Baptism in History, Part 4: Historical Arguments for Believer's Baptism

Read Parts 1, 2 and 3.

Either we should baptize only believers or we should baptize believers and their babies. One of these must be right; the other must be wrong. One is old and apostolic; the other is newer. For the purpose of this paper, assume this much: The very early church practiced one teaching; the other developed later in the life of the church.

In the baptism debate, history seems unsatisfactory for two reasons. First, history is not clearly on either side of the debate. There were at least a few ancient Christians who seem to have practiced each baptismal system (or something near to it). And many old sources are vague enough that both sides claim them. Together, these mean that everyone comes away believing that they are in agreement with the vast majority of historical figures.

Second, very few early church figures take either of the Protestant views of baptism. Like modern credo-baptists, Justin Martyr taught believer’s baptism and claimed that such teaching was apostolic. But he also conflated baptism with regeneration. Baptists can point to him as the earliest clear witness for believer’s baptism, but have trouble with his view of regeneration. Early church history offers even less comfort to Protestant infant baptizers. I know of no one before the Reformation who held to infant baptism and avoided errors such as baptismal regeneration, infant communion and infant damnation.

But before we decide that little can be gained from history to solve the debate, let’s consider some additional arguments based on historical data.

Consideration #1: conflation of baptism and regeneration

Early Christians conflated baptism with regeneration, regardless of whether they baptized infants. That is, they taught that the washing of the body in baptism and the washing of the soul in regeneration were so closely linked that they were one. “Regeneration” was often used in reference to baptism. What are the consequences when each group conflates baptism and regeneration?

We cannot see inside men and identify who is truly regenerate. Paul taught the church at Rome that Abraham’s faith preceded his circumcision (Rom.4:9-11). The Apostle John gave us many tests (1 John) for knowing who is regenerate—no one of which is a guarantee. Jonathan Edwards, who devoted much energy to this question, said,

[I]t was never God’s design to give us any rules, by which we may certainly know, who of our fellow professors are his, and to make a full and clear separation between sheep and goats; but that, on the contrary, it was God’s design to reserve this to himself, as his prerogative.1

Because we must use external signs to identify the regenerate, some conflation between external signs and regeneration is inevitable. Abraham’s faith was demonstrated when he offered his son. Faith is shown by and “completed by” such works (James 2:18-26, especially v. 24). These are works of faith in the sense of works that come from faith. Because we can’t see faith, but only works of faith, the two can be so co-mingled that they become inseparable.

If baptism is not conflated with regeneration, something else will be (e.g., praying for salvation). In the examination of an individual, we ourselves may be the most interested observer. Baptism, as a rite of initiation, becomes a way to clearly assert one’s own faith, both to others and to ourselves. Considered in this way, it is permissible to conflate regeneration with baptism if the baptism comes with understanding, belief, and assent. Scripture seems to require this sort of conflation (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21).

This can be done without damage to sola fidelis only because regeneration is conflated with a work of faith. In the case of infant baptism, the choice was not the child’s, so there is no evidence that the baptism is a work of faith. One might object that it is a work of faith on the part of the church or on the part of the parents. But that doesn’t help because the argument of James 2 is that a person is “justified” by works and not by faith alone—his own faith is completed by his own works.

When the infant-baptizer conflates baptism with regeneration, he does damage to that understanding and possibly to the gospel. When the credo-baptist conflates them, he does very little and possibly no damage (though he must occasionally clarify the matter). Therefore, the paedo-baptist who conflates baptism and regeneration is more likely to be distant from the true gospel and apostolic tradition than is the credo-baptist with similar conflation. If this argument is valid, the credo-baptist has a more reliable ancient historical tradition than the paedo-baptist.

Consideration #2: argument from widespread changes

The macroscopic trend during the first 300 years of the church was a shift from credo-baptism to paedo-baptism. The very early church offers no direct evidence of infant baptism. Justin Martyr argued clearly that baptism is different from physical birth in that it is done with knowledge and assent as opposed to the ignorance of infancy. He further claimed that that tradition and line of reasoning originated with the Apostles. Aristides used one’s faith as the basis for inclusion in the Christian community rather than one’s status as a child of believers, which is a basis for credo-baptism. Hippolytus and the Didache are consistent with credo-baptism, but do not explicitly defend it. By the 3rd century, the picture is mixed. After Augustine, paedo-baptism predominates.

The general trend of the first four centuries is from believer’s baptism toward infant baptism. If believer’s baptism was the original teaching, this fits with the trend. If infant baptism was the original teaching, then credo-baptism would have to have sprung up, become somewhat popular, and then waned. That explanation is possible, but it calls on us to explain how and why credo-baptism would have sprung up in a paedo-baptist very early church.

Consideration #3: argument from individual changes

The macroscopic move from credo-baptism to paedo-baptism can be seen microscopically in the lives of men such as Augustine, John Chrysostom, and Gregory of Nazianzus. Though they were not been baptized as infants, they went on to teach infant baptism. I know of no one in this period who was raised as a paedo-baptist and shifted to credo-baptism. History shows many instances of men who made the change from adult baptism toward infant baptism. Yet, there is no evidence of anyone making the change in the opposite direction. This gives empirical evidence that the adoption of infant baptism in the setting of adult baptism is more common than the adoption of believer’s baptism in the setting of infant baptism. This in turn suggests that believer’s baptism is older.

Consideration #4: theoretical theological argument

A church must act regularly upon its doctrine of baptism. This is especially true in a growing and spreading church like the early church. So while any new teaching on baptism was being developed, the old teaching was already in constant use. The question is, is it easier to suppose a theoretical way for infant baptism to develop in the setting of believer’s baptism, or vice versa?

First, let’s consider the how paedo-baptism might have developed in the setting of credo-baptism. We begin by assuming that the church began baptizing only believers and conflated baptism with regeneration. Assuming that Baptism did begin as the answer of a conscience made good, it is understandable that it stood as proof to others and to one’s own self of regeneration. Soon, it was regeneration. From there it became a rite that provided total cleansing.

Parents I know in the Baptist tradition often wish to see their children baptized as soon as a profession of faith is made. In the case of a young child it can be difficult to discern between a true profession and parroting of words and phrases. I have been skeptical a few times that a profession was genuine. Many Baptist teens have a testimony that includes a prayer and baptism at a young age that they barely remember (if at all) and a later time of personal commitment to Christ.

With child mortality high, it is easy to see how parents would want very sick children washed of their sin with the slightest “I love Jesus” as the basis. Parents were anxious to know their children were God’s. Third century tombstones demonstrated this. If a very young child was sick and received baptism, another parent might question whether the baptism was really appropriate since the profession was doubtful. A kind-hearted clergyman would reply that since the child is sick, it is better to give him and his parents the comfort of baptism. What harm is there? With younger and younger children of questionable faith being baptized, the pressure to baptize children of younger age would naturally grow as well. Over the course of a couple of generations, it is easy to see how this could result in a progression toward baptism of infants.

Considering the opposite scenario is more difficult. How might believer’s baptism have developed in the setting of infant baptism? I was raised in a paedo-baptist Lutheran church and do not remember circumstances internal to the church that would tend to encourage people to forgo baptizing infants in favor of baptizing believers.

Note that this argument has the weaknesses of ignorance and lack of imagination. I may simply not be aware of the thoughts and circumstances that would allow the doctrine of believer’s baptism to develop. Perhaps I have not been imaginative enough or had enough experience in the paedo-baptist tradition to perceive how believer’s baptism could have developed. I invite paedo-baptists to consider this and reply. What circumstances and attitudes suggest to you that believer’s baptism is likely to have developed in the setting of infant baptism?

Nevertheless, if we assume that infant baptism was the original teaching handed down and practiced by apostles, the development of credo-baptism seems very unlikely. If a body of believers was accustomed to seeing their infants baptized, had been taught that the baptismal water cleansed their very souls, and was experiencing even moderate infant mortality, what intrepid credo-baptist could convince the parents of a little child (especially a dying child) to do nothing?

I conclude that it is likely that infant baptism could develop in the setting of credo-baptism. And I cannot imagine how believers-only-baptism could develop in the setting of infant baptism. Therefore, if we are right to assume that the very early church was unified in its practice and teaching on this matter, then a very early church that baptized only believers makes the most sense. And a very early church that baptized infants seems inconsistent with history, though I am open to hearing the thoughts of others, of course.

This paper was based on the assumption that there was one teaching that was old, apostolic, and right and that there was one teaching that was new and not apostolic. But what if that assumption is incorrect? Could it be that the very early church did not have a unified teaching and practice?

Notes

1 A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections In Three Parts, Jonathan Edwards, The Banner of Truth Trust, 2004 reprinting, p. 120.

Discussion

Let me just note: I still haven’t adequately dealt with Origen. I’m reading him and about him. I got a bunch of WWII books for Christmas that sidetracked me. Let me recommend Operation Mincemeat, Bodyguard of Lies, Between Silk and Cyanide, and Battle of Wits. Anyway, Origen must be discussed…

I appreciate your work on this and look forward to your Origen analysis.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Dan, your essays have included several erroneous assumptions, which by this point are snowballing into almost entirely irrelevant articles.

1) There is not a single clear credo-baptist in the early church. All of the “credo-baptist” sayings you think you’ve found in really ancient sources have parallels in known paedo-baptists, so they aren’t proof. At most they’re questions. This makes statements such as “the macroscopic trend during the first 300 years of the church was a shift from credo-baptism to paedo-baptism” unsupportable assertions.

2) The only person to argue against the practice of paedo-baptism is Tertullian. He does so not by saying, in modern credo-baptist language, that an infant baptism is invalid, but rather by asserting it is unwise. He considers infant baptism a true baptism, which is why it is dangerous.

3a) The early church has a strongly conservative streak. We can trace a stream of protest against just about every innovation in early church history - papacy, veneration of relics, pro-Nicene terminology, etc.. Baptism is one of the two sacramenta of the Church. Surely, any major change to this sacred rite would have been accompanied by the normal strife and division. Where is it? There are no church councils called to address it. There are no bishops expelled for refusing to baptize infants. There is no polemical war. Tertullian is a lone voice if ever there were one.

3b) In particular, why does Tertullian not bring out the stereotypical charges of innovation against it? Why does he not cite precedent against it? Why is he so polite in his argument, when he is never polite? I think his own document pretty clearly presents the situation. He is not a conservative arguing against an innovation, but a progressive who wants to get rid of a practice that he cannot justify theologically.

3c) Origen, only a few decades after Tertullian, writes that the apostles gave the tradition of infant baptism. In De Principiis, the first chapter distinguishes between the apostolic faith and Origen’s own theological exercises, so we know that Origen doesn’t just slap the label “apostolic” on everything he believes. This testifies at the very least that infant baptism had been an entrenched reality in Alexandria for several generations.

4) What is the point of asking how credo-baptism could arise in a paedobaptist environment? The point is that it didn’t. There’s no need to explain something that never happened. You can look to the 16th century for answers to those questions.

I can give you a speculative “Presbyterian” rendering of church history, if you want. In the first century, the 12 apostles taught the church all the words of the Westminster Confession, but the churches soon forgot them. In particular, they turned away from understanding grace as God’s covenantal action toward his people. Instead, they began to conceive grace along quasi-material lines, as a “substance” that could be infused into a habitus. Thus, although the church continued to baptize infants as the apostles commanded, they lost the reason and thought that the baptism regenerated the child or cleansed him from original sin. We can see the instability of this arrangement in Tertullian, who knows both that infant baptism is a traditional practice and that the justification for it seems forced. It remained until the Reformation’s correction of an inadequate view of grace for the proper role of infant baptism to be rediscovered.

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

[Charlie] 1) There is not a single clear credo-baptist in the early church. All of the “credo-baptist” sayings you think you’ve found in really ancient sources have parallels in known paedo-baptists, so they aren’t proof. At most they’re questions. This makes statements such as “the macroscopic trend during the first 300 years of the church was a shift from credo-baptism to paedo-baptism” unsupportable assertions.
How are you ignoring Justin?
All then who are persuaded, and believe, that the things which are taught and affirmed by us are true; and who promise to be able to live accordingly; are taught to pray, and beg God with fasting, to grant them forgiveness of their former sins; and we pray and fast with them… [A] nd after the same manner of regeneration as we also were regenerated ourselves, they are regenerated… [receiving] the washing of water…


And we have received the following reason from the Apostles for so doing; since we were ignorant of our first birth… in order that we might not remain the children of necessity and ignorance, but of choice, and of knowledge; and that we might obtain remission of the sins we had formerly committed; in the water, there is called over him who chooses the new birth, and repents of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of all things; and calling Him by this name alone, we bring the person to be washed to the laver.


How could you be any more credo-baptist than that?

btw, I emailed Everett Ferguson. He reads this just as I do.

Dear Dan,

You wrote quite an article. How this relates in modern times to the Campbellite sect is interesting and thought-provoking; sounds like you think they are not far off target?

Also, Charlie, do you disagree with Dan’s interpretation of Justin Martyr? Dan wrote:
Second, very few early church figures take either of the Protestant views of baptism. Like modern credo-baptists, Justin Martyr taught believer’s baptism and claimed that such teaching was apostolic.
My area of interest is Jewish roots, and I would argue that baptism is based on the Mikveh, particularly ritual baptism for conversion to Judaism (Hillel’s viewpoint). Hillel taught that a gentile could turn from his sins and believe in the God of Israel and be saved without becoming a Jew. He had to then abide by the Covenant of Noah. If he wanted to be become a full convert to Judaism, he (or she) was welcomed as a Jew by immersion. Shammai said only full converts could be saved, and only circumcision for males was the initiation. No baptism, nothing for women. Thus the Acts 15 issue pre-dated the church.

I hold to an early “crash and burn” view of the church, so that color my thinking.

"The Midrash Detective"

[Ed Vasicek] My area of interest is Jewish roots, and I would argue that baptism is based on the Mikveh, particularly ritual baptism for conversion to Judaism (Hillel’s viewpoint). Hillel taught that a gentile could turn from his sins and believe in the God of Israel and be saved without becoming a Jew. He had to then abide by the Covenant of Noah. If he wanted to be become a full convert to Judaism, he (or she) was welcomed as a Jew by immersion. Shammai said only full converts could be saved, and only circumcision for males was the initiation. No baptism, nothing for women. Thus the Acts 15 issue pre-dated the church.

I hold to an early “crash and burn” view of the church, so that color my thinking.
I would be surprised that early Judaism held that immersion was the mode of baptism bearing in mind every ceremonial cleansing in the OT was by sprinkling. This post by Dan inspired me to collate a few thoughts on the subject as to why I reject immersion as the only valid mode of baptism which I placed on my blog,

We’re off topic a little (regarding infant vs. believer’s baptism) but Ed is right that people were immersing regularly in Jesus’ day and before. If you go to Jerusalem, you can see what most believe are ceremonial cleansing pools not far from the south side of the temple… from Herodian era.

There is also an interesting use of baptizo in one of the gospels in reference to cleansing temple instruments… bowls and such. I don’t have the ref. handy.

Charlie: is it your view that there was no credo baptism at all until the Reformation?

Dan’s argument seems solid to me that which came first is reflected in which can most easily explain the rise of the other.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

[Charlie] Dan, your essays have included several erroneous assumptions, which by this point are snowballing into almost entirely irrelevant articles.

1) There is not a single clear credo-baptist in the early church. .
Who were the “clear paedo-Baptists” in the early church?

Incidentally, as fundamentalist Christians adhere to sola scriptura, our practices are justified using the Bible, not received tradition. Instead, received tradition is used primarily to promote and defend “rule of faith” arguments; that our modern Biblical interpretations have been commonly accepted throughout church history (as opposed to being, for example, things that a bunch of fellows cooked up in more recent times to oppress people). So, what New Testament texts support paedo-baptism, either by command or example?

Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com

Charlie, I for one am not returning to the mother ship.
[JobK]
[Charlie] Dan, your essays have included several erroneous assumptions, which by this point are snowballing into almost entirely irrelevant articles.

1) There is not a single clear credo-baptist in the early church. .
Who were the “clear paedo-Baptists” in the early church?

Incidentally, as fundamentalist Christians adhere to sola scriptura, our practices are justified using the Bible, not received tradition. Instead, received tradition is used primarily to promote and defend “rule of faith” arguments; that our modern Biblical interpretations have been commonly accepted throughout church history (as opposed to being, for example, things that a bunch of fellows cooked up in more recent times to oppress people). So, what New Testament texts support paedo-baptism, either by command or example?

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

[Charlie] Dan, your essays have included several erroneous assumptions, which by this point are snowballing into almost entirely irrelevant articles.
Ouch! Charlie! That really HURT! Charlie! :)
[Charlie] 4) What is the point of asking how credo-baptism could arise in a paedobaptist environment? The point is that it didn’t. There’s no need to explain something that never happened. You can look to the 16th century for answers to those questions.

I can give you a speculative “Presbyterian” rendering of church history, if you want…
Why would I want that? You imagined a history that doesn’t include any credo-baptists at all - that imagination is inconsistent with reality.

What I am saying is this:

1. Both credo-B and paedo-B exist.

2. Assume that paedo-B is Apostolic. (should be easy)

3. Credo-B must have developed later in the church.

Your challenge is to describe how credo-B teaching would develop an take hold in the setting of paedo-B. The toughest thing to explain, in my view, will be how the new credo-baptists convinced parents of ill children to do nothing.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Two things that you didn’t touch:

1. Justin.

2. The relative effect of the baptism-regeneration conflation on soteriology by each group. My contention is that this conflation is more damaging to good soteriology for the paedo-baptist than the credo-baptist.

btw, I admit that the arguments in this paper are not extremely robust. Regarding #2 (macroscopic trend) I said, “fits with the trend,” which I also agree that even the trend itself is not sure. In #3 (microscopic trend) I said, “suggests.” Regarding #3 (imagining the development of each system from the other) I said, “Note that this argument has the weaknesses of ignorance and lack of imagination.” So I don’t think that I have gone too far in over-claiming, except perhaps with the general trend of #2 (though you still need to consider Justin).

[Ed Vasicek] How this relates in modern times to the Campbellite sect is interesting and thought-provoking; sounds like you think they are not far off target?



I hold to an early “crash and burn” view of the church, so that color my thinking.
I would need to read about the Campbellites before I commented.

I tend to agree with the “crash and burn” view of the church. Eldership -vs- bishops (and other levels of hierarchy) comes to mind. That started early.

[Aaron Blumer] We’re off topic a little (regarding infant vs. believer’s baptism) but Ed is right that people were immersing regularly in Jesus’ day and before. If you go to Jerusalem, you can see what most believe are ceremonial cleansing pools not far from the south side of the temple… from Herodian era.

There is also an interesting use of baptizo in one of the gospels in reference to cleansing temple instruments… bowls and such. I don’t have the ref. handy.
I agree it is a little off topic. Just to tie up the point the reference you are looking for is Mark 7:4. In this passage we read of the Pharisees,
And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables. (Mark 7:4)
Now, the Greek word translated “washing” is the verb baptiso. Yet the ceremonial cleansing of the household artifacts included “tables” or “couches.” These “tables” were the long couch beds that they reclined on for their meals. Now even if the tables or couches were covered in water in this process of cleansing, that is not immersion which requires a dipping under and raising up from the water. Bearing in mind that ceremonial cleansing was by sprinkling coupled with the scarcity of water in the East in is highly improbable to imagine the text is saying that they dipped their couches in water before they ate each time “they come from the market.” No sensible Baptist explanation has ever been put forth as to why the Pharisees would immerse their couches before they ate!

[PSFerguson]… the reference you are looking for is Mark 7:4. In this passage we read of the Pharisees,
And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables. (Mark 7:4)
Now, the Greek word translated “washing” is the verb baptiso. Yet the ceremonial cleansing of the household artifacts included “tables” or “couches.” These “tables” were the long couch beds that they reclined on for their meals….No sensible Baptist explanation has ever been put forth as to why the Pharisees would immerse their couches before they ate!
Interesting. A quick look reveals that in Luke 5:18 a man is carried by other men on a “bed” (klinē, same as “table” in Mark 7:4). This could be carried quite easily to the river for washing, if needed. Why not?

But to tie it back to what Ed was saying, Hebrews 9:10 also uses baptismos to describe Jewish washings.

[PSFerguson]
[Ed Vasicek] My area of interest is Jewish roots, and I would argue that baptism is based on the Mikveh, particularly ritual baptism for conversion to Judaism (Hillel’s viewpoint). Hillel taught that a gentile could turn from his sins and believe in the God of Israel and be saved without becoming a Jew. He had to then abide by the Covenant of Noah. If he wanted to be become a full convert to Judaism, he (or she) was welcomed as a Jew by immersion. Shammai said only full converts could be saved, and only circumcision for males was the initiation. No baptism, nothing for women. Thus the Acts 15 issue pre-dated the church.

I hold to an early “crash and burn” view of the church, so that color my thinking.
I would be surprised that early Judaism held that immersion was the mode of baptism bearing in mind every ceremonial cleansing in the OT was by sprinkling. This post by Dan inspired me to collate a few thoughts on the subject as to why I reject immersion as the only valid mode of baptism which I placed on my blog,
From the Jewish Encyclopedia:
A Gentile wishing to become a proselyte must also immerse his whole body. This ceremony is, no doubt, historically allied to Baptism, which is thought by modern authorities to have originated among the Essenes, who were very scrupulous respecting ablutions, and in the observance of the rules of purity (see Lustration; Sprinkling).

Read more: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=338&letter=A#ixzz1GGLd…
This source should be considered fairly neutral I think.

"The Midrash Detective"



PS Ferguson said:
Bearing in mind that ceremonial cleansing was by sprinkling coupled with the scarcity of water in the East in is highly improbable to imagine the text is saying that they dipped their couches in water before they ate each time “they come from the market.”
Going to Jewish sources to see what the Jews believed is not a bad idea. Here is another quotation.
A religious ablution signifying purification or consecration. The natural method of cleansing the body by washing and bathing in water was always customary in Israel (see Ablution, Bathing). The washing of their clothes was an important means of sanctification enjoined on the Israelites before the Revelation on Mt. Sinai (Ex. xix. 10). The Rabbis connect with this the duty of bathing by complete immersion (“ṭebilah,” Yeb. 46b; Mek., Baḥodesh, iii.); and since sprinkling with blood was always accompanied by immersion, tradition connects with this immersion the blood lustration mentioned as having also taken place immediately before the Revelation (Ex. xxiv. 8), these three acts being the initiatory rites always performed upon proselytes, “to bring them under the wings of the Shekinah” (Yeb. l.c.).

With reference to Ezek. xxxvi. 25, “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean,” R. Akiba, in the second century, made the utterance: “Blessed art thou, O Israel! Before whom dost thou cleanse thyself? and who cleanses thee? Thy Father in heaven!” (Yoma viii. 9). Accordingly, Baptism is not merely for the purpose of expiating a special transgression, as is the case chiefly in the violation of the so-called Levitical laws of purity; but it is to form a part of holy living and to prepare for the attainment of a closer communion with God. This thought is expressed in the well-known passage in Josephus in which he speaks of John the Baptist (“Ant.” xviii. 5, § 2): “The washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.” John symbolized the call to repentance by Baptism in the Jordan (Matt. iii. 6 and parallel passages); and the same measure for attaining to holiness was employed by the Essenes, whose ways of life John also observed in all other respects. Josephus says of his instructor Banus, an Essene, that he “bathed himself in cold water frequently, both by night and by day” (“Vita,” § 2), and that the same practise was observed by all the Essenes (“B. J.” ii. 8, § 5).

Read more: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=222&letter=B&search=ba…

"The Midrash Detective"