Credo-Baptism Answers Credo-Baptism in the Middle Ages

[Mountain Presbyterian]

How do Baptists usually answer the appeal to church history that infant baptism was the catholic practice of the church for at least 1000 years until the Anabaptists rejected it? How do they deal with the problem that no one born into a Christian family was baptized for 1000 years? For two years now I have had a lot of doubts about whether infant baptism is biblically proper, and this is one of the questions that I would really be interested to hear a good Baptist answer to.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

During that time there was one centralized church, and that institution made the rules. Whether the rules were right or wrong, what they said had to go. I think the same case could be made for other doctrines and practices they had, like the mass and baptismal regeneration. We would say those aren't Biblical, but they made the rules and everyone had to follow. Christians were forced to go along with the dogma of the church, which thankfully now there is freedom.

Lol, sorry I just realized this isn't for me to answer. But I'll click post because I already typed it haha.

 

[Ben Zartman]

One would first have to show that infant baptism WAS the universal practice for the first 1000 years, and not invented in the centuries after the apostolic age, when so many other inventions were sought out.
Church history is messy; full of rising heresies, schisms, innovations, and sects. It's really hard to prove from the existing records that infant baptism was a thing. Of course the paedobaptists lean into it and claim it was without solid evidence, just like the EP people claim that hymns are a very recent invention, even though we have some from as early as the year 300.
I'll bet infant baptism was invented pretty early on, but apostolic or universal? No evidence for the former, and scanty as best for the latter.

 

[Christodulus]

During that time there was one centralized church, and that institution made the rules. Whether the rules were right or wrong, what they said had to go. I think the same case could be made for other doctrines and practices they had, like the mass and baptismal regeneration. We would say those aren't Biblical, but they made the rules and everyone had to follow. Christians were forced to go along with the dogma of the church, which thankfully now there is freedom.

Lol, sorry I just realized this isn't for me to answer. But I'll click post because I already typed it haha.

I would like to add clarification because I do not believe this answers OP’s question. Under Baptist theology, profession of faith and the mode of immersion are sine qua nons of baptism, so that the baptism is entirely invalid and must be repeated in their absence. However, even according to a Baptist historiography (at least the type that has some basis in reality, so no trail of blood mythology) there was a period of more than one millennium in which the vast, vast majority of the Church was unbaptized, since nearly everyone was only baptized as an infant, and those few who weren’t were mostly baptized by affusion or aspersion. The question is what do Baptists do with this? Under a Baptist view, was Augustine of Hippo a baptized person? Our rejection of the mass is not parallel because it does not leave us with an unbaptized world for thousands of years.

One would first have to show that infant baptism WAS the universal practice for the first 1000 years, and not invented in the centuries after the apostolic age, when so many other inventions were sought out.
Church history is messy; full of rising heresies, schisms, innovations, and sects. It's really hard to prove from the existing records that infant baptism was a thing. Of course the paedobaptists lean into it and claim it was without solid evidence, just like the EP people claim that hymns are a very recent invention, even though we have some from as early as the year 300.
I'll bet infant baptism was invented pretty early on, but apostolic or universal? No evidence for the former, and scanty as best for the latter.

It is typically conceded that infant baptism was universal practice by Augustine’s day, since his use of it against Pelagius demonstrates no awareness of any Christians in the world rejecting it.

 

[Phil D.]

How do Baptists usually answer the appeal to church history that infant baptism was the catholic practice of the church for at least 1000 years until the Anabaptists rejected it?

Baptists wouldn't take issue with this comment taken literally (Anabaptists first came on the scene in the 1520's), and invite focus on the first 500 years of church history. For example, the oldest surviving post-NT church writing that lays out the process for baptizing, the Didache (c.100 AD), emphasizes the need for catechizing before baptism and says nothing of infants. The first unambiguous mention of infant baptism comes from Tertullian in the early 3rd century. If you want to investigate the matter in-depth, I would recommend doing a contrastive reading of Joachim Jeremias' Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries (written from a paedobaptist perspective), and the rebuttal of that work by Kurt Aland, Did the Early Church Baptize Infants?

Of course early church history is wholly subordinate to what one sees in scripture when it comes to determining proper doctrine.

_________________

[EDIT] OK, I think I see more of what you are saying now, which my previous comments didn't really address. My brain is slowing down with age... Others can speak to the issue from a more traditional Baptist perspective, but personally I don't see those baptized as infants as necessarily not being baptized at all, at least not in the most important sense. I think the practice is irregular from a biblical perspective and therefore highly inadvisable, but not necessarily null and void if it is coupled with faith and a good conscience at a later point. (1 Peter 3:21). Misunderstanding and even misapplying a sacrament is not the same as neglecting or contemning it. The same goes for mode. I know this view makes me an inconsistent Baptist, but there you have it...

 

[No Other Name]

Others can speak to the issue from a more traditional Baptist perspective, but personally I don't see those baptized as infants as necessarily not being baptized at all, at least not in the most important sense.

This is my position as well. I have laid out the case long ago but I will lay it out again here as it may help.

(Addressed to a paedobaptist that I consider not only a true brother in the Lord but also a friend):

"We believe there is is only one true baptism and any true church - by necessity - performs true baptisms.

We would see your infant baptism as an invalid mode but still legal, since we would not see you as an invalid subject based on your subsequent public profession of faith and evidence of fruit of the Spirit to become a communicant member of the PCA (a true church in our view).

Another way of saying it is that a true church confirms you qualify as a member of the invisible church with any and all charity as anyone out there can have.

Now if you had been infant baptized into Roman Catholic (which we deny is a true church per Turretin et al), it would depend: did the PCA accept your Roman infant baptism as legal and then you subsequently publicly professed faith becoming a legal - and valid - communicant member of the PCA or any other true church? Then I would be ok with no re-baptism (honestly not sure about all elders).

But if there comes one who was baptized as an infant in a true Presbyterian church, but by the age of 2, their parents left church altogether and that person never went back - stunted in their walk - but now after that time long ago, came to us energetically asking to be a member, then we would probably ask for re-baptism - not necessarily because his first baptism was an infant baptism in and of itself - but as there is no real verification from a true church about what happened over time.

ie invalid mode, invalid subject and no validation over time by a true church = illegal.

(I suppose even the PCA would halt his enthusiasm and look hard and then assess whatever means you have for assessing the profession of saving faith as well before letting him to the Table.)

Do we deny the Lord's Table is truly the Lord's Table in the PCA or OPC etc? Simply because no one (or very few) were baptized as self-aware professors of Christ? That seems to put too much weight on the distinctives and not enough charity for the obvious fact that our Lord's love covers a multitude of sins of errors - and that is evidently true in all of us - and that is no matter which one of us turns out to be right when we worship around his throne!

This is not novel either. It is rather historical. Beyond Bunyan (who was never confessional anyway), the Particular Baptists wrote 29.4 as 'Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.'

But look at their commentaries around it:

'Other modes of baptism are undue actions. ...

'Due' [as used in the 2LBCF] ... has the same sense [in previous uses] indicating that there is a proper, and also an improper way to baptize. Immersion is the proper form; by implication, other methods are improper. This may reflect the post-Reformation concept between valid and lawful baptisms: an action may be improper but still legal." - Jim Renihan (pp. 549, 550)

He then quotes a Scottish theologian named James MacPherson:

'so little disposed were the divines of Scotland (and other Reformed churches) to question the validity of baptism administered within any Christian church that they even declined to pronounce baptism administered by a deposed minister as invalid, and rather introduced a distinction, useful though somewhat fine, between a valid and a lawful baptism. The action of the deposed minister and the conduct of those receiving baptism at his hands was distinctly unlawful, but the baptism itself was valid, and as such could not be ignored ...'

Renihan continues from p. 550 - 551:

"The appendix to the [1689] Confession recognizes that paedobaptist churches are true congregations of Christ. After expressing their doctrinal agreement with paedobaptist churches, they say:

'And although we differ from our brethren who are Paedobaptists, in the subject and administration of Baptisme, and such other circumstances as have a necessary dependence on our observance of that Ordinance, and do frequent our own assemblies for our mutual edification and discharge of those duties and services we owe unto God, and in his fear to each other: yet we would not be from hence misconstrued, as if the discharge of our own consciences herein did any wayes disoblige or alienate our affections, or conversation from any others that fear the Lord; but that we may and do as we have opportunity participate of the labors of those, whom God hath indued with abilities above ourselves and qualified and called to the Ministry of the Word, earnestly desiring to approve ourselves to be such as follow after peace with holiness, and therefore we always keep that blessed Irenicum or healing Word of the Apostle before our eyes; if in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal this unto you; nevertheless whereto we have already attained; let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing. [Phil. 3:15,16]' ... They clearly regarded paedobaptist churches as true churches and were well aware of the issues surrounding baptism ...

It seems .. that while they themselves would only practice immersion as the due method of administration, at least some of the churches could receive members who may not have been baptized by due means." (italics original to Renihan, not me)

Renihan then goes to relate Nehemiah Coxe's Petty France church receiving a woman from a Pinners' Hall Independent church.

Also, he writes of:

"Broadmead, Bristol accepted a letter of membership transfer for their new pastor's wife from a Presbyterian congregation in London. And the Stevington, Bedfordshire Particular Baptist assembly received a woman from an Independent church in Newport Pagnell, Buckinghamshire. There is no indication that baptism was required of these people when they joined these assemblies." (Renihan 551)

He cites their records:

'Petty France, CMB. Hayden, The Records of a Church of Christ, 186. The London Presbyterian church's pastor was Thomas Vincent. The letter indicated that the Presbyterian church admitted members: 1 Upon Enquiry of ye parties' knowledge of God and ye Doctrine of Salvation. 2. Upon Enquiry of ye Work of Grace upon their Hearts. 3. Upon Enquiry of a Good and Blameless Conversation. The Broadmeade scribe says that this was 'as wee doe'

(He isn't specific but Renihan seems to be suggesting that the Pastor Thomas Vincent downplays the infant baptism and kind of rolls into number 2 allowing Broadmead to reply that they do likewise (number 2) while the issue of her (the wife coming over) baptism is kind of waved away)."

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

It is typically conceded that infant baptism was universal practice by Augustine’s day, since his use of it against Pelagius demonstrates no awareness of any Christians in the world rejecting it.

However, it is clear (from a historical stance) that this is not exactly so.

Infant baptism was an emergency practice for sure, but not the normal practice.

Augustine himself, despite a Christian upbringing, was credo-baptized at the age of 18.

When he was an infant he got so sick so that it looked like he might die, and so he was about to be emergency baptized. Then he got better and the baptism was cancelled.