166。质疑霍顿的论据：教会早期资料里婴儿洗不受挑战？
作者：Steve Bateman 译者：小草
译序：原文作者是美国迪凯特（Decatur）第一圣经教会的主任牧师（Senior Pastor, First Bible Church of Decatur）。在他所写的《婴儿洗礼还是唯独信而受洗？》一文里，有一部分为了回应麦克霍顿有关婴儿洗的论据，追溯早期教会有关婴儿洗礼的记载，此译文就译自这一部分。
教会的历史并不能充分证明教会早期有婴儿洗礼。霍顿（Horton）在他的书中大胆地断言，“使徒后最早的文献显示出，婴儿洗礼没有受到挑战。” （译注：霍顿是在他的《Putting Amazing Back into Grace: Embracing the Heart of the Gospel》一书第187页里这么说的，见文后附图）但霍顿并没有写下任何支持的文献。 此外，他的论点取决于婴儿洗礼的做法是否没受到挑战。 霍顿这样辩论的方式意味着，如果可以在使徒后早期的文献中显示出婴儿洗礼受到质疑，那么婴儿洗礼的作法就无效了。
在教会的历史上，直到君士坦丁成立国家教会之后，婴儿洗礼才成为惯例。 这位基督教皇帝君士坦丁使罗马帝国成为基督徒的“安全”之地。 在那之前，历史证据表明，受迫害的教会通过观察，确定试炼期间谁是真诚认信的人，然后只给这些人施洗。 除了遭受迫害问题之外，这些新皈依者还带来了异教背景的问题。 直到第三世纪初，在这个试炼期间，这种“ 初识基督教教义”的试验期持续三年时间。
因此，教会不仅施行信徒的洗礼，而且是对完全奉献跟随基督的信徒才施行洗礼。 在那段时间里，教堂必须非常谨慎，因为贪婪的狼更加的贪婪。
现来回应霍顿的挑战，他说使徒后最早的文献显示出婴儿洗礼并没有受到挑战，让我们考虑下面的这些记载。 最早提到婴儿洗礼的是在主后220年，在爱任纽（Iraneaus ）的文献（Against All Heresies II22.4）里。 最早宣称婴儿洗礼是使徒的做法，并提出神学上的辩护，是在主后230年，在俄利根的文献 （Homily on Luke 14:5）里。 最早的对新生婴儿洗礼的明确辩护，是在主后250年，在居普良（Cyprian）的文献（Epist. 58）里。早期最著名的婴儿洗礼的辩护者是奥古斯丁（Augustine），他在主后430年用婴儿洗礼作为原罪的论点来反对伯拉纠（Pelagius）。那时，婴儿洗礼已成为教会的普遍做法。
是否有信徒受洗的证据比支持婴儿洗礼的文献更早呢？ 如果有的话，那么霍顿的论据就站不住脚。 主后110年，巴拿巴（Barnabus）写道，洗礼是给“那些将希望寄托在十字架上的人。”（11：8）。 主后160年，殉教者游斯丁（Justin Martyr）写道，洗礼是给“那些被说服和相信的人。”（Apol. I）。主后220年，特土良（Tertullian ）特别反对婴儿洗礼（On Baptism.18）。 同样在主后220年，希坡律陀（Hippolytus ）明确指出洗礼是只给信徒（Apo。Trad。v.13）。 请注意，主后220年似乎是这场辩论的分水岭。
注：上面所述的早期教会婴儿洗礼的记载史主要是来自 John Hannah 博士所著的《早期教会史》（《History of the Early Church》 By Dr. John Hannah） 的课堂笔记概要。（译注：Dr. John Hannah 是美国达拉斯神学院的优秀的历史神学教授 Distinguished Professor of Historical Theology, Dallas Theological Seminary）。
译者附：网上找到上面所述的《早期教会史》课堂笔记概要，下面是笔记里相关部分的截图
附图：麦克霍顿的《Putting Amazing Back into Grace: Embracing the Heart of the Gospel》，第187页
英文原文：
Church history does not strongly attest to the early practice of infant baptism.
Horton’s assertion that infant baptism in “earliest post-apostolic documents demonstrated an unchallenged practice of infant baptism” is boldly stated in his book, but he fails to record any supporting documentation. Furthermore, his argument relies on whether or not the practice of infant baptism was unchallenged. The way he has framed the debate means that if it can be demonstrated that infant baptism was challenged in early post apostolic document, then the practice of infant baptism is invalidated.
In the history of the church, infant baptism did not become a common practice until the state church was established under Constantine. This Christian emperor made the Roman Empire “safe” for Christians. Until then, the historical evidence reveals that a persecuted church reserved baptism only for those who had been observed in a trial period to determine the sincerity of their profession of faith. In addition to the problem of persecution was the problem of pagan backgrounds that these new converts brought with them. By the beginning of the third century, this trial period, the “catechumenate”, lasted three years.
Therefore, the church practiced not only believer’s baptism, but fully devoted-follower-of-Christ baptism. In those days, the church had to be extremely cautious because ravenous wolves, if not more common, were much more ravenous。
In response to Horton’s challenge that infant baptism is unchallenged in the earliest post-apostolic documents, let us consider the following. The earliest reference to infant baptism is by Iraneaus in 220 (Adv. Her. II22.4). The earliest claim to apostolic custom and theological defense of infant baptism is found in Origen in 230 (Homily on Luke 14:5). The earliest explicit defense for baptism of new-born babes is found in Cyprian in 250 (Epist. 58). The best known early defender of infant baptism was Augustine who used it as an argument for original sin against Pelagius in 430. By this time, infant baptism is a general practice in the church.
Is there evidence for believers’ baptism that predates the documents supporting
infant baptism? If so, Horton’s argument falters. In 110, Barnabus wrote that baptism was for “those who place their hope in the cross” (11:8). In 160, Justin Martyr wrote that baptism was for “those who are persuaded and believe (Apol. I). In 220, Tertullian specifically opposed infant baptism. (On Baptism.18). Also in 220, Hippolytus clearly stated that baptism was for believers only (Apo. Trad. v.13). Note that 220 seems to be a watershed year in this debate.