Hello and welcome. In this article, we'll document comments made by various theologians and church historians on the development of Paedobaptism in Christian history and compare them with comments made by Paedobaptist apologists. For a brief primer on Credobaptism and Paedobaptism, see our introduction to baptismal theology article here.
RECENT CLAIMS FROM PAEDOBAPTIST APOLOGISTS
One of our reasons for writing this article is because of problems in the current polemical landscape among Paedobaptist defenses of Paedobaptism from a historical perspective and their critiques of Credobaptism. We will begin by citing a handful of example statements from Paedobaptists.
“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 wasn't until 1525 that Anabaptists came onto the scene and began to question the validity and practice of infant baptism. In other words The Church has practiced infant baptism for the first 1500 years (or so) of it's life in near full agreement. The major leaders of the Reformation (Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli also believed in infant baptism).” - Keith Sobus, Infant Baptism? A Holistic View, Section 2
“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?
“Not until the 1520s did the Christian Church experience opposition specifically to infant Baptism.” - Dennis Kastens, Infant Baptism in Early Church History
“Infant baptism was the universal practice of the church until after the Protestant Reformation.” - Tim Lecroy, Infant Baptism in the History of the Church
“There are many proofs of infant baptism from the third century, but there is not a single example of Christian parents delaying the baptism of their children.” - Jacob P Varghese, Infant Baptism, A Practice of the Early 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
These statements are in a polemical context of trying to defend and prove the doctrine of Paedobaptism. They are quite common in normal dialogue on the issue. The overall claim being repeatedly made is that it's a definitive truth that Paedobaptism began at the beginning of Christianity and was the universal practice with no exception for the first 1500 years of the Church.
Our concern with claims like these is that they are wildly inaccurate, overzealous, and uncarefully overstated. In our opinion, there is a vast disconnect between contemporary apologetic claims from Paedobaptists and how Paedobaptist historians and theologians have often spoken on the development of the doctrine.
To demonstrate our concern, we will not elaborate on our views about how Paedobaptism developed or comprehensively analyze patristic sources. Neither will we cite Credobaptist historians or theologians. Instead, we will cite various theologians and historians from almost exclusively Paedobaptist backgrounds (Anglican, Congregational, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, etc.) to show that the above claims are out of touch with how many Paedobaptists in history have candidly spoken about the development of the doctrine when they aren't in an apologetic environment defending the doctrine and are instead simply interpreting the historical data for themselves. We will provide brief comments on quotes as needed.
THEOLOGIANS AND CHURCH HISTORIANS
ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF PAEDOBAPTISM
“At first the traditional grace of baptism was given only to those who had already matured in both body and mind: they would be able to know and understand what effort must follow after baptism, what must be confessed and believed; in short what must be observed by those reborn in Christ.” - Strabo, On the Reason of Governments of the Church, Chapter 7
"so that when almost all of our age or memory were baptized in infancy, and assumed the name of Christian, and at the appropriate time were prelates in the different degrees of the Church, no bishop of bishops, no priest, no deacon, no cleric, no monk, no one, so to speak, out of such an innumerable number has at least been a Christian? For he who was not baptized with the baptism of Christ was not a Christian. If he was not a Christian, he could not be of the clergy, nor of the people, nor of the Church. If this is so, it is clear what an absurdity follows. For when all Gaul, Spain, Germany, Italy, and the whole of Europe, for nearly three hundred or five hundred years, has had no one except baptized in infancy, it has had no Christian." - Peter the Venerable, Patrologia Latina, Volume 189, p. 729
“St. Bernard and Peter the Venerable, opposing the heretical view about infant baptism, laid stress upon Christ's invitation to little children and his desire to have them with him in heaven. Peter argued that for nearly five hundred years Europe had had no Christian not baptized in infancy, and hence according to the sectaries had no Christians at all.” - Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 5, p. 485
Ulrich Zwingli, 1484 AD - 1531 AD
"Yet, although I know, as the Fathers indicate, that children were baptized from early times, I also know that the practice was not as common as it is in our day and age. Rather, together they were instructed publicly when they reached full understanding. For this reason they were called “catechumeni” I.e. those that testify to the word of salvation. And the they had faith firmly established in their hearts and were able to affirm it with their lips, they were baptized.” - Zwingli, Exposition of the Sixty-Seven Articles, Eighteenth Article, Concerning Confirmation
While Zwingli sees infant baptism as an apostolic/ancient practice, he clarifies that it was not universal but grew in common practice until his time in the 16th century.
“The ancient Christians had liberty either to baptize, or to let them stay till age, as they thought best; and therefore Tertullian and Nazianzen speak against haste; and Augustine, and many children of Christian parents were baptized at age.” - Baxter, A Christian Directory, Part 3, Question 48, Answer 2
Baxter's opinion is interesting because while he certainly contradicts the common polemic that infant baptism was the "universal" practice of the early church, he advances a view that the early Christians had the liberty to choose between paedobaptism and credobaptism. He seems to believe the two practices co-existed early on and mentions that many children of Christians were not baptized as infants in the early centuries of Christianity.
“There is altogether wanting any conclusive proof-passage for the baptism of children in the age of the apostles, nor can the necessity of it be deduced from the nature of baptism…Still however the propriety of infant baptism is undoubted, and the condition of the church after the close of the third century imperatively required its introduction.”- Olshausen, Biblical Commentary on the Gospels, Volume IV, p. 430-431
“Baptism was administered at first only to adults, as men were accustomed to conceive baptism and faith as strictly connected. We have all reason for not deriving infant baptism from apostolic institution, and the recognition of it which followed somewhat later, as an apostolical tradition, serves to confirm this hypothesis.” - Neander, General History of the Christian Religion and Church, Volume 1, p. 311
“About the middle of the third century, this theory was already generally admitted in the North African church. The only question that remained was, whether the child ought to be baptized immediately after its birth, or not till eight days after, as in the case of the rite of circumcision…But if the necessity of infant baptism was acknowledged in theory, it was still far from being uniformly recognized in practice.” - Neander, General History of the Christian Religion and Church, Volume 1, p. 313-314
“Since baptism marked the entrance into communion with Christ, it resulted from the nature of the rite, that a confession of faith in Jesus as the Redeemer would be made by the person to be baptized; and in the latter part of the apostolic age we may find indications of the existence of such a practice. As baptism was closely united with a conscious entrance on Christian communion, faith and baptism were always connected with one another; and thus it is in the highest degree probable that baptism was performed only in instances where both could meet together, and that the practice of infant baptism was unknown at this period…and that it first became recognized as an apostolic tradition in the course of the third century, is evidence rather against than for the admission of its apostolic origin;” - Neander, The History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church, Volume I, p. 162-163
“Tertullian also makes us acquainted with his position on the boundary line between two stages of Christian development, by his judgment respecting infant baptism. We have every reason for holding infant baptism to be no apostolic institution, and that it was something foreign to that first stage of Christian development.” - Neander, History of the Planting and Training of The Christian Church, Volume II, p. 336
“Therefore the baptism of the children of Christians, of which no trace is found in the N.T. is not to be held as an apostolic ordinance, as, indeed, it encountered early and long resistance; but it is an institution of the church, which gradually arose in post-apostolic times in connection with the development of ecclesiastical life and of doctrinal teaching, not certainly attested before Tertullian, and by him still decidedly opposed, and, although already defended by Cyprian, only becoming general after the time of Augustine in virtue of that connection.” - Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, on Acts 16:15
“Infant baptism had not come into general use prior to the time of Tertullian.” - Hagenbach, Compendium of the history of doctrines, p. 207“The passages from Scripture which are thought to intimate that infant baptism had come into use in the primitive church, are doubtful, and prove nothing:” - Hagenbach, Compendium of the history of doctrines, p. 210
“But so it was in matter of fact, for reasons good or bad, that infant baptism, which is a fundamental rule of Christian duty with us, was less earnestly insisted on in early times. Even in the fourth century St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Basil, and St. Augustine, having Christian mothers, still were not baptized till they were adults…neither in Dalmatia nor in Cappadocia, neither in Rome, nor in Africa, was it then imperative on Christian parents, as it is now, to give baptism to their young children. It was on retrospect and after the truths of the Creed had sunk into the Christian mind, that the authority of such men as St. Cyprian, St. Chrysostom, and St. Augustine brought round the orbis terrarum to the conclusion, which the infallible Church confirmed, that observance of the rite was the rule, and the non-observance the exception.” - Newman, Development of Christian Doctrine, Chapter 4, Section 1.3
“Nor was there any compulsory or general infant baptism before the union of church and state; Constantine, the first Christian emperor, delayed his baptism till his deathbed (as many now delay their repentance); and even after Constantine there were examples of eminent teachers, as Gregory Nazianzen, Augustin, Chrysostom, who were not baptized before their conversion in early manhood, although they had Christian mothers.” - Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 1, Chapter 9, Section 54
“In reviewing the patristic doctrine of baptism which was sanctioned by the Greek and Roman, and, with some important modifications, also by the Lutheran and Anglican churches, we should remember that during the first three centuries, and even in the age of Constantine, adult baptism was the rule, and that the actual conversion of the candidate was required as a condition before administering the sacrament (as is still the case on missionary ground). Hence in preceding catechetical instruction, the renunciation of the devil, and the profession of faith. But when the same high view is applied without qualification to infant baptism, we are confronted at once with the difficulty that infants cannot comply with this condition.” - Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 2, Chapter 4, Section 71
Adolf von Harnack, 1851 AD - 1930 AD
““men are not born Christians, but made Christians.” This remark of Tertullian (Apol., xviii.) may have applied to the large majority even after the middle of the second century, but thereafter a companion feature arose in the shape of the natural extension of Christianity through parents to their children. Subsequently to that period the practice of infant baptism was also inaugurated; at least we are unable to get certain evidence for it at an earlier date.” - Harnack, The Expansion of Christianity in the first three centuries, p. 243
_in_1918.jpg/440px-Charles_Gore_(1853-1932)_in_1918.jpg)
“And all the early lore about baptism, and the early ritual, emphasize the element of solemn and deliberate choice—the “dying to live.” This situation continued on the whole for some three centuries. Thus the homes of Christians would have been for their children normally nurseries of faith. The real disaster happened when Christianity became the established religion and baptism became really indiscriminate.” - Gore, The Reconstruction of Belief, Book II, p. 750
“The practice of infant baptism is not demonstrable in the Apostolic and post-Apostolic age. It is true that we hear frequently of the baptism of whole households, e.g. Acts 16.15, 32 f., 18.8, 1 Cor. 1.16. But the last passage taken in conjunction with 1 Cor. 7.14 does not tell in favor of the view that infant baptism was usual at that time time.” - Feine, Real Encyclopedia for Protestant Theology and Church, Volume 19, p. 403
“We thus reach a point of view from which modern difficulties as to the nature of the sacrament can be seen in their true perspective. And it seems that most of them have arisen because neither the orthodox nor their critics have sufficiently realized that the change from adult-baptism to infant-baptism as the normal practice of the Church should have involved a shifting of emphasis from the instrumental to the symbolic aspect of the sacrament.” - Quick, The Christian Sacraments, p. 168-169
“The point of the Church’s transition out of its missionary youth into the status and responsibilities of an established institution was marked by the substitution of infant-baptism for adult-baptism as the normal form of admission to full membership.” - Quick, The Christian Sacraments, p. 180
“Yet even in the third century infant baptism is plainly not the rule everywhere, for in those very areas where it had secured a firm place in the church, the custom of baptizing children after attaining a maturer age remained in force alongside it, as the inscriptions testify.” - Aland, Did the Early Church Baptize Infants?, p. 100
“It can be no accident, as has been emphasized already, that all our information about the existence of infant baptism comes from around the period of AD 200 to 250.” - Aland, Did the Early Church Baptize Infants?, p.101
“Speculation about baptism in the third century revolves around its function, universally admitted hitherto, as the medium of the bestowal of the Spirit. Infant baptism was now common, and this fact, together with the rapid expansion of the Church’s numbers, caused the administration of the sacrament to be increasingly delegated by bishops to presbyters.” - Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p. 223
Kelly's comment is subtle and can be easily missed. His statement about infant baptism being "now common" is in the context of the third century. This indicates in Kelly's mind, there was a shift from infant baptism being uncommon to some unspecified degree before the third century to being "now common" in the third century.
“Until the sixth century, infants were baptized only when they were in danger of death. About this time the practice was introduced of administering baptism even when they were not ill” - Lagarde, The Latin Church in the Middle Ages, p. 37
“Whatever its origins or its spread during the second century, the first incontestable evidence for the practice [of infant baptism] appeared around the end of that century, in the writings of Tertullian. Attacking the practice as a novelty,” - Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, Volume 1, p. 290
“It will proceed by asking a series of questions, and, as so often in intellectual enquiry, the validity of the outcome will depend on the appropriateness of the questions. Are there any Explicit References to Infant Baptism in the Apostolic Fathers? The first is likely to prove the easiest to answer, since no scholar known to me now answers in the affirmative.” -Wright, Infant Baptism in Historical Perspective, p. 45
“The overall conclusion must be that the Apostolic Fathers do not strengthen the case for judging that infant baptism was practised in the New Testament churches. If anything, they weaken the case. A critical question remains as to how we should interpret their silence.” - Wright, Infant Baptism in Historical Perspective, p. 54
“One of the directions in which we should move—and here I address fellow paedobaptists—will lead us to abandon over-argued efforts to prove that infants were baptized in the churches of the New Testament. That in fact they were cannot (so I judge) be ruled out, but the case falls far short of proof, and advocates of baptizing babies are on safer territory in relying on biblical-theological rather than historical grounds. The historical question is not even clarified if the investigation is extended to the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, traditionally viewed as the earliest group of post-New Testament texts. I have recently argued that: the Apostolic Fathers of themselves barely sustain a picture even of obscurity concerning infant baptism. So far are they from dispersing the shadows of the New Testament that, if one started from the Apostolic Fathers and not the New Testament, one could scarcely claim that the baptizing of infants was even obscurely in view.” - Wright, Infant Baptism in Historical Perspective, p. 377
“The Cappadocian Fathers do not appear to leave any room for the practice of infant baptism. Gregory of Nazianzus recommends baptism only for those children who are over the age of three years and are able to understand at least something about the benefits they receive. Little children are innocent, and only in case of danger of premature death should they be baptized, inasmuch as the sacrament constitutes a basis for glorification, with which they should be provided at the time of their departure from this world.” - Beatrice, The Transmission of Sin, p. 87
“In the view of Gregory of Nyssa, an infant is in a state of natural goodness and therefore does not have need of the salubrity that comes from the purification of baptism.” - Beatrice, The Transmission of Sin, p. 87-88
“In the first four centuries of Christianity, the literature on baptism clearly shows how, in the majority of instances, it was persons of responsible age (generally adults and grown children) who were the recipients of baptism…The patristic literature of the first four centuries clearly shows how infant baptism developed. Probably the first instances known, occurred in the latter part of the third century, mostly in North Africa, but during the fourth century infant baptism became more and more accepted,” - Stander, Baptism in the Early Church, p. 183-184
“The practice of baptizing infants of Christian parents – often referred to as paedobaptism – appears to have been a response to a number of pressures. It is possible that the parallel with the Jewish rite of circumcision led Christians to devise an equivalent rite of passage for Christian infants. More generally, there seems to have been a pastoral need for Christian parents to celebrate the birth of a child within a believing household. Infant baptism may well have had its origins partly in response to this concern. However, it must be stressed that there is genuine uncertainty concerning both the historical origins and the social or theological causes of the practice. What can be said is that the practice had become normal, if not universal, by the second or third century,” - McGrath, Christian Theology, p. 844
“This may also mean that young children or infants were also baptized, as a sign of the new allegiance into which their whole social group had moved. Yet the baptism of children and infants remains an uncertainty for the first and much of the second century; there is simply no evidence on which to base a definitive judgment. Adults were for many years to remain the normal, if not necessarily sole, recipients of baptism.” - McGowan, Ancient Christian Worship, p. 249
SUMMARIZING THE STATEMENTS & CONCLUSION
We've now looked at over 20 theologians and historians coming almost exclusively from Paedobaptist traditions (Anglican, Congregational, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, etc.) and how they understand the development of Paedobaptism. Let's briefly recall to memory common statements from modern Paedobaptist apologists:
“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
Many Paedobaptists today argue that the doctrine and practice are both apostolic in origin and universal in practice. Yet, when we observe statements from Paedobaptist historians and theologians outside of a polemic and apologetic environment defending the doctrine we discover a completely different sentiment.
We can broadly divide these sentiments into three groups based on how each figure discussed the historical development of infant baptism and what they focused on. Some people might fit into multiple groups either in actuality because of their explicit statements or in potentiality. However, we are aiming to group these figures based on their explicit statements.
1. Credobaptism is explicitly mentioned as the original practice of Christians
This is attested to by Walafrid Strabo, August Neander, H.A.W. Meyer, and Paul Feine
2. In some way and/or time, Paedobaptism developed and grew in practice/popularity
This is attested to by Ulrich Zwingli, Richard Baxter, Peter the Venerable, John Henry Newman, Charles Gore, Oliver Chase Quick, JND Kelly, and Pier Franco Beatrice
3. Paedobaptism was either introduced or evidence for it began in and around the 3rd century
This is attested to by Hermann Olshausen, August Neander, H.A.W. Meyer, Karl Rudolf Hagenbach, Philip Schaff, Adolf von Harnack, Kurt Aland, Jaroslav Pelikan, David F. Wright, Hennie Stander, Alister McGrath, and Andrew McGowan
So, where do we go from here? Some Paedobaptists might argue in response that various Paedobaptists have undertaken the task of writing about the development of Paedobaptism and come to differing conclusions. It is, of course, true and unsurprising that someone affirming a doctrine might analyze the data for that doctrine in the most favorable light. What is surprising, though, is multiple people affirming a doctrine yet analyzing the data for that doctrine in a negative light or at least not a favorable light.
Joachim Jeremias is an example of a Paedobaptist who analyzed the development of Paedobaptism and came away with a more positive conclusion. In 1960, he wrote a book titled "Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries."
“A more eloquent testimony than that of the direct evidence to the gravity and depth of the crisis is borne by the singular behaviour of the theologians. They are silent. Not that they opposed the practice of infant baptism—of that we have not the slightest evidence. But no one has a clear policy in face of the crisis.” - Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, p. 91
“We dare not, however, infer, from the twofold circumstance that in the fourth century postponement of baptism of children of Christian parents became widely prevalent in the whole Church, and that for the first two thirds of this century (as also for the second half of the third century) there is an almost complete lack of patristic evidence for infant baptism, that the latter had fallen completely out of use in the fourth century.” - Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, p. 91
“After about 365 the literary sources suddenly begin to flow freely. The baptism of newborn infants is cited as a well-established custom, enjoined and theologically justified,’ as if nothing had happened.” - Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, p. 94
But even Jeremias, with his own more favorable model of the development of Paedobaptism, mentions a crisis period in the 4th century. During this time, theologians were silent on the practice, parents postponed their children's baptisms, and later on, sources started talking about infant baptism. So even Jeremias' analysis done in an apologetic context defending the doctrine would undermine claims that Paedobaptism was the universal practice for 1500 years.
Other Paedobaptists might argue in response that some of the sources we provided are outdated and we have more evidence now supporting the apostolicity and universality of infant baptism. Upon close inspection, this doesn't work. For example, if we take group three from above, the earliest example we provided was Hermann Olshausen. He was born in 1796. The latest example we provided was Andrew McGowan. He was born in 1961. Both of these men articulated that Paedobaptism was either introduced or evidence for it began in and around the 3rd century. Yet, they were born almost 200 years apart. In between them, there's a multitude of figures who had a similar sentiment.
In summary, there seems to be a large disconnect between modern apologetics for Paedobaptism and how Paedobaptists have frequently spoken of the doctrine's development through recent centuries. We believe it's noteworthy that so many Paedobaptists from various traditions have made comments contrary to the dogmatic claims of apostolicity and universality that we see in modern times. It doesn't mean these figures we've cited are necessarily correct. But it does mean that we should give pause to the apologetic claims we see and return to the primary sources with a fresh perspective. We might discover that the evidence is not as compelling as was initially thought, and perhaps the history is more complex than we were told.
Thanks for reading. That concludes this article.
No comments:
Post a Comment