Make Me a Baptist! Sola scriptura, believer's baptism

[jinc1019]

Ok, I know this is an odd title for a thread, but nothing has fascinated me more over the past three years of studying the Christian faith than the infant vs. believer's baptism debate. I have read many of the greats on both sides of the issue...Macarthur, Calvin, Luther, Sproul, Catholic authors, Orthodox, ancient church fathers, etc.

After all of that, I believe that the Bible teaches believer's baptism, but I believe that the early church fathers, when they spoke on the issue, supported infant baptism and claimed that it was a teaching they received from the Apostles.

While I sympathize with the sola scriptura argument, I can't shake the feeling that what the early church believed should matter a great deal when we are trying to get to the Truth. So I guess what I am asking from all of you is:

Tell me why I shouldn't trust the early church fathers who wrote that infant baptism was the ancient teaching of the Apostles and why I should only trust the Bible by itself.

To give you some idea of where I fall on the theological spectrum...I have a Reformed view of the sacraments (mostly, although I would probably chalk it up to a Holy Mystery as well), I believe apostolic succession is the handing down of apostolic teachings (not a rigid formula for authority), I believe that there are two very different ways to approach Christianity (and depending on which one you choose, everything else falls into place). The first is the belief in sola scriptura (or some version of it) and the second is the belief in the scriptures PLUS handed down apostolic teachings that are not recorded in scripture.

Thank you all for your time in advance.

Justin

 

[USCGrad90]

I guess the primary issue I have with infant baptism is the assumption that it equates to salvation.
Mark 16:16 tells us "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."
So to me the key component is believing. Since infants are unlikely to understand the signifigance of what is happening or choose in the matter, the signifcance for me would be more of the parents and family commitment to raise and support a child.
We do a similar thing in our church with baby dedication services, but do not baptize infants.
I understand that Catholics have confirmation later in life - to formally accept the promises made by their parents.

 

[Striver]

Justin, you're seeing the issue of authority, which is perhaps the primary decision ground as to what flavor of Christianity one is a part. I've been on a similar journey which has thus far left me looking at the same traditions even after branching out, and remaining a Baptist primarily because of believer's baptism.

With that said, Scripture will trump doctrine for me. I put more stock in the inspired Bible simply because, even with all of the paradoxes and tension, the voice of God speaks forth on a pretty unified front, translation issues even withstanding. We may haggle over the nonessentials, but the key ingredients are there. While Church history may presented unified fronts, there are a number of times where things began to change once culture changed.

I think where the primary issue for us closet Confessionalist Protestant Christians is how much authority do the early Church Fathers and Church witness carry? For me, they carry more than the average Baptist, I would say. I say that not to anoint myself, but I try and consult early writings like I would the Apocrypha, which is to say that I view them as almost, but not quite. They are helpful for discerning practices, theology and the like, but they are books of the Bible.

For instance, the Didache is interesting in regards to Baptism. I see paedobaptism as something that grew out of tradition. I understand, somewhat, the logic, but I do not see Scripture as clear that it needs be done that way. However, Scripture does undeniably conclude that credobaptism was practiced. I can point to concrete examples of the latter, while the former requires a bit of work.

However, the early witnesses could be argued to be corrupted, popular opinions, etc. If you accept the Catholic definition of Church, then obviously that will change a bit. However, I believe that saying the Church more or less everywhere is infallible becomes problematic.

One of the issues I would highlight - and perhaps oversimplify a bit - would be Pope Francis. He may or may not be saying things that defy traditional church teaching (and that depends upon which camp you talk to), but it's interesting that a lot of commentary refers to him "finding ways" to do certain things. It's almost as though when enough pressure is exerted, a little lawyering can be done to get the desired result.

Even though the Roman concept (or even Eastern Orthodox) looks quite appealing for a single source of authority, there is a good bit of heterodoxy living just under the surface. I would say at times that Roman Catholics are as distinct as Pentecostals from Lutherans are in the Protestant umbrella. The EO churches suffer from cross-jurisdictional issues that would make many old fashioned Baptist splits blush, as well.

With that said, I don't want to rag on my Roman and EO brothers and sisters too much. However, at the end of the day, I think this gives you an oversimplified picture of where a Baptist would see authority.

 

[JM]

Ok, I know this is an odd title for a thread, but nothing has fascinated me more over the past three years of studying the Christian faith than the infant vs. believer's baptism debate. I have read many of the greats on both sides of the issue...Macarthur, Calvin, Luther, Sproul, Catholic authors, Orthodox, ancient church fathers, etc.

After all of that, I believe that the Bible teaches believer's baptism, but I believe that the early church fathers, when they spoke on the issue, supported infant baptism and claimed that it was a teaching they received from the Apostles.

While I sympathize with the sola scriptura argument, I can't shake the feeling that what the early church believed should matter a great deal when we are trying to get to the Truth. So I guess what I am asking from all of you is:

Tell me why I shouldn't trust the early church fathers who wrote that infant baptism was the ancient teaching of the Apostles and why I should only trust the Bible by itself.

To give you some idea of where I fall on the theological spectrum...I have a Reformed view of the sacraments (mostly, although I would probably chalk it up to a Holy Mystery as well), I believe apostolic succession is the handing down of apostolic teachings (not a rigid formula for authority), I believe that there are two very different ways to approach Christianity (and depending on which one you choose, everything else falls into place). The first is the belief in sola scriptura (or some version of it) and the second is the belief in the scriptures PLUS handed down apostolic teachings that are not recorded in scripture.

Thank you all for your time in advance.

Justin

Hi Justin,

The church fathers can be difficult to read and I often recommend "Baptism in the Early Church" by Stander and Louw. Both believe in paedobaptism but come to the conclusion, after reading the church fathers, that credo (or confessors baptism) was the practice of the church for about 250 years. Luther once remarked, "they quote the fathers, let them, for we have one Father who is in Heaven." It wasn't until baptism took on an element of sacramentalism that Christians started to baptize their children. They actually believed that baptism brought their children into the church and conveyed an element of grace upon their children. The Reformers believed baptism brought their children into the covenant of grace with the idea that baptism replaced circumcision.

It's easy to say, "the Bible doesn't command us to baptize children, therefore we should not" but this doesn't deal with the often detailed and persuasive arguments for paedobaptism. These arguments can be tricky if one doesn't understand the biblical idea of covenants. I've created a list of books that will help one understand and defend confessors baptism based on biblical covenant theology to the chagrin of our paedobaptist brethren. One of the strongest arguments for confessor baptism is based on the idea of the covenant of grace being ratified in the New Testament (another word for testament is covenant), it's nature and who it includes. Once this is understood paedobaptism is seen for what it is: an unscriptural tradition.

Toward a Covenantal Theology | Feileadh Mor

I'm out of time but plan to post more in the future.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Striver]

It's easy to say, "the Bible doesn't command us to baptize children, therefore we should not" but this doesn't deal with the often detailed and persuasive arguments for paedobaptism.

Here I agree, which is why I hesitated to post it, but my point would be that it gives credobaptism a bit of home field advantage. The credobaptist can point to specific verses and say that it clearly happened; the paedobaptist cannot do this. This alone doesn't make paedobaptism untrue, but it does force the argument towards and honest assessment of traditionalism as a source of the authority for paedo- folks.

 

[JM]

Here I agree, which is why I hesitated to post it, but my point would be that it gives credobaptism a bit of home field advantage. The credobaptist can point to specific verses and say that it clearly happened; the paedobaptist cannot do this. This alone doesn't make paedobaptism untrue, but it does force the argument towards and honest assessment of traditionalism as a source of the authority for paedo- folks.

Paedo's will claim household baptism proves their point. It is assumed that 'household' included infants. (Acts 10, 15, 1 Cor. 1) We are discussing the Regulative Principle of Worship in another thread. Most Reformed paedo's would claim to adhere to the RP but deny the RP when they, without scriptural institution or command, baptize infants. They only do so based on the "good and necessary consequence" of their (I would say hyper) covenantalism. When examined I do not believe the foundation for their understanding of the covenant of grace leads to the baptism of infants.

More info on the covenants from a Baptist perspective:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7751507/
http://www.christianforums.com/t7387270/
http://www.christianforums.com/t7641738/
http://www.christianforums.com/t7770737/
http://www.christianforums.com/t7735627/
http://www.christianforums.com/t7740037/

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[jinc1019]

I guess the primary issue I have with infant baptism is the assumption that it equates to salvation.
Mark 16:16 tells us "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."
So to me the key component is believing. Since infants are unlikely to understand the signifigance of what is happening or choose in the matter, the signifcance for me would be more of the parents and family commitment to raise and support a child.
We do a similar thing in our church with baby dedication services, but do not baptize infants.
I understand that Catholics have confirmation later in life - to formally accept the promises made by their parents.

I actually don't disagree with you...I think faith is essential. The problem is...the tradition of the church would say that either infants have faith or that they should be baptized in the anticipation of the faith they already have. Church tradition would also say that infant baptism was practiced by the Apostles. I think we both agree that if you knew that the Apostles themselves practiced infant baptism, you would practice it as well. That I think is the issue from the traditionalist perspective.

 

[jinc1019]

Justin, you're seeing the issue of authority, which is perhaps the primary decision ground as to what flavor of Christianity one is a part. I've been on a similar journey which has thus far left me looking at the same traditions even after branching out, and remaining a Baptist primarily because of believer's baptism.

With that said, Scripture will trump doctrine for me. I put more stock in the inspired Bible simply because, even with all of the paradoxes and tension, the voice of God speaks forth on a pretty unified front, translation issues even withstanding. We may haggle over the nonessentials, but the key ingredients are there. While Church history may presented unified fronts, there are a number of times where things began to change once culture changed.

I think where the primary issue for us closet Confessionalist Protestant Christians is how much authority do the early Church Fathers and Church witness carry? For me, they carry more than the average Baptist, I would say. I say that not to anoint myself, but I try and consult early writings like I would the Apocrypha, which is to say that I view them as almost, but not quite. They are helpful for discerning practices, theology and the like, but they are books of the Bible.

For instance, the Didache is interesting in regards to Baptism. I see paedobaptism as something that grew out of tradition. I understand, somewhat, the logic, but I do not see Scripture as clear that it needs be done that way. However, Scripture does undeniably conclude that credobaptism was practiced. I can point to concrete examples of the latter, while the former requires a bit of work.

However, the early witnesses could be argued to be corrupted, popular opinions, etc. If you accept the Catholic definition of Church, then obviously that will change a bit. However, I believe that saying the Church more or less everywhere is infallible becomes problematic.

One of the issues I would highlight - and perhaps oversimplify a bit - would be Pope Francis. He may or may not be saying things that defy traditional church teaching (and that depends upon which camp you talk to), but it's interesting that a lot of commentary refers to him "finding ways" to do certain things. It's almost as though when enough pressure is exerted, a little lawyering can be done to get the desired result.

Even though the Roman concept (or even Eastern Orthodox) looks quite appealing for a single source of authority, there is a good bit of heterodoxy living just under the surface. I would say at times that Roman Catholics are as distinct as Pentecostals from Lutherans are in the Protestant umbrella. The EO churches suffer from cross-jurisdictional issues that would make many old fashioned Baptist splits blush, as well.

With that said, I don't want to rag on my Roman and EO brothers and sisters too much. However, at the end of the day, I think this gives you an oversimplified picture of where a Baptist would see authority.

Thank you very much for writing in on this topic. I would say that based on your comments, it would appear we agree on a great deal and have had similar findings in our research. I would characterize myself in nearly the exact same way with one very big caveat: I cannot convince myself to place scripture above tradition yet; I still feel more comfortable having it on the same playing field (in actuality, I would say scripture is a part of apostolic tradition).

With that said, the reason I posted regarding this issue is because I do see the flaw in holding tradition at such a high level...Ultimately, can anyone really trust the tradition of the church over the plain readings of scripture? For me it's a trust issue more than anything. The more I read the Early Church Fathers, the more suspect they become to me because of their lack of unity. How can Catholics and EO, for instance, cite Church Father X for supporting the Real Presence in the Eucharist but then reject Church Father X for not agreeing about infant baptism (as is the case with Tertullian) or the meaning of apostolic succession? If the reason we should trust Church Father X's view on a topic is because he received it from a line of succession going back to the Apostles themselves, why do so many church fathers disagree on so many topics? It seems very suspect.

However, at the same time, if we put scripture above tradition, then we risk throwing Apostolic teachings which may have existed apart from scripture (either completely or because scripture was clarified by a church father) totally out the window...Infant baptism is the perfect example of it. As I said, I think someone who holds to sola scriptura should absolutely support credo baptism, but if the Apostles did in fact baptize infants and hand this teaching down apart from scripture, then we should follow it, regardless of what scripture says. The Real Presence of Christ is another example (although men like Luther would obviously claim the Bible does teach that).

So that's where I am at...left in a position where my head tells me that credo baptism and sola scriptura makes more sense because it's more trustworthy historically, but feeling in my heart like something could be missing and fearful of abandoning the ancient church.

 

[jinc1019]

Hi Justin,

The church fathers can be difficult to read and I often recommend "Baptism in the Early Church" by Stander and Louw. Both believe in paedobaptism but come to the conclusion, after reading the church fathers, that credo (or confessors baptism) was the practice of the church for about 250 years. Luther once remarked, "they quote the fathers, let them, for we have one Father who is in Heaven." It wasn't until baptism took on an element of sacramentalism that Christians started to baptize their children. They actually believed that baptism brought their children into the church and conveyed an element of grace upon their children. The Reformers believed baptism brought their children into the covenant of grace with the idea that baptism replaced circumcision.

It's easy to say, "the Bible doesn't command us to baptize children, therefore we should not" but this doesn't deal with the often detailed and persuasive arguments for paedobaptism. These arguments can be tricky if one doesn't understand the biblical idea of covenants. I've created a list of books that will help one understand and defend confessors baptism based on biblical covenant theology to the chagrin of our paedobaptist brethren. One of the strongest arguments for confessor baptism is based on the idea of the covenant of grace being ratified in the New Testament (another word for testament is covenant), it's nature and who it includes. Once this is understood paedobaptism is seen for what it is: an unscriptural tradition.

Toward a Covenantal Theology | Feileadh Mor

I'm out of time but plan to post more in the future.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Excellent list of books! I will see what I can do to start getting my hands on them.

Justin

 

[jinc1019]

Here I agree, which is why I hesitated to post it, but my point would be that it gives credobaptism a bit of home field advantage. The credobaptist can point to specific verses and say that it clearly happened; the paedobaptist cannot do this. This alone doesn't make paedobaptism untrue, but it does force the argument towards and honest assessment of traditionalism as a source of the authority for paedo- folks.

I couldn't agree more. Although I still hold to an infant baptism view, I have often thought precisely what you have outlined...That at the end of the day, if we are going to truly and fairly weigh the entirety of the evidence, it's quite easy to prove that believer's were baptized but much harder to prove infants were (until the 3rd century of course).

 

[jinc1019]

Paedo's will claim household baptism proves their point. It is assumed that 'household' included infants. (Acts 10, 15, 1 Cor. 1) We are discussing the Regulative Principle of Worship in another thread. Most Reformed paedo's would claim to adhere to the RP but deny the RP when they, without scriptural institution or command, baptize infants. They only do so based on the "good and necessary consequence" of their (I would say hyper) covenantalism. When examined I do not believe the foundation for their understanding of the covenant of grace leads to the baptism of infants.

More info on the covenants from a Baptist perspective:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7751507/
http://www.christianforums.com/t7387270/
http://www.christianforums.com/t7641738/
http://www.christianforums.com/t7770737/
http://www.christianforums.com/t7735627/
http://www.christianforums.com/t7740037/

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Hi JM, I agree that if one follows the regulative principle, one should come to the conclusion of believer's baptism. My whole problem is...I am not sure I should follow the regulative principle at all, which is really the result of believing in sola scriptura. I have long felt that, theoretically, traditions passed on by the Apostles to the current day, especially ones as simple as baptizing infants, could occur. This, of course, does not mean the Apostles baptized infants, but it does mean that it's possible. There is a lot of evidence that the practice was in wide use by the beginning of the 3rd century and some evidence that it was used at least where Irenaeus was in the late 2nd century (and probably earlier there since he references it as if it was always practiced that way).

 

[JM]

The entirety of our Christian life is directed by God which includes how we worship and the practice of the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper as revealed in scripture.

 

[jinc1019]

The entirety of our Christian life is directed by God which includes how we worship and the practice of the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper as revealed in scripture.

Yes, that is the Baptist and sola scriptura position. My question is...why shouldn't I trust or believe in the early church fathers as well as an authoritative voice in the matter?

 

[godenver1]

Hi, jinc.

I actually don't have too much of an issue with infant baptism. When it comes to Sola Scriptura, the best I've heard it explained is not Scripture only but rather Scripture>tradition. A mix isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'd have no issue with tradition if it didn't go against Scripture, and I doubt most Christians would. As for deciding on infant baptism vs believer's baptism, I'll leave that up to you.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

Folks, this is a nice discussion but keep in mind that the site rules include this:

Congregational Forum Restrictions and orthodox Christian Only Forums
Members who do not truly share the core beliefs and teachings of a specific congregational forum may post in fellowship or ask questions, but they may not teach or debate within the forum. There are forums reserved for orthodox Christian members only. Please do not post in these forums unless you are truly a Nicene Creed, Trinitarian Christian (please see our Statement of Faith to know exactly what that is). If you wish to discuss unorthodox doctrines, you may do so in the Unorthodox Doctrinal Discussion forum.


It is not okay to debate against Baptist beliefs in the Baptist forum.

 

[jinc1019]

Hi, jinc.

I actually don't have too much of an issue with infant baptism. When it comes to Sola Scriptura, the best I've heard it explained is not Scripture only but rather Scripture>tradition. A mix isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'd have no issue with tradition if it didn't go against Scripture, and I doubt most Christians would. As for deciding on infant baptism vs believer's baptism, I'll leave that up to you.

I agree with your assessment that it should be Scripture (today) over Tradition, not scripture alone. Thanks for weighing in!

 

[jinc1019]

Hi, jinc.

I actually don't have too much of an issue with infant baptism. When it comes to Sola Scriptura, the best I've heard it explained is not Scripture only but rather Scripture>tradition. A mix isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'd have no issue with tradition if it didn't go against Scripture, and I doubt most Christians would. As for deciding on infant baptism vs believer's baptism, I'll leave that up to you.

Just out of curiosity, if you don't mind, why do you believe in practicing believer's baptism if you don't have "too much of an issue" with infant baptism and don't have an issue with using Tradition either?

 

[godenver1]

Just out of curiosity, if you don't mind, why do you believe in practicing believer's baptism if you don't have "too much of an issue" with infant baptism and don't have an issue with using Tradition either?

I'm still undecided, there are convincing arguments on both sides of the fence. I'm still learning, as are you.

I'm willing to accept that Baptists don't have it 100% correct.

 

[Striver]

In regards to sola Scriptura, I just would point out that there were 5 solas in total. Scripture alone meant something different for the Reformers and guys like Calvin than it does in our time. Much of that is linked to how our view of the individual and libertarianism changes our perspective, because the Reformers did not jettison as much of tradition as we sometimes want to believe. What guys like Luther and Calvin said about Mary would astound most Protestants.

However, it is Scripture alone in that Holy Scripture remains the supreme authority. It is not fully alone in the sense that tradition was highly valued and found to be just subservient/subsumed to the Bible. Tradition could offer a help for interpreting a difficult passage or understanding a practice, but if Scripture said no and tradition says yes, Scripture wins out upon examination.

I am very Baptistic in this sense because having equal authority becomes somewhat problematic when a faction finally does arise who begins to change things. Suddenly the tradition of the church is reinterpreted (which is, more or less, what happened to consolidate power with Papal authority) to mean something slightly different.

Thus, while we may have a string of Popes who are regarded as bedrock traditional conservatives, we wink-wink and nod-nod at the bishops and priests in defiance of Roman Catholic tradition.

 

[Striver]

In regards to sola Scriptura, I just would point out that there were 5 solas in total. Scripture alone meant something different for the Reformers and guys like Calvin than it does in our time. Much of that is linked to how our view of the individual and libertarianism changes our perspective, because the Reformers did not jettison as much of tradition as we sometimes want to believe. What guys like Luther and Calvin said about Mary would astound most Protestants.

However, it is Scripture alone in that Holy Scripture remains the supreme authority. It is not fully alone in the sense that tradition was highly valued and found to be just subservient/subsumed to the Bible. Tradition could offer a help for interpreting a difficult passage or understanding a practice, but if Scripture said no and tradition says yes, Scripture wins out upon examination.

I am very Baptistic in this sense because having equal authority becomes somewhat problematic when a faction finally does arise who begins to change things. Suddenly the tradition of the church is reinterpreted (which is, more or less, what happened to consolidate power with Papal authority) to mean something slightly different.

Thus, while we may have a string of Popes who are regarded as bedrock traditional conservatives, we wink-wink and nod-nod at the bishops and priests in defiance of Roman Catholic tradition.