One
of the more persuasive arguments against
the Reformed doctrine of paedobaptism is the charge of historical novelty. Before
I became convinced the Reformed were correct to baptize the infants and
children of believers as members of the visible covenant community, I would
often comment that Reformed infant baptism was a beautiful idea but altogether unattested
prior to the fifteenth century. The same argument is often made by Baptists in
debates with paedobaptists. The indictment is this: the Reformers retained the
Roman practice of infant baptism but were forced to create a new justification
for it in view of their Reformed doctrine of salvation. No longer could the baptismal
regeneration of infants be affirmed—as Rome and the early church, including
Augustine, taught. Therefore, Calvin formulated a novel defense of baptism
based on OT covenant models. This justification is unattested prior to the
Reformation and misreads the NT by failing to recognize the newness of the New
Covenant, or so the Baptists say.
The earliest history of the church
in terms of the practice of baptism is obviously in dispute. Both Baptists and
paedobaptists are convinced the historical record is on their side, but due to
the occasional nature of the earliest Christian literature outside of the NT,
it is unsettled whether the baptism of infants was the universal practice of
the church in the first three or four centuries. What is clear is that by the
fourth or fifth century infant baptism was the universal practice of both the
eastern and western church and continued to be so until 1522 when the
Anabaptists rejected infant baptism and launched a theological tradition that
continues to this day.
So who is the historical novelist?
The charge of innovation by Calvin is worthy of serious consideration. I am
satisfied Calvin’s rationale is not
novel and was, indeed, a reform of infant baptism along biblical, historical,
and theological lines. But even if we grant that Calvin’s justification was
innovative or previously unattested, how can we avoid making the same charge to
the modern Baptist objection to infant baptism? No one in the early or medieval
church made the argument for credobaptism that Baptists do today. In fact, the
earliest critic of paedobaptism, Tertullian writing at the beginning of the third
century, raises his objection on the basis of theological assumptions no modern Baptist would affirm, that
post-baptism sins cannot be forgiven.[1]
Moreover, Tertullian was evidently arguing against the typical (universal?) practice of the church in his day. If
infant baptism was so thoroughly entrenched in the church’s practice by the
beginning of the third century, a strong argument can be made for its presence
in apostolic times.
The historical data must be confronted fairly,
and Reformed paedobaptists must beware of reading the church fathers
anachronistically in light of the Reformation. But Baptists do not have the
historical high ground. Indeed, they are arriving late to the party. For the
theological descendants of Hubmaier and the Anabaptists to charge Reformed
paedobaptists with affirming a novel view of baptism is rather hypocritical. If
anything, both the Reformed paedobaptist and the credobaptist would seem
vulnerable to the same charge from Lutheran, Anglican, and even Roman Catholic
theologians. Both Reformed paedobaptists and Baptists (reformed or not) believe
their view of baptism is biblical and historical. The issue ultimately must be
settled by exegesis, not by charges of historical novelty or anachronism, which
could be argued by both sides. –JME
[1]
Cf. Aaron Denlinger, “The First Baptist Theologian: Tertullian of Carthage
(c.160 – c.225)” Reformation 21 http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2014/10/the-first-baptist-theologian-t.php
(accessed March 3, 2015).
