Although I set down this path knowing that credo-baptism would be working from a disadvantage, I also had a high degree of confidence that it would come back and win handily. Imagine my surprise when I found what Cyprian said at the council of Carthage in the year 253AD: "As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born." (Letters 64:2).
In other words, infant baptism is the Apostolic position, case closed. For if credo-baptism was the dominant paradigm the synod would have instead said: "Baptize an infant Fidus? Baptism is for adults who've professed a credible faith, to demonstrate their seriousness about following Jesus. What makes you think a newborn can repent and believe?" But they didn’t. They said “keep doing what you’re doing and don't bother waiting a week to baptize.” Which convinces me that paedo-baptism was the uncontested doctrine of the early church.
Why? Because nobody contested this ruling that's why. That’s either because the watching world agreed with the synod, or because nobody cared enough to protest the ruling, but it can’t be that the decision went unnoticed since we have a record of it today. Yet if credo-baptism was the norm then the objectors would’ve cared a great deal, and when the synod told Fidus to baptize infants they would've come down on the schismatics like a fireball during the time of Elijah. But instead there's only a consenting silence.
The second major blow this delivers to credo-baptism lies in the fact that a synod made this ruling, meaning the credo-baptist can only be right if the synod is wrong. That means either the bishops who made up this gathering were malicious or they were ignorant. As to the first, what are the odds that the globally recognized leaders were openly injecting malicious doctrine into councils and not being challenged on it? As my device physics teacher used to say about our test scores, "Nnn, nnnn, not good. Not good." As for the charge of ignorance, for all the bishops to make an honest mistake at the same time means that by 250AD the debate had been settled to such an extent that no self-respecting theologian even though to challenge paedo-baptism. Which brings me to my next point. Granting that credo was the Apostolic position doesn’t actually get the credo-baptist anywhere.
The first reason for this is because the definition of baptism used by the credo-baptist is water tight and totally resists transmutation into paedo-baptism. You can’t start at credo-baptism and then arrive at infant baptism by pushing the age of consent downward, since once you hit 2 or 3 the child ceases to have a solid profession of faith. Nor does the credo-baptist definition of baptism allow us to jump sideways into the belief that baptism confers actual forgiveness of sin given that it's a sign of existing forgiveness and not the forgiveness itself. Modern credo-baptism is a sound system—a complete system—and it doesn’t morph into something else even when you force it.
The second reason why granting that the Apostles held to credo-baptism doesn’t improve the situation is that there’s simply not enough time to make the switch. What I mean is, Polycarp (who died in 155AD) was discipled by the Apostle John. So until 155AD anyone can go to someone trained by the Apostles themselves and get direct answers to their questions. That effectively prevents a 180 degree switch on baptism from happening since the second generation Christians can put up their hands and say “my mentor, the Apostle John, who mentored me, didn’t teach that.”
On the other side, by the year 250AD the issue had been settled in favor of paedo-baptism to such an extent that not only was infant baptism both normal and expected, but nobody even thought to have a different opinion about it. So the switch had to have happened no later than 210AD to allow enough time for the amnesia to kick in. Therefore in slightly less than 55 years infant baptism becomes the unchallenged practice across the whole world with no notable record of its conquest. I cannot stress enough how unlikely this is. Scholars like Aland who claim that infant baptism started around the year 200 just make this worse, because that gives infant baptism only something like 20 years to sweep over (at minimum) the whole of Africa.
The third problem of why granting the switch doesn't work is because the magnitude of capitulation on the part of the credo-Baptist would make it make it a totally unique, never-to-be-repeated event it in history. I don't mean the credo has to answer the question, “what other radical doctrinal reversal has completely captured the whole world without even a trace of the dispute in under a hundred years?” I’m mean they have to answer, “what other radical doctrinal reversal has completely captured the whole world without a trace of a battle ever being fought?” There's no record of the conquest. This isn't a small issue that might have slipped under the radar of the council at Carthage either, these two positions are dramatically different from one another. But even if that wasn't true and this was a small issue, the synod still took the time to write down and address a question as small as "Baptize on day eight or day one?" So if they took the time on the small things then surely something like a massive doctrinal shift wouldn't have gone unremarked at a time when all kinds of key doctrinal points were being debated and worked out. That there was no debate means any scenario where the church switches from one view to another is impossible.
The third problem of why granting the switch doesn't work is because the magnitude of capitulation on the part of the credo-Baptist would make it make it a totally unique, never-to-be-repeated event it in history. I don't mean the credo has to answer the question, “what other radical doctrinal reversal has completely captured the whole world without even a trace of the dispute in under a hundred years?” I’m mean they have to answer, “what other radical doctrinal reversal has completely captured the whole world without a trace of a battle ever being fought?” There's no record of the conquest. This isn't a small issue that might have slipped under the radar of the council at Carthage either, these two positions are dramatically different from one another. But even if that wasn't true and this was a small issue, the synod still took the time to write down and address a question as small as "Baptize on day eight or day one?" So if they took the time on the small things then surely something like a massive doctrinal shift wouldn't have gone unremarked at a time when all kinds of key doctrinal points were being debated and worked out. That there was no debate means any scenario where the church switches from one view to another is impossible.
“What about the evidence starting in the year 330AD that infant baptism wasn’t the universal practice?” the credo-baptist asks. “What do you do with the fact that we have records of men who were not baptized as infants, but later as adults? Take for example Constantine, Augustine, Basil, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Jerome, and Rufinus.” I take it and use it to prove my point, that’s what. We have a record of this doctrinal shift. Interestingly, Chrysostom and Ambrose speak out against delaying baptism for infants and cite the Apostolic practice as justification, rebuking their own parents for their failure to follow apostolic teaching. Since we have a record, it can’t be used to prove that credo-baptism quietly and immediately lost to paedo-baptism a hundred years earlier.
But let’s pretend that paedo-baptism conquered the world without anyone realizing it and only until 330AD did the world wake up and remember that the Apostles had told them that infant baptism was wrong. Why did the church return to infant baptism after the advent of credo-baptism? History shows that by 401AD the debate was over and everyone went back to baptizing infants. Why? Well from what I can tell because the adult-only movement was based on the premise that it was easier to remit sins with baptism than with prayer and confession. So men waited until their deathbed before being baptized so they could receive a full cleansing (see Constantine for example). Paedo-baptism was strong enough to put the debate to rest until the Anabaptists showed up many, many years later, which indicates it was the Apostolic practice. Again, notice that this notion of adult baptism persisted for approximately half a century with plenty of records, including a birth and death certificate. It came, it went, and paedo-baptism remained. There’s absolutely no way the early church flipped from believer’s baptism to infant baptism without note, record, or debate in under a hundred years. We have been vigorously debating this topic for over 500 years, there’s no possible way paedo-baptism won the fight all those years ago without everyone knowing it.
Now that’s not all the evidence I unearthed looking at early church history either. In the next post I’ll jot down some other pieces of evidence that I found fairly compelling.
Next: the historic case for paedo-baptism from other sources
Return to the Index
No comments:
Post a Comment