Essays on the History of Christian Theology, Part 1

Baptism and the Reformation

by Dr. Stephen M. Davis
The history of the development of Christian doctrine provides fascinating insight on issues that continue to hold our attention and generate discussion in our day. Perhaps no other issue was and is more volatile than that of baptism. The Reformed faith has retained the practice of infant baptism, which has been viewed alternately, depending on one’s conviction, either as going back to apostolic practice or as a compromise with the Roman Church. No small dissension resulted from opposing views as seen in the Reformers’ writings, particularly for our purposes, in the writings of Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531), the great Reformer in Zurich; George Blaurock (d. 1529), who wrote The Hutterite Chronicle to recount the beginnings of the Anabaptist movement in Zurich; and Menno Simons (1496-1561), from whom the present-day Mennonites draw their name. The Schleitheim Confession of Faith (1527) also addressed this controversy.

Zwingli argued that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob belong to the church and had received the token of their admission (i.e., circumcision). He also believed, as affirmed in An Account of the Faith of Zwingli, that “children also make a confession, when offered by their parents to the church” (Placher 1988:21). He then proceeds to demonstrate that “absolute evidence regarding the faith” of the one baptized can never be had. Many credo-baptism advocates have never considered the logical consistency of the arguments for pedo-baptism, some of which will be mentioned later. Although the Word of God, not logic, is our final authority, consistent and enlightened reason is no enemy to truth.

The Anabaptists, as seen in their writings, vehemently opposed infant baptism, which was called “the highest and chief abomination of the popes” (“Schleiteim Confession” in Placher, p. 31). Menno Simons qualified infant baptism as a “human invention, an opinion of men, a perversion of the ordinance of Christ” (from “The Writings of Menno Simons” in Placher, p. 33). George Blaurock affirmed that Zwingli was in agreement with Conrad Grebel and Felix Mantz that infant baptism was not only unnecessary, but in reality not baptism at all. Zwingli’s reticence to apply this principle stemmed from his fear of an uprising (from “The Hutterite Chronicle” in Placher, p. 27). The suspicion persists to this day that the Reformers, for all their noble intentions to reform and not separate from the Roman Church, never went far enough in going back to the New Testament.

The arguments given for infant baptism cannot simply be dismissed out of hand, especially when a large contingent of true believers, among them scholars of renown, find them convincing. John Frame, while not attempting a complete systematic presentation, simply and cogently discusses the following proofs for infant baptism:

1. The relation between circumcision under the Old Covenant and baptism in the New Covenant: This, of course, presupposes much more continuity between the Testaments than most with a “baptistic” orientation would recognize. Since circumcision, the sign of faith, was indicative of inclusion in the people of God, then baptism is the sign of faith now. Since circumcision did not require personal faith on the part of the one circumcised, neither baptism necessitates personal faith of the infant but the faith of the parents.

2. Jesus’ blessing infants by laying hands on them (Mark 10:13-16): According to Frame, “the blessing identifies a person with God and with the covenant people… . and places the name of God upon them. This is the essence of baptism. If the blessing is appropriate for infants, baptism is also” (1996:98). That infants were blessed and not baptized is understandable in light of the fact that they lived in a pre-Pentecostal era.

3. The use of household language: This one would suggest to first-century Jews a continuation of the Old Testament pattern. “Parents exercise faith by bringing their household to God. When children reach the age of understanding, they must take responsibility for their position among the people of God” (1996:98-9). To this statement might be added that the promise given at Pentecost was for “you and your children” (Acts 2:39).

Likewise, the arguments for believer’s baptism, including children and adults but not infants, must be taken seriously. Practitioners of believer’s baptism insist that personal faith is an indispensable condition for baptism. As proof they cite the host of New Testament examples, especially from the Book of Acts, to support their position. The presence of household baptisms has been explained as referring to those who were old enough to hear and believe the gospel, including children but excluding infants. It is supposed that the households mentioned in Acts either had no infants at the time of baptism, or if infants were present, they would not have been included in the act of baptism. Admittedly this is an argument from silence.

Confusion also abounds concerning baptismal regeneration. Many believer’s baptism advocates assume that infant baptism not only stems from the Roman Church but is also rooted in the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Obviously, this is not the case as parents in the Reformed tradition “look for [their] children to confess the Lord for themselves, but they will confess him who knew them from the beginning and whose name has been on their lips from their first babbling words” (Clowney 1995:284).

The fact that no infants are expressly mentioned in the New Testament as having been baptized does not present an insurmountable obstacle for those holding to Covenant Theology. The degree of continuity they see between Israel and the church with the church in some way replacing or—better yet—fulfilling Israel leads them to advance the idea that instances of household baptism must surely have included infant baptism, and only specious reasoning could assume otherwise. Baptism then cannot be understood apart from the relation between the Testaments. The early Reformers faced these same issues and proposed in the above-mentioned documents the reasoning for their positions.

Although both evangelical pedo-baptists and those who practice only believer’s baptism agree that the salvific merits of Christ are received by grace through faith and that baptism intrinsically has no saving efficacy, a great divide remains concerning the candidates for baptism. The affinity of doctrine between Anabaptists and the Reformers is not surprising. However, the seeds of dissatisfaction were already sown in 1523 when some of Zwingli’s followers felt he had compromised the principle of Sola Scriptura. Not until January 1525 did the first baptism take place that “completely symbolized the break with Rome… . and emphasized the absolute necessity of a personal commitment to Christ as essential to salvation and a prerequisite to baptism” (Estep 1963:11).

It would be facetious to suppose that both infant baptism and believer’s baptism are supported by Scripture. Personally I am not convinced of the arguments used to support infant baptism and would not practice it. Infant baptism practitioners may claim logical and theological arguments for their position but, in my opinion, these arguments lack exegetical evidence. While we all want to believe that our convictions and practice are firmly rooted in the Scriptures, we must admit that the historical development of the doctrine, one’s prior commitments to systematic theology, and the degree of continuity of one’s hermeneutic in the relationship between Israel and the church play an important role in our conclusions. If agreement exists that salvation is by faith alone, in Christ alone, by God’s grace alone, while the disagreement over baptism remains and cannot be masked, neither must it be magnified out of proportion to its scriptural importance. We are permitted to disagree strongly and practice what we believe for reasons of conviction, conscience, and ecclesiastic affinity. We should refrain from making this an absolute test of Christian fellowship and from casting doubt on the interpretive integrity of those with whom we disagree. We may choose non-cooperation on the level of church fellowship to avoid confusion and not to give the appearance of promoting a practice contrary to our own. But we should not withhold Christian love for our brothers and appreciation for the ministries God has entrusted to them.

Clowney, Edmund P. The Church: Contours of Christian Theology. Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995.

Estep, William R. The Anabaptist Story. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1963.

Frame, John M. Worship in Spirit and Truth. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co., 1996.

Placher, William C. Readings in the History of Christian Theology: vol. II. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1988.

Dr. Stephen M. Davis is associate pastor and director of missions at Calvary Baptist Church (Lansdale, PA). He holds a B.A from Bob Jones University, an M.A. in Theological Studies from Reformed Theological Seminary (Orlando, FL), an M.Div. from Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary (Lansdale, PA), and a D.Min. in Missiology from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (Deerfield, IL). Steve has been a church planter in Philadelphia, France, and Romania.