Phils Rules For Debating Baptists

So you want to debate your Baptist brother on the issue of paedo-baptism do you? Before you do, you'd better take a quick minute to remind yourself of the things you already know. Like...

 

Baptists Are People

I don’t mean “Treat everyone as an individual and with respect”—although that’s true. I mean, before doing anything else, check yourself. In a forum full of people shooting at each other it can be tempting to think you can fly in, carpet bomb the inhabitants with a bunch of winning arguments, and then have the other side helplessly converting against their will to the sound of thunderous applause. You can’t, and that’s a dumb fantasy anyway. Instead, you need to remember that your brother is a rational, but also an emotional and volitional creature and therefore will not be convinced apart from a personal touch over time. People resist arguments because they have an emotional preference for stability, and because of inertia, not necessarily because your argument is bad (though it might be). Many Baptists, perhaps even most, hold their belief because that’s what they were taught and because it’s working well for them, and this forms an incentive for them to go on holding it. Admitting they were wrong probably means more than providing intellectual assent; it also likely requires making some personal changes they don’t relish or welcome. It’s normal then that their first, second, and third impulse is to reject what you’re saying. If the Baptist you’re working with hasn’t really thought about the topic of covenants or infant baptism then it’s almost certain they’re going to have a strong negative emotion or reaction to your argument, particularly if they don’t have a good  intellectual answer to give. They might even turn on the cap locks or start talking about your mama. That’s okay. It’s the internet. Strong emotions are to be expected in a debate like this. Just give them some space, be polite, be charitable—or as they’d say in the old days, be Christian. There’s a lot on the line here whether you realize it or not, because it’s very possible you’re asking them to give up all their friends in accepting your stance. So don’t be pushy. Besides resisting change is a defense mechanism that bears a lot of good fruit in general. You do the same and it’s wise of you. Most decisions will happen later as they mull over what you’ve offered them.

If you’re working with a Baptist who has thought about it however, who’s bright but for whatever reason absolutely will not defend their own position (keep reading to see what I mean), then that’s okay too. Let it go. God will make them Presbyterians when they get to glory. 

 

Stop The Strawmen

A strawman argument is when you change what your opponent is saying to something slightly different so that you can knock it over and make yourself look good. The strawman is easy to vanquish because it’s powerless against you—thus making this debate maneuver impossible to resist. Seriously, I’m convinced this is fallacy is quite literally irresistible. PHD’s in theology keep them in their fancy coats for emergencies just as readily as the lowly internet troll who prop up those bad-boys right at the start of the discussion. Expect it.

99 out of 100 times this happens because your Baptist brother is attempting to run a reducto-ad-absurdum against you to show that the logical stopping point of your doctrine is folly. They will say, “If infants don’t need to have faith when you baptize then why do adults need faith either? Why not just round up everyone and baptize them?” Or, “Baptizing children will make them think they’re saved since they’re now in the covenant, so you’re harming them by baptizing them.” They think they’ve got a handle on your position and can show you the problem with it (normally a very powerful trick) while in reality they’re simply misrepresenting you. If this happens then do the following two things to get the discussion unstuck.

First, don’t straw man them, ever. I cannot stress this enough. If you hear the words “That’s not what we believe” then apologize immediately. Don’t try to argue that since they restrict the new covenant to the elect that they should baptize upon election rather than upon confession. They believe people are to be baptized upon a credible confession of faith so respect that. Answer what they’re saying, not what you’d like them to be saying because it’s easier for you. In fact, just don’t do reductos altogether.

The second thing to do once the Baptist trots out the scarecrows (assuming you are blameless because you took my advice above) is to abort the discussion. I mean that. Refuse to go on until they acknowledge your actual viewpoint. If they can’t articulate your position in a way that you agree with then wait there until they’ve made a U-turn and come back around. It can happen to the best of us so be gracious when it does, but be polite and firm about discontinuing your debate. This is because if they want to make strawmen and don’t want to acknowledge their error then you’re done anyway, and you may as well politely excuse yourself from the wheat field. If you do decide to stay then have the good sense to keep your mouth shut so you can better enjoy the comforting warmth of the burning straw your brother is graciously providing you.

 

Embrace the Asymmetry

No matter how smart the Baptist you’re talking to is—even if a medium conjures Spurgeon from the grave and channels him into your online discussion—don’t take it for granted that the Baptist probably thinks you’re an irrational actor. To him you’re in the grip of a strange and unhealthy set of doctrines propagated by circumstance, something like voo-doo, or Roman Catholicism, though probably less damnable. In other words, you’re holding opinions which are to him totally insane. The older, wiser, and more stable of your Baptist brothers won’t be in this bind so much, but default position of the Baptist means that both covenants and baptism are defined in such a way that your position is incomprehensible from the get go.
Again, this means two things.
The first thing is that your personal dealings must be more pure than your opponent for the sake of your testimony. He may call you names and think you’re stupid, but you may not do it back, not only because that’s not good Christian behavior, but because he already suspects you of being brain damaged to begin with. Even if you feel it’s unfair the Baptists can start a knife fight whilst you shout gentlemanly phrases like “I say sir” and “the constable shalt hear of this” you cannot afford to allow him an opportunity to think he’s right about you. You must show the most excellent Festus that your learning hasn’t made you insane but is both true and reasonable.

Secondly it means the place you fight will always end up at the definition of the word covenant. As long as you let the Baptist use his own definition of baptism there’s absolutely no chance of him seeing your position as Biblical, so it’s better to know that going in. The result of this is that he’s laboring to prove you’re holding unbiblical positions and are in serious error while you’re laboring to show he needs to go just a little further. Baptists think Presbyterians are holding wrong views, Presbyterians think Baptists are not wrong in their knowledge, just incomplete.

 

Get Them To Play Defensively

I’m not sure how to get this done as an internet nobody, but if you’re debating a friend or a charitable brother, this is a lot easier to achieve. When debating a Baptist your goal is to get your brother to demonstrate with Scripture the reason he holds to a covenant discontinuity. Your aim is not to show why Presbyterianism is right so much as make him show himself why Baptist theology is groundless. Ask him the question, “on what grounds are children removed from the new covenant?”
He’ll respond by saying “children are not explicitly included it in.”
“But children were in the others right?”
“Well yeah.”
“So why not this last one? On what Scriptural grounds are they now excluded?”

You need to offer a point that gets under their skin and causes them to hang up all the pat answers they’ve stored up for such a time as this and really dig into the things themselves. Ask them to prove their presuppositions from Scripture. The two most common answers will be a variation of dispensationalism, or that the child element was fulfilled in Christ. Both are easy to refute once admitted. It may of course take awhile, but if you can get a promise from the Baptist to give you a defense of his doctrines based on careful Biblical analysis, then you’ve won the church a shiny new Presbyterian.

The First Covenant

Before the universe existed, before there was time, space, or matter, the triune God existed in perfect happiness and contentment. Although He didn’t need to do it, being in fully pleased in Himself, He nonetheless decided out of His abundant love to create beings with which to share His joy. To this end He formulated a plan that would go on for all eternity, “declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times the things that are not yet done” (Is 46:10). As a consequence, everything that’s ever happened since God said “let there be light” has merely been “whatsoever Thy hand and Thy counsel determined before to be done” (Acts 4: 28). Every person born, every human decision made, every plant, star, rock, cloud, every tiny atom was known and placed and planned for an infinite amount of time before a single one came into being.
 
Why did He do this? The answer in a single word is revelation. God orchestrated everything in the universe to happen as it does in order to manifest His nature, His attributes, and His concerns. Desiring to show us who He is, He came up with the perfect way to progressively reveal more and more of Himself to creation. Or as the Bible says, glorify Himself.

The first part of Gods plan involved creating matter and energy, things which display “His eternal power and Godhead” (Rom 1:20b). As it is written, “the heavens declare the glory of God” (Ps 19:1a) and “the heavens declare his righteousness, and all the people see His glory” (Ps 97:6). The inanimate universe continually pours forth revelation about Him—which is why even if everyone were to cease acknowledging it, “the stones would immediately cry out” (Luke 19:40a).
Next God created the angels as servants (Heb 1:14), beings who would show His might (2 Peter 2:4), and be near Him to witness His works (Job 38:7). That’s why Isaiah records the angels nearest to God are continually “crying to another, ‘Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of His glory’” (Is 6:3). Yet even as they watched the eternal plan of God unfolding before their eyes, even though they participate in bringing it to pass, they too do not fully understand it, though they long to (1 Peter 1:12).
Lastly, God made men so He could manifest His patience and mercy to all creation. Unlike the angels who are given no second chance, men enjoy the possibility of redemption, so that all can see how forgiving God is. As it is written, “God has concluded all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all” (Rom 11:32), and “There is forgiveness with Thee, that Thou may be feared” (Ps 130:4). God ordained (and in some sense desired) our disobedience because it was only after our fall that He could send His Son to the cross to demonstrate His glorious attributes of justice, holiness, loving-kindness, wrath, mercy, and unlimited grace together. Only once we became rebellious could we become humble, and only the humble can understand and appreciate who God is, which was His purpose from the beginning. This is why in speaking to believers Paul says in Ephesians 2:6-7, “He has raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.” We have ruined much, and have been forgiven much, that we may love much.

So before the foundation of the world God planned to reveal Himself to His creation. The plan first called for revelation through matter, then angels, then men. As Paul says, Gods goal was “to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world has been hidden in God who created all things by Jesus Christ, to the intent that now to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God” (Eph 3:9-10).

When speaking of God’s purpose for men, Reformed theologians like to use the phrase The Covenant of Redemption to emphasize how God the Father and God the Son agreed to save some chosen among mankind. The terms of this covenant were that the Father would send the Son to save all those He’d predestined and the Son would willingly go and complete the task given to Him. John 8:42 for example testifies that Jesus was sent: “Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love Me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of Myself, but He sent Me.”
 
And John 6:37-40 says that the elect will certainly be saved, “All who the Father gives Me shall come to Me; and him who comes to Me I will in no way cast out. For I came down from heaven not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. And this is the Father's will which has sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise up again at the last day. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son, and believes in Him may have everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
Put the two together and you have evidence that the first covenant God ever made was with Himself, to save us. As it says elsewhere, “He has saved us and called us with a holy calling—not according to our works—but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began” (2 Tim 1:9).

But the problem with this classic formulation is that it makes it too easy to take the ego-centric, subjective part of God’s work for the whole. It can, and often does, result in the assertion that God’s purpose in sending Christ was no larger than saving the elect, and thus ignores the objective Godward component of the plan. Not that it’s untrue to say God will save His elect—on the contrary, it’s undoubtedly true He’ll do so—but this isn’t the whole truth. (Indeed, the classic definition of the covenant of redemption doesn’t even include the Holy Spirit but instead presents the covenant as an arrangement only between the Father and Son.)
We must therefore be careful to maintain that God’s plan is first and foremost to reveal His manifold perfections to all creation before addressing part of which involves saving elect mankind out of eternal ruin and misery. Otherwise we’ll lose sight of the forest for the trees. Our understanding must always go from the objective to subjective, from the universal to the particular, because going back the other way is both impossible and ineffectual. It’s God’s plan, not ours.

Now admittedly, using the mundane and generic word plan to speak of God’s glorious ongoing revelation of Himself which brings joy to creation doesn’t appropriately capture the majesty of the idea. Perhaps that’s why Paul calls it a “dispensation of the fullness of times” to emphasize the vastness and consistency of it, or why later theologians would call it a covenant to remind us that Gods plan is personal, relateable, and accomplished through the work of Christ. But call it however you please, it’s first and foremost an objective scheme; it begins with God, is about God, and finds its fulfillment in revealing God.

It goes without saying then that the history of our universe is merely the outworking of God’s eternal covenant of revelation. Our story, stretching all the way back to the beginning, is about the hidden council of God coming to light. And nowhere is this more plainly expressed than in the Bible, a book given to show us firstly who God is and then secondarily who we are.

Although much could be said about how this plan traces a bright line through the Scriptures, in the coming chapters we’ll confine our examination to the critical moments in the Biblical narrative when God reveals the work of Christ to us. We’ll keep a narrow focus on covenants, those moments when the light comes on and our understanding of God’s eternal plan leaps forward because that sets the stage for the book of Hebrews where Christ is seen to be the fulfillment of all Israel’s history. We begin therefore where the Scriptures begins, in the book of Genesis.

Credo vs Paedo Baptism: Pushback Part II

After deciding that paedo-baptism is the more Scriptural of the two views, my Baptist pastors concluded that a few comments left on this blog was insufficient to fix the mess and that a full intervention was necessary. I welcomed this, as I was sure that I'd missed something important, and I was hopeful they could show me what that was. To my dismay however the battleground they selected was the idea that Baptists and Presbyterians understand baptism in two completely different ways. 

I'd put in months worth of work organizing, understanding, and categorizing both sides, debated online in multiple venues, listened to hundreds of hours of sermons and podcasts, and this was where they were going to counter-attack? No. My initial assumption in the introduction to this series that the two views were pretty close together was wildly off base, I'm certain of that. It was a foregone conclusion then that my Pastors were going to lose this one. Take a look at how the Baptists all frame baptism as our profession of faith.

The London Baptist Confession of faith, chapter 25, part 1 satates that baptism is, 

a sign of his fellowship with Him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.

The Baptist Faith and Message which guides the Southern Baptist convention is even more explicit about this when it says,

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water. …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.

The American Baptist Association says the same in their own way,

Baptism, an act of full immersion following Christ’s example, is undertaken by those spiritually mature enough to understand its profound, symbolic significance: resurrection to new life in Christ.

The prince of preachers Charles Spurgeon says about baptism,

...It seems to me that baptism is connected with, nay, directly follows belief…Again, baptism is also Faith’s taking her proper place. It is, or should be one of her first acts of obedience. Reason looks at baptism, and says, ‘Perhaps there is nothing in it; it cannot do me any good.’ ‘True,’ says Faith, ‘and therefore will I observe it. If it did me some good my selfishness would make me do it, but inasmuch as to my sense there is no good in it, since I am bidden by my Lord thus to fulfill all righteousness, it is my first public declaration that a thing which looks to be unreasonable and seems to be unprofitable, being commanded by God, is law, is law to me.”

William Pinson who runs the website 'Baptist Distinctives' says:

Thus, baptism is symbolic and not sacramental. Baptists believe that the Bible teaches that baptism symbolizes that a person has been saved and is not a means of salvation. Baptism is not a means of channeling saving grace but rather is a way of testifying that saving grace has been experienced. It does not wash away sin but symbolizes the forgiveness of sin through faith in Christ.

Bob Vradenburgh of Friendship Baptist church (and who could not sound more like a typical baptist if he tried) says the following,

Baptism is the only true expression of one's profession of faith in Christ as Savior and Lord that is set forth in the New Testament. It is a true picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. When a person is scripturally baptized, he is openly identifying himself with Christ, acknowledging that he has both died and is raised again. He has died to self, to sin, and to false religion, and he has been resurrected spiritually…

In the early days of Christianity, the sign or badge of being a follower of Christ was baptism. Christians were hated and persecuted. A man might profess Christ as much as he liked, but until he submitted to baptism he was not willing to be "branded for Christ". He wore no badge that identified him with the despised Nazarene in the eyes of the world.

Today, Christianity as an institutionalized religion is much more fashionable (at least in the western world), but the badge remains the same. Are you a believer of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord? Have you sincerely repented of sin and received His mercy and forgiveness? Then PROVE IT by publicly wearing the "badge"?

The Presbyterian Mission Agency in contrast says,

"Baptism enacts and seals what the Word proclaims: God's redeeming grace offered to all people. Baptism is God's gift of grace and also God's summons to respond to that grace. Baptism calls to repentance, to faithfulness, and to discipleship. Baptism gives the church its identity and commissions the church for ministry to the world."

Notice how different that is. The Reformed see baptism first and foremost as beginning with God and reaching down to us, not vice versa. 

The Westminster confession of faith says, 

Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.

Calvin, the famous Reformer, says baptism is,

God's sign, communicated to a child as by an impressed seal, confirms the promise given to the pious parent, and declares it to be ratified that the Lord will be God not only to him but to his seed; and that he wills to manifest his goodness and grace not only to him but to his descendents even to the thousandth generation." 

And B.B. Warfield is really on point for Presbyterianism when he says, 

Baptism is the form that the circumcision which God gave Abraham in the old covenant takes in the new. The apostle therefore called it "the circumcision of Christ," Col. ii. 11, the circumcision, that is, which we have received in this new dispensation in which Christ is now Lord and Master. In the passage from the old covenant to the new the form of the rite was changed, not its substance. It remains a "sign" which God has given his people, marking them out as his, and a "seal" binding them indissolubly to him and pledging them his unbroken favor. Baptism, as circumcision, is a gift of God to his people, not of his people to God. Abraham did not bring circumcision to God; he "received" it from God. God gave it to him as a "sign" and a "seal," not to others but to himself. It is inadequate, therefore, to speak of baptism as "the badge of a Christian man's profession." By receiving it, we do make claim to be members of Christ, and our reception of it does mark us out to the observation of our fellowmen as his followers. But this is only an incidental effect. The witness of baptism is not to others but to ourselves; and it is not by us but by God that the witness is borne. We have believed in the Lord Jesus Christ and God gives us this sign as a perpetual witness that this faith is acceptable to him, and as a seal, an abiding pledge, that he will always treat it as such. He who has been baptized bears in himself God's testimony and engagement to his salvation.

More could be said of course, but I think that's sufficient to demonstrate the real and substantial difference that exists between this and this. Presbyterians and Baptists have a very different understanding of what baptism is. This is undeniable.  

Continue on to the final post in this series


Return to the index

Baptism – Miscellaneous Objections Answered

After deciding the Presbyterian understanding of the Scriptures was the superior one, my Baptist pastors and I sat down to lunch to discuss my conclusions and challenge my findings. They each brought up a point worthy of consideration, and because I’m still trying to hold this discussion with an open hand I promised to suspend making any further decisions until I’d completely and fairly wrestled with them. Here’s what they challenged me with.

Baptist Objection 1 

If 1 Cor 7:15 requires the child to be baptized, then it requires the unbelieving spouse to be baptized as well since the Bible speaks as both being sanctified by the believer.

It took me awhile to figure out why the Presbyterians dismiss this without answering it and why the Baptists always bring it up, but eventually I was able to put my finger on it—this argument is effective only after the Baptist presuppositions are granted. As a result, the paedo-baptist can’t make heads or tails of it, because to them the credo is overdrawing the comparison or being obtuse.
“I don’t understand what you’re saying. What does this verse have to do with baptism?”
“Your principle compels you to baptize people who don’t confess faith, like infants. Right? And since you’ve removed the requirement of professing faith before baptism, that means adults don’t need to confess before they’re baptized either. In other words if you baptize infants then you might as well baptize non-believers.”
“Oh. Well I suppose if I used your definition of baptism then that would be true. But I don’t.”

The Baptist has failed to appreciate that in the paedo scheme there’s absolutely no conflict in baptizing the child but not water-boarding the unwilling spouse. The one is under the teachings, instruction, and authority of Christ, the other is not. The one is a disciple, the other isn’t. The child is under the lordship Christ, the adult is someone who rejects Him but likes to hang around in Mayberry where the people are pleasant and the crime is low. Both are being sanctified, but only one is holy. Look again:

“For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.”

What Paul is saying is that the principle of familial solidarity which makes the child holy also makes even an unbelieving spouse sanctified. Christ is so powerful that merely looking at Him changes you, and even hearing the truth about Him changes non-believers for the better. Notice also that that Paul assumes the children are automatically holy. He takes it for granted and throws that statement in almost as an after-thought, because it's so obviously true. And this matches reality as well. What’s happening to the children is the same as what happens to the believer, in that the truths of Christ are literally defining and creating the thought patterns on which their mental processing is based. Their learning about Him causes them to be renewed in a Christian fashion. The truths of Christ fill up their whole mind and form the blueprint by which truths are compared against and understood. They may later as adults reject it, but by then it’s already made its inroads. The sanctification doesn’t get all the way through the mind of a non-believer, but it absolutely does the mind of a child growing up in a Christian home.  

Besides all this, the verse doesn’t prove the Presbyterians are right about baptism so much as it proves the Baptist is wrong about covenants. That’s why this gets brought up so much in debates by the padeo-baptist, because it clearly and definitively establishes the principle of familial solidarity for the New Covenant, not because it directly proves infant baptism.

Baptist Objection 2 

Early baptisteries were large enough to baptize adults, indicating believers baptism was the Apostolic practice. See “Baptism in the Early Church” by Everett Ferguson.

Let me say after slogging through all 1,000 pages of this book that I’m convinced this is a class specific item quite unsuitable for general consumption. People of the church of Christ will find in it a comfort that someone on their side has put in a lot of work on the topic, but Baptists will find it an almost totally useless resource for their purposes. Growing up in the CoC gave me a very comfortable familiarity with the style, but it was nonetheless a tough book to get through, particularly when Ferguson went through gnostic and pagan water rituals in North Africa in the fifth century. I will say though, to his credit, that he did a very convincing job of demonstrating that baptisteries around the Mediterranean were generally 75cm deep, (about 2.5 feet) in early Christendom, were octagonal, cross, or square shaped, and tended to get shallower across the centuries as church history progressed, which is the factoid my own pastor was after.
Now for the formal statement of the argument:

P1: If Presbyterian beliefs are projected back to the early church then we would expect to find small baptisteries.
P2: Archaeological evidence conclusively demonstrates that the early church used baptisteries averaging 75cm deep by at least 135cm across.
C: Presbyterians are wrong about baptism in the early church.

I find this argument to be wanting however, since there’s a tacit assumption in premise one that the Presbyterians only baptizes babies, which allows the conclusion that the presence of an adult size baptistery is proof against them. This is a faulty understanding of their position because they too baptize adults who profess faith, so there’s nothing gained in pointing out that early baptisteries were large enough to accommodate a full grown man. That argument does nothing against them.

Or perhaps the argument isn’t about the person, but the mode? Something like, “full immersion going backwards is the only valid mode of baptism, therefore infant baptism is wrong. Therefore these adult sized baptisteries are conclusive evidence against paedo-baptism.”
To which the amusing answer is, “Full immersion eh? Then why were the early baptisteries a puny two and a half feet deep? Seems to be cutting it close don’t you think?”
And the serious answer is, “Even if you prove that full immersion going backward is the only valid mode of baptism, that still doesn’t settle the question of if infants may be baptized or not. The two arguments are completely different.” 
Some Baptists might use the practice of sprinkling to argue against padeo-baptism in general, but I don’t see this as having any weight.
“John the Baptist never sprinkled, therefore infant baptism is wrong.”
“Hang on though; the sprinkling isn’t really relevant here, and I don’t even care about it. I’m trying to figure out who is a viable candidate for baptism, not how it should be done.”

So I find this argument entirely unconvincing.

Baptist Objection 3 

The New Covenant is a spiritual, not physical covenant. We are children by faith.

You’re not going to find me disagreeing that we are adopted into God’s family by faith.
But remember that this argument trades on the Baptist definition of baptism (which I reject as sub-biblical) and relies on dispensationalism to make the crucial claim that the previous covenants in the Old Testament were not spiritual, but earthbound and worldly. It sees circumcision as not being about the righteousness Abraham had by faith, but about a promise to have land one day. I reject that. And I assert again the question that has plagued me, “on what grounds are children removed from the new covenant? On what grounds has familial solidarity been abolished?”

If someone can show me the grounds without using Jeremiah 31 or dispensationalism then I’ll go back to rooting for the Baptists. And as I said before, until that time, I have to assume that the principles that give shape and definition to covenant are still in force.

Presbyterian Argument 

Christ’s real presence on Earth cannot be the total fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant.

I came across this from Dabney and thought it interesting. It’s an argument built on the Abrahamic covenant guaranteeing a blessing to the Gentiles. If Christ Himself is the fulfillment of the covenant in such a way that the Abrahamic covenant is concluded (or completed if you like) with His real presence (as the Baptists claim) then its terms cannot be fulfilled. For how can the Gentiles be brought in when the thing is closed and done with? How can Acts 11 come before Acts 1?
I suppose the Baptist could argue that it’s not the birth of Christ that brings the Abrahamic covenant to a close but the death which does it. His payment for sin on the cross is what brings all the nations of the Earth the blessing. Still, it’s hard to see how those who curse Him are cursed if He closes the terms that covenant at His death.
For that reason the Abrahamic covenant cannot stop with Him, but must continue on. It must be a covenant which is not brought to an end in Christ but a beginning. Therefore the Presbyterians are right about it.

Baptist Objection 4

Early church history is on the side of the credo-baptist.

This one required me to do some serious research, so it’s the topic of its own post. 

The Historic Case for Paedo-Baptism from Cyprian of Carthage

Although I've been forced to conclude that the paedos have the weight of Scripture on their side, before I make any decisions I need to check my work by examining the testimony of early church history—which means the game isn't over yet. But a comeback isn’t going to be easy. First the credos must explain how in the generations immediately following the Apostles the clear teaching on baptism was lost and its opposite took over as the uncontested practice of the church for over a millennia. Second, they have to show not merely that the early church baptized adults (because paedos also baptize adults), but that infants were specifically excluded from the sacrament. Then thirdly they have to explain why the Reformation challenged everything unbiblical in the church except this glaring error, and fourthly why the majority of Christian denominations still practice paedo-baptism today. The challenge isn’t insurmountable, but it is steep.

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.

“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