenever the subject kind of brings itself around, then he launches into it. So you kind of have to thread all of these different parts together.
So what is recapitulation? It's his theory of the atonement. And he taught that a large part of the atonement was in the incarnation itself. Now, it's not his only view of the atonement, but it's part of the atonement, okay? That the Son of God brought renewal to the entire human race by becoming human and passing through all the stages of humanity, sanctifying each stage. Jesus became the new Adam for all mankind. Now, if that sounds heretical to you, let me read to you what Paul says.
He says, "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive." So through Jesus, all humans are renewed. They're reborn. They're regenerated. Irenaeus uses all three of those words, all of them apart from baptism. And that's why Paul says that Jesus is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. That's 1 Timothy 4:10. So all mankind is renewed or regenerated through the incarnation, but not all mankind will receive eternal life. That comes only to those who believe.
So to thrust infant baptism into this quote is to take it entirely out of context. The context is the rebirth that comes from the incarnation. Now, here are just a couple of sample quotes from Irenaeus in this same work, some other passages, just to help you see how he uses those terms, reborn, regenerate, etc., to be talking about something other than baptism.
Okay, he says, let me just read here, "The word of the Father and the Spirit of God had become united with the ancient substance of Adam's formation." That is, became united with the human race through Adam. "So it rendered man living and perfect, receptive of the perfect Father, in order that as in the natural Adam we were all dead, so in the spiritual Adam we may be all made alive." Okay.
So what Irenaeus has just said is that in the incarnation, that while we were all dead in Adam, we've been made alive again in Jesus Christ, the spiritual Adam. Okay, he goes on to say, "Having been born the first begotten of the dead, and receiving into his bosom the ancient fathers." This is talking about Jesus when he went down into Hades and brought life to those who had died before he came. Okay. He says, "Receiving into his bosom the ancient fathers, the Lord has regenerated them into the life of God.
For he himself has been made the origin of those who live, just as Adam became the origin of those who die. For this reason, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, Luke carried it back to Adam. He thereby indicated that it was Jesus who regenerated them into the gospel of life, and not they him." Okay. I imagine that's a little hard to grasp, even when you have it in front of you reading it. Like I say, you have had to study Irenaeus and this whole doctrine he has of recapitulation.
But the basic thought is, again, that in the very incarnation, there was life being brought to man. That the Son of God, our creator, in becoming human, we all received some benefit. We were all reborn. We were all regenerated in a certain sense. Not in the same sense of regeneration that we receive in baptism, or that those who don't believe that baptism, who would think baptism is just a symbol, the new birth in Jesus Christ. He's not talking about that new birth.
He's talking about a regeneration that occurs to everybody through the incarnation. Okay. But in this quote I just read to you, you may have had trouble following it, but Irenaeus is clearly not talking about baptism, because he's talking about what happened in Hades. So unless you believe that there is baptism down in Hades, that's not his topic. Now, Kurt Aland, who I quoted before, who was a strong proponent of infant baptism his whole life, he wrote the following about this famous proof text passage.
He says, "It does not seem apparent to me that Irenaeus has baptism in view here, and certainly there is no thought of infant baptism. He is concerned solely with the fact that Jesus sanctified all humanity, and that he was made like all, that he lived through all ages of life and was an example to all. Nothing more than this is presupposed, nothing more than this is stated.
Therefore, nothing more than that should be sought from it." And that would be exactly what I'm saying too, that, yeah, he's not talking about baptism in that passage. I read pages, several pages before it, several pages after it, to see if, okay, is there something here that could possibly be connected to that? And there's nothing. It's just not at all his subject.