Hello and welcome. This article is an introduction to future articles about the historical development of Credobaptism and Paedobaptism in early Christianity. In this article, we'll briefly summarize the issue. This introductory article will help set the stage for future articles on this topic.
WHAT WE'VE COVERED SO FAR
Over the last few years on our blog, we've written and responded to various biblical arguments for Paedobaptism. That is still a project we are working on. However, we also want to begin working through the extrabiblical historical sources for the proper recipients of baptism. This topic is often framed as a historical argument in favor of Paedobaptism and/or against Credobaptism. As an example, observe these three quotes:
“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
Statements like these are not uncommon in the current apologetic landscape for infant baptism. You don't have to look far to see Paedobaptists claiming that the practice of baptizing infants goes back to the apostles and was the universal practice of Christians for centuries. Since biblical arguments don't suffice to answer historical extrabiblical arguments, we must meet these claims where they are and work through the historical sources.
Over the years, we have studied the issue from the Paedobaptist perspective as best we can. Through this process, we discovered that there is a big disconnect between contemporary apologetics for infant baptism and what scholars and historians from Paedobaptist denominations have said about the historical development of the practice. In this article here, we provided quotes from over thirty such theologians acknowledging either that Credobaptism was the original practice of Christians, that Paedobaptism developed around a certain time, and/or grew in practice over the course of time, which undermines the claims seen above.
While we didn't cover any historical sources in that article, it demonstrated that any future arguments we make that arrive at a similar conclusion are not out of left field or nonsensical. While it would by no means prove the arguments true, it simply means that some on the opposite side of the aisle agree with us, and therefore the arguments should not be simply ignored or passed over.
WHERE WE GO FROM HERE
In the future on this blog, our goal is to go chronologically (or close to it) through the early church fathers and sources used to argue for Paedobaptism. Some of these we acknowledge as evidence for the practice of infant baptism, and others we disagree with. We will also make the case that various historical sources better align with and demonstrate Credobaptism. For the most part, each source will have its own article because with many of them, there are deeper questions worth exploring and lines of evidence that are often missed in these discussions. We believe there's a substantial amount of sources and evidence that have been glanced over on this topic, but deserve proper attention. Our aim is to undermine and discredit statements often made, like those cited above, that Paedobaptism was the universal practice of Christians for centuries, which goes back to the apostolic fathers and apostles.
DEEPER QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER
On the surface level, many Paedobaptists are prone to approach historical texts on this topic with the mindset that if a text explicitly mentions infant baptism, then the text supports the practice, but if the text doesn't explicitly condemn infant baptism by name, then it also supports the practice. Or at the very least, cannot be used as evidence for Credobaptism. The Credobaptist might respond that the text doesn't need to explicitly condemn infant baptism for it to support Credobaptism. In fact, most statements of faith that are Credobaptist don't explicitly condemn infant baptism either. For instance, look at the following examples from various Credobaptist denominations and associations.
"Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper." - Southern Baptist, Baptist Faith and Message 2000, Article VII
"We believe that there are two pictorial ordinances in the Lord's churches: Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Scriptural baptism is the immersion of penitent believers in water, administered by the authority of a New Testament church in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." - American Baptist Association, Statement of Faith, Article 18
"Her two ordinances are baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Baptism is the immersion in water of a believer as a confession of his faith in Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:19; Rom. 6:4) and is prerequisite to church membership and participation in the Lord’s Supper (Acts 2:41, 42)." - Baptist Missionary Association of America, Doctrinal Statement, Article X, Section D
"The ordinance of baptism by immersion is commanded by the Scriptures. All who repent and believe on Christ as Saviour and Lord are to be baptized. Thus they declare to the world that they have died with Christ and that they also have been raised with Him to walk in newness of life." - Assemblies of God, Statement of Fundamental Truths, Article 6
"In water baptism by immersion, and all who repent should be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." - Church of God, Declaration of Faith, Article 10
None of these five faith statements in their articles on baptism explicitly says not to baptize infants. So are they actually Paedobaptist? Obviously, that isn't the case. The doctrine of Credobaptism is derived from these statements through the positive descriptive details we are given, like obedience, repentance, and faith preceding baptism, with no further caveats or categories provided that allow for another group of people to qualify for baptism. These faith statements simply mean that the proper recipients of baptism are those whom the church has observed having repentant faith. In other words, Credobaptism. Therefore, for the Credobaptist, it's not necessary for a source to explicitly denounce infant baptism to conclude that the text supports Credobaptism. Rather, if the descriptive details and traits that are mentioned for those who are to be baptized seem to only have one type of person in mind, that is, a believer, then the text supports Credobaptism. Unless, of course, an explicit affirmation of infant baptism can be found elsewhere in the same source, or if the source mentions other categories of recipients of baptism that include infants.
This is the first level of thinking between Paedobaptists and Credobaptists when determining which perspective a source most likely falls under. We think there are deeper questions to consider, which are often overlooked in sources that don't explicitly mention infant baptism. We will be working through some of these questions in future articles on specific early Christian sources.
No comments:
Post a Comment