(Cover photo: The Limmat River in Zürich looking towards the Grossmünster and Wasserkirche)
The first anabaptisms (“rebaptisms”) took place on the Saturday evening of January 21, 1525. In commemoration, I offer some reflections on why I am an unabashed Anabaptist.
This first part deals with my own saga in grappling with paedobaptism (“infant baptism”) before my eventual rejection of it; the reasons for the rejection follow. From a credobaptist perspective, I explain my interpretation of the earliest data from church history on the question of paedobaptism. In a future second part, I hope to share the theological reasoning for the first Anabaptists’ rejection of paedobaptism and to articulate my basic reasons for embracing covenant or Reformed theology as an Anabaptist.
(Above: Neustadtgasse, street where Felix Manz lived in Zürich and location of the first baptisms on January 21, 1525)
My exposure to and passage through paedobaptism
I spent the first 18 years of my life in one Baptist church, for which I’ll always be grateful. It was the kind that greatly emphasized “getting baptized on the right side of your salvation.” It was Dispensational. As I recall, a significant portion of those who were rebaptized hadn’t been baptized as infants in the first place. Some certainly had been, including members of my own family. But most received baptism a second time (or more) because they would retrospectively pinpoint their true moment of conversion sometime after their initial baptism—this being despite the fact that they were baptized upon their own request to begin with. Thus, their first and second baptisms often took place in the same baptistry, myself included (aged 6 and 18).
Paedobaptism wasn’t something I had seriously considered until my senior of undergrad. I took an upper-level philosophy elective on “The Thought of St. Augustine” that left my head spinning with unfamiliar terms and concepts like original sin, prevenient grace, and infant baptism. So I dropped the course a few weeks in. When I informed Dr. Martin in person, he strongly encouraged me, shall we say, to stay the course. Thank God. Augustine is someone I’ve claimed as a hero of faith ever since, warts and all. As deeply as that man thought about the Bible, I wasn’t about to dismiss paedobaptism offhand. And yet, I really didn’t understand why he espoused it. It was something to investigate later.
Within a year of beginning that course on Augustine, I found myself at Westminster Theological Seminary, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. I was open to anything. Anything with an omni-important qualification: that whatever I believed be derived directly from Scripture, at least “by good and necessary inference” (or “consequence”)—a helpful phrase I picked up in May 2015 when I read the Westminster Confession of Faith (§1.6) for the first time. I attended Westminster for its exegetical, theological, and historical rigour, not the Reformed slant particularly. But honest to God, I would have been willing to abandon my ecclesial heritage—I’d lived my whole life in Baptist circles—to join the majority church position (Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists, Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox, etc.) on the need to baptize infants. I would have been happy, like most of the Church, to follow Augustine’s footsteps on this point. That’s why, my first semester, I eagerly took an opportunity afforded in Carl Trueman’s “The Ancient Church” to skip a final exam question by submitting an essay ahead of time. He approved my request to review a Baptist’s argument for credobaptism from the perspective of church history, which I critiqued.[1]
At seminary, my paedobaptist peers regularly assured me that by the time I graduated, the veil would lift and I would embrace baptizing children as they had. I recall a number of times when my senior classmates would respond in shock upon discovering I wasn’t in the guild. Many of them, I might add, were once “exclusive” credobaptists (“confession before baptism”; yes, yes, my beloved sophists…. We know paedobaptists don’t reject credobaptism.) Along the way, Ligon Duncan had persuaded some as they listened to his free audio recordings on “Covenant Theology,” a course he taught at Reformed Theological Seminary.[2] For others, I seem to recall them being influenced by R.C. Sproul in his debate with John MacArthur[3] or by the insightful articles of Vern Poythress.[4]
A fair number of fellow seminarians began as credobaptists but finished as paedobaptists. Only one to my recollection went the other way. A couple of my friends found Gibson’s article persuasive in his Themelios article, despite the rejoinder.[5] Numerous peers who waffled on the question pulled the trigger once they had children, under dire warnings that they would be “withholding the blessing of the name of the Triune God from their children” should they not baptize them. A lot of folks jested about Baptists dedicating their children in church, as if to say, You do this as a substitute because you know you should baptise your children! Many reasons proved the tipping point for my friends’ changes of convictions. Lane Tipton’s famous class on baptism in the mandatory course “Doctrine of Salvation” probably felled more strongholds of credobaptism than any other single factor. By the time I left Westminster, I had left Dispensationalism but remained credobaptist. When I finished seminary, I wasn’t finished thinking. I almost became truly Reformed (i.e., also paedobaptist, which some Presbyterian & Reformed friends include as a necessary component in any definition of “Reformed”) after seminary when I had more time to mull things over. During a second grad degree, I wasn’t able to transfer theology credits for one required course on “Believer’s Church Theology.” So I wrote my ecclesiology paper from a paedobaptist perspective for my Mennonite Brethren professor, under the impression that I might wind up there. In the end, I wound up claiming a heritage as “Reformed Anabaptist.” Go figure.
(Above: The fountain on Neustadtgasse from which the water for the first baptisms likely would have been taken)
Historical theology on paedobaptism in the ancient Church
Interpreting the writings of the ancient Church on paedobaptism is tricky. In light of the extant writings, I would suggest the burden of proof is more on the credobaptist than paedobaptist. The early Anabaptists certainly desired to situate their beliefs in the context of the historic Church’s teaching on baptism. Many of their interpretations are deficient, I would argue; that they cared is clear. If Zwingli is correct (in On Baptism, Rebaptism, and Infant Baptism), some Anabaptists circulated the mistaken idea that Pope Nicholas II (d. 1061) instituted paedobaptism.[6] More responsibly, Balthasar Hübmaier published a booklet called Old and New Teachers on Believers Baptism in 1526, which selectively culled sources that could be interpreted in favour of credobaptism.[7] Menno Simons shared notes in the same vein as part of a larger work.[8] Still, historical appropriation was not their strong suit on this topic. They were much better at biblical interpretation. (In their defense, the sources weren’t so easily available back then as today—not to mention they faced danger of persecution, exile, and death at the hands of Roman Catholics and fellow Protestants.)
If the picture of the early post-apostolic Church isn’t quite what one would think from reading the early Anabaptists, let’s also say it’s not so clear as one would think after reading The Catechism of the Catholic Church (§1252):
The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole ‘households’ received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.
Two challenges become apparent when one looks at the evidence of the early Church. One is understanding why Christians baptized their babies if they did. The second challenge is whether Christians baptized their babies. Not all did.
Tertullian (early 3rd c. CE) mentions paedobaptism inadvertently.[9] In On Baptism §18, he cautions against baptizing infants for three reasons: (1) the risk it posed to sponsors (those who make baptismal vows on behalf of the person being baptized), who can’t know when they will die or how the child will turn out; (2) the needlessness of baptism for someone in “the innocent period of life”; and (3) the value in children learning to come to Christ of their own volition. Thus, he does not so much oppose paedobaptism as something unbiblical but unwise. Throughout On Baptism,he teaches that baptism pardons sins and regenerates, while in On the Soul §40 he teaches that humanity is sinful by sharing in Adam’s nature, apart from regeneration in Christ (Romans 6:4). If we don’t see a contradiction between these two works, which perhaps we should, it seems he meant the period of life when children weren’t guilty of their own sin when he mentioned “the innocent period of life.” He held a nascent view of original sin—the doctrine still needed development—and simultaneously discouraged paedobaptism.
As the Church continued interpreting Scripture, the argumentation in favour of paedobaptism emerges against the backdrop of the budding awareness of original sin. It seems a straightforward logic developed:
- Premise 1: All humanity inherits original sin through Adam.
- Premise 2: Baptism is for the forgiveness of sin.
- Premise 3: Infants who die without baptism would be damned as guilty of original sin.
- Conclusion: Therefore, infants should be baptized.
All arguments for paedobaptism come in the context of original sin. Cyprian (mid 3rd c. CE) in his Epistle 58 argues for propriety of granting baptism to infants because it forgives and cleanses them for Adam’s sin (§58.5).[10] Apparently, there was disagreement over baptizing infants within a couple days of their birth (a majority view) versus on the eighth day (the view of Fidus, the letter’s addressee; §58.2). Rather than suggesting that baptism now seals God’s covenant with us in lieu of circumcision, Cyprian teaches circumcision on the eighth day was a type of the cross—and this insight is surely beautiful and true (§58.4):
For in respect of the observance of the eighth day in the Jewish circumcision of the flesh, a sacrament was given beforehand in shadow and in usage; but when Christ came, it was fulfilled in truth. For because the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, was to be that on which the Lord should rise again, and should quicken us, and give us circumcision of the spirit, the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, and the Lord’s day, went before in the figure; which figure ceased when by and by the truth came, and spiritual circumcision was given to us.
Christ’s death and resurrection on the eighth day grants our spiritual circumcision. Therefore, circumcision no longer serves as a precedent for baptism.
Origen and Augustine go into much more depth than Cyprian. Both assert the universal practice of paedobaptism handed down by the apostles, but both give different biblical warrant for it. Origen begins with the Old Covenant prescription of sin offerings (Lev 12:8). Observing that Adam and Eve only begat children after the Fall (Gen 4) and that Scripture clearly teaches sin from conception (Job 14:4–5; Ps 51:5), Origen presupposes his readers’ familiarity with paedobaptism when he states (Commentary on Romans §5.9.11):[11]
It is on this account as well that the Church has received the tradition from the apostles to give baptism even to little children. For they to whom the secrets of the divine mysteries were committed [1 Cor 4:1] were aware that in everyone was sin’s innate defilement, which needed to be washed away through water and the Spirit [John 3:5].
In his Homilies on Leviticus §8.3.5, Origen adds that since baptism is for remitting sin (Acts 2:38), if children were baptized—as some were—who lacked sin, “then the grace of baptism would appear superfluous.”[12] Circumcision is always in the background, especially in his homily on Luke 2:21–24, but no analogy is drawn between circumcision and baptism (see Homilies on Luke §14.5).[13] Rather, circumcision is the occasion on which parents made a sin offering; that is where Origen finds an analogy for baptism in remitting sins.
Augustine writes very similarly to Origen. He claims that paedobaptism is practiced throughout the church for the remission of sins and, like Origen, notes it must be effectual for the remission of sins or else it wouldn’t be done (On Baptism, against the Donatists §4.23.31).[14] He contrasts babies who are unwilling to be baptized (or, if anything, they cry and scream while being baptized) with the thief on the cross: children will be saved if they grow up to believe, and the thief presumably would have been baptized, given the chance. In the same place and elsewhere (e.g., A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants §§1.26.39–1.28.55;[15] The Enchiridion §§43–52, etc.[16]), Augustine reasons back-and-forth: You grant paedobaptism, which wouldn’t be necessary except for original sin; as well as Given the clear teaching of original sin, paedobaptism must be necessary. Most importantly, Augustine in On Baptism §4.24.32 concedes that an “invariable custom” that is “held by the whole Church” does not constitute “divine authority.” For the sake of those who wish for clear biblical precedent, he submits the parallel of circumcision:
[A]s in Isaac, who was circumcised on the eighth day after his birth, the seal of this righteousness of faith was given first, and afterwards, as he imitated the faith of his father, the righteousness itself followed as he grew up, of which the seal had been given before when he was an infant; so in infants, who are baptized, the sacrament of regeneration is given first, and if they maintain a Christian piety, conversion also in the heart will follow, of which the mysterious sign had gone before in the outward body.
The biblical warrant Augustine offers is an analogy. There certainly is analogy between circumcision and baptism; Paul himself makes the connection (Colossians 2:11–12). Unlike later Reformed writers who would press this analogy in more far reaching directions, for Augustine it is an afterthought: if Jewish children received the sacrament of circumcision before believing, then Christian children could receive the sacrament of baptism before believing. Whether one should baptize infants, however, is another question altogether. For Augustine, the mandate for paedobaptism rests more in apostolic “tradition” plus the inference from original sin and vitality of baptism.
To my knowledge, that’s about all the explicit teaching on paedobaptism we have in the first few centuries of the post-apostolic age. One could also mention Hippolytus (early 3rd c. CE), but he just mentions paedobaptism approvingly while giving instructions on baptismal procedures (The Apostolic Tradition §21).[17] Otherwise, Tertullian (and likely others) knew it was happening but thought it shouldn’t be. Several thought it should happen but knew it wasn’t. Most don’t say one way or the other.
From a credobaptist perspective, it still begs the question why paedobaptism emerged in the first place, and as early as it did, if the apostles didn’t practice it. As a pastor and father, I can imagine children asking their moms and dads to partake in communion, which is intricately related to baptism. More directly, I expct discussions started with parents wanting to know what happens to their children who die before confessing and receiving baptism like they had done. Honestly, it’s hard to tell whether the Church began baptizing babies on the basis of their theological reasoning or was trying to justify the basis of their practice theologically.
Many credobaptists find the absence of positive teaching about paedobaptism in most pastors and theologians of the first several centuries convincing in itself. The years of discipleship that catechumenates (i.e., candidates for baptism) spent preparing in catechesis (i.e., doctrinal formation) before baptism also runs counter to the idea of paedobaptism. Still, for my part, I wouldn’t want to hinge my assessment on an argument from silence. I do find something else extremely revealing. Although Athanasius, Augustine, the Cappadocian Fathers, Jerome, John Chrysostom, etc. were all born to at least one Christian parent, none of them were baptized as an infant. It would be interesting to read a study on when the attendees of the Nicean Council were baptized. Regardless of how widespread paedobaptism became, at no point can it stack up to the Vincentian canon (articulated by Vincent of Lérins) of what has been believed “everywhere, always, and by all” the Church. That does not put the final nail in the coffin for me, but it makes me want to have a nail and coffin ready and available.
(Above: The childhood home of Conrad Grebel in Zürich)
Carpe Deum! ‘Grasp God!’
[1] Steven A. McKinion, “Baptism in the Patristic Writings,” in Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn Wright (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2007), 163–88.
[2] I first listenend to it on the now-defunct iTunesU[niversity]. Currently, it is available on the RTS Mobile app under “Classroom” → “Systematic Theology” → “Covenant Theology,” and I highly recommend it.
[3] Available online through Ligioner https://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/baptism-debate?srsltid=AfmBOoqL9RTA9EjnTfxk0Bv0b7R3y6RV-W2l4pWGZWk6y9Hbul13MqAj.
[4] Vern S. Poythress, “Indifferentism and Rigorism in the Church: With Implications for Baptizing Small Children,” WTJ 59 (1997): 13–29; ibid., “Linking Small Children with Infants in the Theology of Baptizing,” WTJ 59 (1997): 143–58. Both articles are available online at https://frame-poythress.org/category/baptism/?orderby=title&order=ASC.
[5] David Gibson, “‘Fathers of Faith, My Fathers Now!’ On Abraham, Covenant, and the Theology of Paedobaptism,” Themelios 40.1 (2015): 14–34; Graham Shearer, “Covenant, Creation and Children: A Response to David Gibson’s Critique of Credobaptism,” Themelios 42.3 (2017): 465–76. Both are available by searching online.
[6] As found in Leland Harder, ed., The Sources Of Swiss Anabaptism: The Grebel Letters and Related Documents, Classics of the Radical Reformation 4 (Walden, NY: Plough, 2019), 368–39, text 69C.
[7] Pages 245–74 in Balthasar Hubmaier: Theologian of Anabaptism, ed. and trans. H. Wayne Pipkin and John Howard Yoder, Classics of the Radical Reformation 5 (Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1989).
[8] Menno Simons, “Reply to Gellius Faber, 1554,” in The Complete Writings of Menno Simons, c.1496–1561, ed. J. C. Wenger, trans. Leonard Verduin (Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1956), 695–96. Available online at https://archive.org/details/completewritings0000menn_j4n4/page/695/mode/1up?view=theater.
[9] In Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3. One can find all volumes in the Ante-Nicene Fathers and Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series at https://www.ccel.org/fathers.
[10] In Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5.
[11] Origen, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Books 1–5, trans. Thomas P. Scheck, The Fathers of the Church 103 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2001), 367. Not available online; sorry.
[12] Origen, Homilies on Leviticus 1–16, trans. Gary Wayne Barkley, The Fathers of the Church 83 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1990), 158. Available online at http://archive.org/details/homiliesonleviti0083orig.
[13] Origen, Homilies on Luke: Fragments on Luke, trans. Joseph T. Lienhard, The Fathers of the Church 96 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1996). Available online at http://archive.org/details/homiliesonlukefr0000orig.
[14] In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1.4.
[15] In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol 1.5.
[16] In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1.3.
[17] Available at https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/61614/pg61614-images.html. This is excluded from Hippolytus’ other works in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5.
Carpe Deum 
Leave a comment