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
“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
Statements like these are common and plentiful 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 mentioned for those who are to be baptized seem to only have one type of person in mind, a believer, then the text supports Credobaptism. Unless, of course, an explicit affirmation of infant baptism can be found elsewhere in the same source. To compare, let's look at statements on baptism from five Paedobaptist faith statements.
“Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God’s grace.” - Augsburg Confession, Article IX
“BAPTISM is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or new Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.” - 39 Articles, Article XXVII
“Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized.” - Westminster Confession, Article XXVIII, Section IV
"Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference whereby Christians are distinguished from others that are not baptized; but it is also a sign of regeneration or the new birth. The Baptism of young children is to be retained in the Church." - The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church, Article XVII
"Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized, and those only." - Savoy Declaration, Section 29, Article 4
The Augsburg Confession, 39 Articles, Westminster Confession, Articles of Religion, and Savoy Declaration represent the Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, and Congregational denominations, respectively. These five faith statements demonstrate that when infants are explicitly mentioned in faith statement articles about baptism, it's usually from the Paedobaptist side, arguing that they should be included as valid recipients of baptism. When comparing these with the Credobaptist faith statements, we see a stark difference in how the recipients of baptism are addressed when baptism is briefly discussed. The Credobaptist side often does not find it necessary to explicitly exclude infants in articles about baptism. This is because the affirmative details of prerequisites, such as being a believer, being repentant, and confessing one's faith, provide enough context to know that people who have developed in body and mind are in view. The Paedobaptist perspectives reflected in these faith statements, knowing that infants do not fit within these aforementioned details, add that infants are appropriate recipients of baptism as well. In summary, we should be hesitant to grant Paedobaptists that a historical source affirms infant baptism if they don't explicitly denounce the practice; or that the source cannot be used to argue for Credobaptism. By this standard, Credobaptist sources today would qualify as Paedobaptist. If a source provides affirmative details that don't align with Paedobaptism and a separate category including infants is not mentioned, the source most likely aligns with the Credobaptist perspective.
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