REVIEWING COMMON CLAIMS FROM PAEDOBAPTISTS
In the apologetic landscape, Paedobaptists defending their practice routinely claim that the baptismal practice of Christians always included infants, going back to the apostles. They argue that the practice of believers being the only proper recipients of baptism has no attestation until the 1500s, and that Paedobaptism was the universal practice before then.
“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
In this article, we will examine Theophilus of Antioch.
WHO WAS THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH?
Theophilus of Antioch was a Christian leader who lived during the second century and served as the bishop of Antioch in Syria. The exact date range of his life is unknown, but it is generally accepted that he died between 183 and 185 AD. We know little about his personal life, but we can learn a lot about his beliefs from his surviving writings. Theophilus tells us he was once a pagan and came to believe in the Christian God through his study of Scripture. He eventually became the bishop of Antioch, one of the most important Christian centers of the early church. Eusebius later lists Theophilus as the sixth bishop of Antioch after the apostles. He appears to have served during a time when Christianity was still competing with pagan religion and various teachings that were beginning to spread within Christianity.
Theophilus is best known for a work called To Autolycus, which was written to a pagan named Autolycus. In this work, Theophilus gives a defense of Christianity and explains why Christians should believe in the God revealed in the Scriptures. He discusses creation, the Old Testament prophets, the resurrection, Christian morality, and the differences between Christianity and pagan religion. He also wrote against Marcion and other teachings that he considered to be contrary to the Christian faith, although most of those writings have not survived. Because of this, Theophilus is an important early witness to what a Christian leader believed and taught during the second century. His writings give us a look at how Christians of this period understood Scripture and defended their faith against the surrounding pagan culture.
THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH ON THE RECIPIENTS OF BAPTISM
When it comes to baptism and who should receive it, Theophilus is a less significant source than some of the others we have covered. This is simply because there is not much in his writings that is relevant or correlated with the topic to help us understand his perspectives. Before looking at what he said on the recipients of baptism, let's understand the context.
“And first, they taught us with one consent that God made all things out of nothing; for nothing was coeval with God: but He being His own place, and wanting nothing, and existing before the ages, willed to make man by whom He might be known; for him, therefore, He prepared the world. For he that is created is also needy; but he that is uncreated stands in need of nothing.” - Theophlilus to Autolycus, Book 2, Chapter 10
“Now, the beginning of the creation is light; since light manifests the things that are created. Wherefore it is said: “And God said, Let light be, and light was; and God saw the light, that it was good,” manifestly made good for man. “And God divided the light from the darkness; and God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.” - Theophlilus to Autolycus, Book 2, Chapter 11
“Of this six days’ work no man can give a worthy explanation and description of all its parts, not though he had ten thousand tongues and ten thousand mouths; nay, though he were to live ten thousand years, sojourning in this life, not even so could he utter anything worthy of these things, on account of the exceeding greatness and riches of the wisdom of God which there is in the six days’ work above narrated.” - Theophlilus to Autolycus, Book 2, Chapter 12
In Book 2 of To Autolycus, Theophilus is detailing the biblical creation account. In this context, we find his relevant comment about baptism.
"On the fifth day the living creatures which proceed from the waters were produced, through which also is revealed the manifold wisdom of God in these things; for who could count their multitude and very various kinds? Moreover, the things 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 laver of regeneration,—as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God." - Theophilus to Autolycus, Book 2, Chapter 16
Gen 1:21-23 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Theophilus likens the creation act on the fifth day in Genesis 1:21-23 to baptism. Living creatures proceeded from the waters and were blessed by God, just as men proceed from the baptismal waters and are blessed by God. Theophilus connects repentance and coming to the truth as preceding and/or coinciding with baptism, framing it on a credo basis. He does not mention a secondary category of activities or lack thereof for valid baptismal candidates who cannot yet repent or come to the truth themselves, such as infants.
Taken by himself, Theophilus might be dismissed as a relevant source on the topic. However, when we view his comments in light of other sources dated earlier which speak at greater length on baptism and related issues, we see he follows the same pattern. Sources we have covered, like the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, Aristides of Athens, Justin Martyr, and the Shepherd of Hermas, speak with the same qualifiers and mention the same categories as Theophilus. Therefore, without any evidence from him in favor of infant baptism, Theophilus should be included in this theological line of Credobaptism.
"But you do not believe that the dead are raised. When the resurrection shall take place, then you will believe, whether you will or no; and your faith shall be reckoned for unbelief, unless you believe now. And why do you not believe? Do you not know that faith is the leading principle in all matters?" - Theophilus to Autolycus, Book 1, Chapter 8
In the previous book, Theophilus says that faith is the leading principle in all matters. It's not entirely clear how wide of a net he's casting with this comment and what the application extends to, as he's not saying this in a context explicitly about conversion or Christian ordinances. However, if "all matters" includes Christian ordinances, then faith is the leading principle in baptism, and we have a complementary statement to what he says in book 2 that aligns with Credobaptism.
PAEDOBAPTISTS ON THEOPHILUS' BAPTISMAL THEOLOGY
In previous articles, we have seen at least some comments worth exploring from Paedobaptist sources on whether an early Christian figure aligned more with Credobaptism or Paedobaptism, and addressing various arguments. When it comes to Theophilus, he is not mentioned in the works of Jeremias, Aland, Wright, Stander, or Louw. He is altogether passed over. So there's nothing to cover here.
THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH ON THE FALL OF MAN
Unlike some other early sources we've looked at, there is not much else from Theophilus' surviving works on related issues that can help us understand his baptismal theology. His brief comments on the fall of man are perhaps all he says that can inform us further.
"so also for the first man, disobedience procured his expulsion from Paradise. Not, therefore, as if there were any evil in the tree of knowledge; but from his disobedience did man draw, as from a fountain, labour, pain, grief, and at last fall a prey to death." - To Autolycus, Book II, Chapter XXV
When Theophilus lists what man drew from disobedience, he does not give much detail in his own words. Instead, he essentially repeats what we are told in the fall narrative from Genesis. For our purpose here, let's take a closer look at how Theophilus understands this death.
"And God showed great kindness to man in this, that He did not suffer him to remain in sin for ever; but, as it were, by a kind of banishment, cast him out of Paradise, in order that, having by punishment expiated, within an appointed time, the sin, and having been disciplined, he should afterwards be restored. Wherefore also, when man had been formed in this world, it is mysticallywritten in Genesis, as if he had been twice placed in Paradise; so that the one was fulfilled when he was placed there, and the second will be fulfilled after the resurrection and judgment. For just as a vessel, when on being fashioned it has some flaw, is remoulded or remade, that it may become new and entire; so also it happens to man by death. For somehow or other he is broken up, that he may rise in the resurrection whole; I mean spotless, and righteous, and immortal. And as to God’s calling, and saying, Where art thou, Adam? God did this, not as if ignorant of this; but, being long-suffering, He gave him an opportunity of repentance and confession." - To Autolycus, Book II, Chapter XXVI
“but if, on the other hand, he should turn to the things of death, disobeying God, he should himself be the cause of death to himself. For God made man free, and with power over himself. That, then, which man brought upon himself through carelessness and disobedience, this God now vouchsafes to him as a gift through His own philanthropy and pity, when men obey Him.” - To Autolycus, Book II, Chapter XXVII
"Apparently meaning, that God turns death, which man brought on himself by disobedience, into a blessing." - Philip Schaff, Ante Nicene Fathers, Volume II, Footnote 604
When it comes to this death that he mentions as a consequence of the fall, Theophilus' focus is on God's great kindness. God did not want humans to remain in sin forever. God's goal was to restore humans through mortality. Theophilus uses the imagery of vessels to make his point that through God's kindness, humans don't have to remain in a flawed state. Humans can become new and whole again, and this is made possible by the banishment of humans from paradise, which prevented physical immortality in a flawed state. Concerning Chapter XXVII, Schaff comments on how Theophilus means that God turned death into a blessing as a result of Adam's disobedience. Without an explicit mention of inherited guilt in Chapter XXV, and with death itself not seeming to include the notion of inherited guilt in Chapters XXVI and XXVII, it seems that Theophilus did not hold that inherited guilt was one of the consequences of the fall.
One reason why some Paedobaptist traditions baptize infants, and a major reason historically, is the concept that infants are guilty of Adam's sin, which needs to be remitted through baptism for the child not to be damned and be able to enter heaven. We have written extensively on this topic in other articles, so we won't go in much depth here. Let's look at three sources displaying this from the 5th century.
"Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother’s wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema. For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, “By one man sin is come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned,” than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration." - Council in 418, Canon II
“Let there be then no eternal salvation promised to infants out of our own opinion, without Christ’s baptism; for none is promised in that Holy Scripture which is to be preferred to all human authority and opinion." - A treatise on the merits and forgiveness of sins, and on the baptism of infants, Chapter 33
“What do we understand by the darkness but sin? And whatever else it may embrace in its meaning, at any rate he who believes not in Christ will “abide in darkness,”—which, of course, is a penal state, not, as the darkness of the night, necessary for the refreshment of living beings. So that infants, unless they pass into the number of believers through the sacrament which was divinely instituted for this purpose, will undoubtedly remain in this darkness.” - A treatise on the merits and forgiveness of sins, and on the baptism of infants, Chapter 35
“For only the little ones who do not yet have their own actions, whether good ones or bad ones, will be condemned by reason of original sin alone, if the grace of the savior does not come to their aid by the bath of rebirth. But all the rest who, in using free choice, have added their own personal sins on top of original sin, if they are not rescued from the power of darkness by the grace of God and transferred to the kingdom of Christ, will receive judgment, not only according to the merits of their origin, but also according to merits of their own will.” - Second Letter of Augustine to Abbot Valentine, AP4 WSA 1.26.47
“Consider also the case of the whole multitude of children. In none of them do you find deserts, neither past nor future, only the sin in which the whole human race is born unto damnation. We speak now of children before the use of reason and before they are able to make any use of their free will. Some are regenerated in baptism and pass on to eternal happiness, others are not reborn and go to unending misery.” - The call of all nations, Book 1, Chapter 16
What we see in these three examples is that one prominent reason for baptizing infants is to remove Adam's sin they are guilty of, so they aren't damned if they die and can go to heaven. What's the relevance of this to Theophilus?
This reason to baptize infants is premised on the idea that infants are guilty of Adam's sin. If a person in early Christianity like Theophilus didn't seem to believe that infants were guilty of sin, it would mean they wouldn't affirm infant baptism for that particular reason. Without clear affirmation of the practice, rejecting concepts often used to justify it makes it less likely that the person affirmed the practice and then failed to mention it in their writings. Therefore, since Theophilus did not indicate that a transmitted guilt of sin was part of the consequences of the fall, it follows that young children aren't guilty of Adam's sin, and it becomes less likely that he affirmed the practice of baptizing infants.
CONCLUSION
In this article, we have examined what Theophilus of Antioch said to determine if he demonstrates the practice of Credobaptism in early Christianity. When Theophilus speaks of baptism, he seems to ground its reception on repentance and coming to the truth first. He does not mention any category or distinction that would allow infant baptism.
As additional evidence, Theophilus does not articulate the consequences of the fall in a way that would clearly include inheriting the guilt of Adam's sin, which is a prominent historical and theological reason given for baptizing infants. Therefore, it is less likely that he affirmed infant baptism since he does not clearly hold to that prominent premise and justification for the practice. As a result, Theophilus aligns with Credobaptism and should be seen as a supporting source alongside other early witnesses that say the same but even more explicitly.
Thanks for reading. That concludes this article.
No comments:
Post a Comment