I was reading a Baptist post somewhere talking about improper Presbyterian administration of the sacrament of baptism, and I (a confessional Presbyterian) began to wonder: What is the Baptist argument against the fact that the church universally practiced infant baptism until the 16th century? Isn’t “believer’s baptism” as much an innovation as pastorettes, dispensationalism, pentecostalism, and Mormonism? (Not that all these are equally bad, of course.)
One may say, “Well, yes, but Scripture teaches believers baptism.” But if that were the case, wouldn’t the Holy Spirit see to it that a remnant was practicing such baptism over the first 1500 years of the New Testament church?
Comments are open. This is not the place to argue the Scriptural case for believers baptism or infant baptism, but I would be grateful if someone could summarize Baptist opinion about “the gap.”
Greetings. I am not the greatest commentator, so don’t take this as “The Baptist view.” I do not wish to represent every single Baptist in the world, for there may be a better explanation.
I am a Reformed Baptist. So we are brothers . I confess the 1689 LBCF which is nearly identical to the WCF.
What I would like to know is where before the 16th century was the presbyterian mode and doctrine of infant baptism practiced as it is since the Swiss Reformers? As I know it, as far as one can tell, the infant baptism practice from the earliest church resources is based on a belief of baptismal regeneration which every reformed Presbyterian does not believe.
The argument I hear many of my Presbyterian brothers use for paedobaptism is this argument of antiquity. But it is no argument at all, at least not a very strong one. The practice of infant baptism as administered by the Presbyterian Churches today can not be traced anywhere in history. So, maybe the reformed paedobaptists and credobaptists are on the same level here. Show me where an ancient church Father taught even anything remotely similar to the Presbyterian doctrine of baptizing believers and their children. Would you, my brother, please summarize for me the Presbyterian opinion about “the gap.”
Your brother in Christ alone, by Grace alone, Andrew
Greetings, Andrew. Regarding the historic practice of the church, Berkhof and Hodge indicate that there has never been unanimity in the matter of what baptism does (nor does it exist now, of course). To quote Berkhov from ‘The History of Christian Doctrines:’
“Baptism was foremost among the sacraments as the rite of initiation into the Church. Even in the Apostolic Fathers we find the idea that it was instrumental in effecting the forgiveness of sins and in communicating the new life of regeneration. In a certain sense it may be said, therefore, that some of the early Fathers taught baptismal regeneration. Yet this statement requires some limitations: (1) They held baptism to be efficacious in the case of adults only in connection with the right inner disposition and purpose… (2) They did not regard baptism as absolutely essential to the initiation of the spiritual life, or the life of regeneration; but viewed it rather as the completing element in a process of renewal.” Thus baptism can effect, but does not necessarily effect, saving faith. That sounds pretty similar to the WCF to this amateur (i.e. baptism is only effectual for the elect, and even then not necessarily at the time of its administration). Note that Berkhov does add the following: “[the idea gradually gained ground that] the sacrament works more of less magically. Even Augustine promoted this view to some extent, though he considered faith and repentance as the necessary of baptism in the case of adults.” This seems to me similar to how semi-Pelagianism gradually gained ground in the church, but Augustinians were always present all along.
Returning to the point about infant baptism and church practice, though, everyone I have read says that unanimity was always there prior to 1500. Charles Hodge says this in his Systematic Theology: “It is to be remembered that the history of the Apostolic period is very brief, and also that Christ sent the Apostles, not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel, and, therefore, it is not surprising that so few instances of household baptism are recorded in the New Testament. The same remark applies substantially to the age immediately succeeding that of the Apostles. The Church increased with great rapidity, but its accessions were from without; adult converts from among the Jews and Gentiles, who in becoming Christians, brought, as a matter of course, their children with them into the fold of Christ. … In the time of Tertullian and Origen infant baptism is spoken of, not only as the prevailing usage of the Church, but as having been practised from the beginning. When Pelagius was sorely pressed by Augustine with the argument in support of the doctrine of original sin derived from the baptism of infants, he did not venture to evade the argument by denying either the prevalence of such baptisms or the divine warrant for them. He could only say that they were baptized, not on account of what they then needed, but of what they might need hereafter. The fact of infant baptism and its divine sanction were admitted. These facts are here referred to only as a collateral proof that the practice of the New Testament Church did not in this matter differ from that of the Church as constituted before the advent of Christ.”
Thanks for the input, brother. I’ve been curious about it, and indeed the question was asked out of curiosity.
Greetings again. I am pleased with your response. Not that I would immediately and upon every point fully agree with you. But I am pleased that you used great and reliable sources with an honest and historically based answer. Let me assure you that I would rather embrace truth than the “safety” and comfort of my Baptistic heritage (since I was raised in the Baptist Church). I endeavor to step outside of my “tradition” to examine Scripture without the American, 21st Century, Baptist glasses. But you can probably imagine this is not easily done, if possible by reason alone.
I apologize I do not have a sufficient response for you at this time. I have sat here for an hour now pondering your answer and I can’t reply back.
Though your main concern in this post was the sacrament of Baptism, could this “gap” also apply to the other sacrament as well? Was there a remnant of the reformed understanding and practice of the Supper through history? Just a thought.
I will yet ponder life in the light of God’s endless glory with you.
Soli Deo Gloria, Andrew
Thanks Andrew. Readers: If I’m going to quote Berkhof I could at least spell his name correctly. “Berkhov” is my, er, code name for Louis Berkhof.
The post’s question is a good one. If one takes the position that baptism is just a declaration of faith, unnecessary even for the believer, then one could argue that the infant baptisms before 1600 were meaningless except as a declaration that the parents were Christians. God allowed this because lack of adult baptism was not a crucial omission. Adult baptism is helpful, though, like becoming a church member formally, so that is why it is good to do it nowadays.
I don’t know how well that fits with Baptist theology, though. It doesn’t work if one views adult baptism as a central part of salvation.