Credobaptism

Introduction.

“Us simple folk” are more likely to refer to “believer’s baptism” or “believer’s immersion” than to credobaptism – but credobaptism is good terminology, and sits well across from the more common or popular term “pedobaptism.”

Credobaptism (from the Latin word credo meaning “I believe” + baptism) is the practice of baptizing only those who make a conscious credible profession of faith. Believer’s baptism.

Pedobaptism, or paeodobaptism (from the Greek word paido meaning “child” + baptism) is the practice of baptizing infants or small children (usually on the credit of their parents being believers). Infant baptism.

More important than the right terminology is the right theology. Credobaptism is right biblical orthodoxy (right belief), biblical orthopraxy (right practice), and biblical orthokardy (right heart). Orthodoxy is always essential for Orthopraxy (2 Timothy 3:16-17; Romans 3:4; James 1:22-25); Orthopraxy is always essential to Orthokardy (Hebrews 8:5; John 14:15); Orthokardy is always essential to Orthodoxy (John 4:24; 13:35; I Corinthians 13:1-3). 

Credobaptism is Biblical.[i]

The biblical theology, orthodoxy. Credobaptism fits the doctrine of salvation, soteriology, and the doctrine of the church, ecclesiology. Salvation is by grace through faith, with a good confession required prior to baptism. The church is a congregation made up of a regenerate (born again, believing) membership. No fuzzy math is needed to fit credobaptism with these theologies.

The biblical example, orthopraxy. Throughout the New Testament there are clear examples of the baptism of adults who responded in belief to the preaching of the gospel. This is indisputable, even by those who practice pedobaptism. Infant baptism is at best inferred – but the inferred passages do not stand up to scrutiny. See “Household Baptisms” and “Unbelieving spouses and unbaptized children.”

The biblical unity, orthokardy. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. In Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and much of the Protestant tradition, there are multiple baptisms – baptism of unknowing infants and baptism of professing believers; baptism by sprinkling, baptism by pouring, and baptism by immersion. The heart of the matter should dwell in unity.

Biblical theology and practice settle the matter. However, there are two supporting legs that fit properly into the biblical theology and practice.

Credobaptism is Practical.

The believing person submitting to baptism acts in a manner in response to God, answering a good conscience before God (1 Peter 3:21).[ii] That person will understand the purpose of baptism (Acts 8:37), encounter the rite in an experiential way (Acts 8:38), and remember the experience (Acts 8:39). Both the conscience and conscious are involved. There will be no mental void where baptism is concerned. You will not have to be told by someone else that you were baptized. The baptism of believers is meet, fitting, “suited to every sinner’s case.”[iii]

Credobaptism is Historical. 

Credobaptism is the historic New Testament practice – and the historic practice of the early churches before the rite was corrupted. It continued to be historical in churches that practiced it, even when most others had departed from biblical faith and practice. 

In some of the early sources such as the Didache, believer’s baptism can be seen, even though little additions were beginning to creep in.[iv] For example, that the persons being baptized are volitional believers is assumed, in that they are commanded to fast before they were baptized (Didache, 7.4).

The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus shows the build-up of non-biblical practice, while still maintaining a general baptismal base practice that arises from believer’s baptism. The catechumens were asked about their belief in God the Father, their belief in God the Son, and their belief in God the Holy Spirit.[v]

“That the churches of the post-apostolic age did not long remain faithful to apostolic precept and example in all respects [not just baptism, rlv] would be generally admitted.” (A History of Anti-Pedobaptism from the Rise of Pedobaptism to A.D. 1609, Albert Henry Newman, page 1)

Conclusion.

“Infant baptism was an inevitable consequence of the acceptance of the magical efficacy of water baptism itself to impart salvation. One countervailing error that slowed its introduction was the idea held and taught by some that ‘mortal sins’ committed after baptism could not be forgiven. Quite a reason to delay baptism to the expected end of life!”[vi]

This is not to say that every denomination that practices pedobaptism believes there is magical efficacy of salvation in the water. However, the origins of it are inexplicably tied to such superstitions, and the maintenance of the practice reveals a deficiency in applying sola scriptura to an extra-biblical, emotional, incremental, and traditional practice.

Credobaptism stands on solid ground. The Bible supports it. It is, unsurprisingly, universally recognized as scriptural by all Christian churches that practice some form of baptism. All other forms are on shifting sand.

---

[i] Most Bible students are forced to admit this – unless they have jettisoned baptism altogether. Baptism of believers is obvious, exampled, and necessary. Baptism of infants has no biblical example, is unnecessary, and must be extrapolated (after a fashion) from the old covenant circumcision.
[ii] The person about to submit to baptism or the person who has just been baptized is called a “baptizand.” That terminology is not in common use among most Baptists, at least in my experience.

[iii] Baptism is delayed until a credible profession of faith (credobaptism vs. pedobaptism) but not delayed after a credible profession of faith.
[iv] However, the additions likely were not in the original document.
[v] The three questions before baptism were: “Dost thou believe in God, the Father Almighty?” “Dost thou believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Ghost, etc.?” “Dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost…?” The baptizand was required to answer in the affirmative, “I believe.”
[vi] Source lost, unknown (Or else I wrote this, but I do not remember that I did.)

Hübmaier replies to Warfield

…or something like that.[i]

Presbyterian B. B. Warfield (1851-1921) writes,

“It is true that there is no express command to baptize infants in the New Testament, no express record of the baptism of infants, and no passages so stringently implying it that we must infer from them that infants were baptized. If such warrant as this were necessary to justify the usage we should have to leave it incompletely justified. But the lack of this express warrant is something far short of forbidding the rite...As Lightfoot expressed it long ago, ‘It is not forbidden’ in the New Testament to ‘baptize infants, — therefore, they are to be baptized’.”[ii]

Anabaptist Balthasar Hübmaier (1480-1528) replies,

“It is clear enough for him who has eyes to see it, but it is not expressed in so many words, literally: ‘do not baptize infants.’ May one then baptize them? To that I answer: ‘if so I may baptize my dog or my donkey, or I may circumsise girls...I may make idols out of St. Paul and St. Peter, I may bring infants to the Lord’s Supper, bless palm branches, vegetables, salt, land and water, sell the Mass for an offering.’ For it is nowhere said in express words that we must not do these things.”[iii]

Interesting how the Anabaptist/Baptist position of believer’s baptism accords with the Regulative Principle, while infant baptism does not – though a good many Pedobaptists profess to hold the Regulative Principle.

---

[i] Not a direct reply obviously, since Hübmaier wrote first by over 350 years; but the answer of Hübmaier rather than the assertion of Warfield agrees with the “Regulative Principle,” which Presbyterians are supposed to hold: “...the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture...The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear; the sound preaching, and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence; singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also, the due administration and worthy  receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ; are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God... Excerpts from the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 21, Paragraphs 1 & 5; emphasis mine

[ii] In “The Polemics of Infant Baptism,” The Presbyterian Quarterly, xiii. 1899, pp. 313-334

[iii] “The Christian Baptism of Believers,” in The Writings of Balthasar Hubmaier (translated by G. D. Davidson, 3 vols., 1939, p. 121) as quoted in The Anabaptist Story: an Introduction to Sixteenth-Century Anabaptism (William R. Estep, 1996,  p. 90)

John baptized no infants

John was sent from God to baptize. John 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me...
John's baptism was the counsel of God. Luke 7:29-30 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.
Jesus received John's baptism. Matthew 3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.

John's baptism:

• Was associated with a warning to flee from the wrath to come, Matthew 3:7. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Infants cannot comprehend such a warning.
• Proceeded on principle of individual responsibility rather than physical descent, Matthew 3:9. And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. Infants are incapable of such responsibility.
• Was a baptism of repentance unto remission of sins, Mark 1:4. John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. (I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. Matt. 3:11) Infants cannot repent.
• Was accompanied by confession of sins, Matthew 3:6. And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. Infants cannot confess their sins.
• Was preceded by evidence of repentance, Matthew 3:8. Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: Infants cannot produce such fruit.
• Related to a belief on Him which should come after John, Acts 19:4. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (Cf. John 1:29) Infants cannot believe or disbelieve.

Infant baptism among Baptists

“[Sunday April 19, 2015, Pastor Rodney] Kennedy held the infant over a small bowl of warm water, used his hands to cup and pour the water over the baby’s head. He also anointed the child with oil and made the sign of cross on his forehead in name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”

Nothing about that is likely to seem unusual -- unless one knows that Pastor Kennedy a Baptist and the place was First Baptist Church of Dayton, Ohio.[1] In Aiming to deepen rite’s meaning, Baptist pastor in Ohio baptizes infant, Jeff Brumley tells us the story of one Baptist church that not only accepts members who have previously received a rite of baptism as an infant, but has now actively performed such a baptism. (Well, a sprinkling anyway.) In the practice diverts from two important Baptist essentials -- immersion and confession of faith. That is, for Baptists, baptism is by the mode of immersion and that only on those who profess faith in Christ.

Elizabeth Newman, Professor of Theology at the moderate/liberal Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond, Virginia says that “Kennedy is the first Baptist pastor...she’s known to baptize an infant.”[2] From Brumley’s article we can gain some idea of the chain of events that led to infant baptism in/by a Baptist Church.

• A couple, church members, asked Pastor Kennedy to baptize their 7-month-old son
• There was a month of prayer and discussion between the pastor and leaders of the congregation
• Many years preceded over which the church and pastor had increased it liturgical practice
• The church already accepted of the validity of infant baptism performed by others

What in Dayton, Ohio became perhaps a first for Baptists will not be a last. Many Baptists on the left edge have been moving this way for years. And the other edge the approval and adaptation of elements of Reformed theology points some of them in that direction as well.[3] What factors contribute or lead to Baptists practicing infant baptism?

Open membership
In 2005 John Piper, well-known and influential pastor Bethlehem Baptist Church of Minneapolis, Minnesota proposed “that excluding from membership a truly regenerate person who gives credible evidence of his saving faith is a more serious mistake than viewing the time and mode of baptism as essential to the qualifications for membership.” Under such as open membership plan those baptized as infants who feel they cannot submit to believer’s baptism in good conscience are allowed to join the church without being immersed on a profession of faith.[4] This is not new, but perhaps surprising due to the Piper’s prominence among conservative Baptist types. At the time they performed the infant sprinkling, the church and Pastor Kennedy “already accepted the validity of infant baptism and we don’t make people get baptized” before joining First Baptist even if they were baptized as infants. So their position regarding baptism and open membership supported their decision to baptize an infant.

Ecumenism
The ecumenical desire to break down walls between denominations fosters this idea. The Baptist distinctive of believer’s immersion as the only scriptural form of baptism is a barrier to the stated goal. Pastor Kennedy said, “I want to move closer to the ecumenical fellowship of the Christian church and by accepting infant baptism, and then practicing it, we are not set off from Presbyterians and Methodists and Catholics.” Removing the distinctions in baptism is one step to closer ecumenical fellowship, and supported, for example, by the Baptist Union of Great Britain: “To date, the BU maintains that the mutual recognition of baptism as a concession to the liberty of conscience which they defend for all believers is, at present, the only tenable way forward for Baptists in the ecumenical movement.” (Baptism and the Baptists, Anthony R. Cross)

Baby dedications
Baby dedications have become popular in many Baptist churches. While this does not necessarily lead to infant baptism, in the minds of many it dulls the distinction between the baptist theology and paedobaptist theology.[5] Professor Newman notes that “A lot of Baptist churches [are doing] baby dedications, which are a way of welcoming the child into the family — though not the membership — of the church.” In his “arguments for welcoming Christians from other denominations into our membership without re-baptizing them,” First Baptist, Richmond, Virginia,[6] Pastor Jim Somerville says that infant baptism “is almost identical to our own practice of baby dedication...”

“Kiddie” baptisms
Many otherwise staunchly conservative advocates of believer’s baptism engage in the practice of “kiddie baptisms”.[7] An example of the increasingly young age for so-called believer’s baptism can be traced through Annual Church Profile reports of the Southern Baptist Convention. In 2014 the SBC’s Pastors’ Task Force on SBC Evangelistic Impact and Declining Baptisms reported that “the only consistently growing age group in baptisms is age five and under.” [8] One writer said that in the SBC “the preschool age group saw a 96 percent increase from 1974 to 2010.” The 2007 Annual Church Profile listed total baptisms by seven age groups, including Preschool B-5 (3878) Children 6-8 (45,825); Children 9-11 (61,792). Newer forms reduce the categories to four: 11 years and under; 12 to 17 years of age; 18 to 29 years of age; and 30 and up; thereby concealing the number of very young age baptisms.

Southwestern Professor of Theology James Leo Garrett Jr., rightly says that “believer’s baptism by immersion is probably the all-time central Baptist distinctive.” Baylor Professor of Theology Roger Olson points out that “big-B” Baptists are extremely diverse -- but they have commonly been held together by the thread of believer’s baptism by immersion. This thread is unraveling. Olson is an Arminian Baptist of the moderate/liberal spectrum.[9] He might be expected to approve of the choice of FBC, Dayton. Yet he concludes: “Some will no doubt view this event as a breakthrough in ecumenism and inclusivity. I view it as a betrayal of tradition and trust.”

Faithfulness to the practice and of the New Testament demands the practice of believer’s baptism. Baby dedications may meet an emotional need of the parents, but there is little evidence that such was a common New Testament practice (some point to Jesus blessing the children brought to him). If these are performed they should be kept distinct and eternal diligence should distinguish this from the practice and theology of infant baptism. “Kiddie baptism” is a latent and disguised form of infant baptism that should be rejected. There is no real theological or practical difference between baptizing a two year old who can parrot “I believe Jesus” and a two week old who cannot. The gradual growth of Baptists condoning “kiddie baptism” supports the prospect of infant baptism. Ecumenical efforts that cast off doctrinal truth ought to be avoided.

For Baptists (and we believe biblically), baptism means a confession of faith, identification with Christ, and a radical life commitment. It is given by God for adults who can confess and commit.[10]

Related links
Can a Pastor Baptize an Infant and Remain Baptist? (Some Thoughts about Identities)
Was Infant Baptism Practiced in Early Christianity
Baptism: Infant vs. Child Baptism among Baptists
The Problem with Open Membership: Where I Disagree with John Piper

Footnotes
[1] First Baptist Church of Dayton belongs to American Baptist Churches U.S.A. and the Alliance of Baptists. On their website page about membership First Baptist states, “Persons joining First Baptist Church from other denominations are not obligated to be baptized by immersion. First Baptist Church accepts the baptism of all Christian churches.”
[2] Newman’s position among the more moderate ecumenical type Baptists puts her in a good position to be aware of infant baptism in Baptist churches.
[3] Though in their case it may move them away from being called by the name Baptist.
[4] At the time the church did not pass the plan. I am not sure of its current status.
[5] For example, Great Bridge Baptist Church affirms that “Baby Dedication is a commitment service where parents promise to raise their child in a God honoring way” and informs that they do “not baptize children until they are old enough to articulate their understanding and belief. The Bible assures us that every baby is secure in the Grace of God.”
[6] Jeremiah Bell Jeter pastored FBC Richmond 1836 to 1849.
[7] One extreme example of the aura, not just the age, surrounding these “kiddie baptisms” is the firetruck baptistry at Springdale, Arkansas. (I have a record that shows a child, one month shy of three years old, was a member of First Baptist Church of [name withheld] Texas.) “A third important development [concerning baptism, 1955-1970] is the problem of the baptism of young children...They find themselves coming closer and closer to infant baptism. In 1969 Southern Baptists baptized 1422 children under six years of age...” (Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists, Vol. 3, page 1585)
[8] This is based on the ACP for 2012.
[9] Olson is a five-point Arminian and has an ecumenically broad view of what constitutes Christian orthodoxy. He advocates an ecumenism of “reconciled diversity, not sameness.”
[10] This does not question whether God can save who he chooses at what age he chooses. But baptism following profession signifies confession and commitment, which small children cannot do.

Infant salvation

"The position which we, as Baptists, have occupied since the days of Christ and the inspired Apostles, and which we still maintain is this: That all infants dying in infancy are saved, in accordance with the electing love of God through the application of the atonement of Christ by the Holy Spirit, and are included in the number of God’s elect; and this salvation is unconditional, so far as repentance, faith, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and the holiness or unholiness of parents are concerned." -- J. W. D. Creath, circular letter, Union Baptist Association of Texas, 1854

“If there were no other way of saving infants but by the gospel and its ordinances, they would be excluded from salvation; for with them the gospel and its ordinances have nothing to do. Infants are saved by virtue of the death of Christ, but not by faith—not by the gospel. And you do not gather them into the promise by baptism, for the promise is to him that believeth and is baptized. God has committed the ministration of the gospel and its ordinances to us; but the salvation of infants he has reserved in his own hands.” -- Andrew Broaddus (From Sermons and Other Writings of the Rev. Andrew Broaddus, 1852, pp.189-190.)

Infant baptism, again

We're enjoying some wonderful time grand-babysitting, so the watching an active 15 month old is prime-time, and computer time takes a back seat. But here are a few more "infant baptism" related thoughts.

Consistent practice
John the Baptist did not baptize any infants.
Jesus or His disciples did not baptize any infants.
The "post-Pentecost" believers did not baptize any infants.
In the New Testament people were baptized after they believed in Jesus.

Precept
The New Testament is a spiritual covenant with a spiritual people. Natural man cannot enter into the New Covenant without a spiritual birth. The Old Testament and it's sign was based on physical birth.

Command
In the Great Commission there is no mention of baptizing infants. The command is to baptize the "made disciples." "He that believeth" is to be baptized. Infants cannot believe or be made disciples. 
In the New Testament people are commanded to "be baptized," a command infants can neither understand nor obey.

Household baptisms

There are three clear statements of “household baptism” in the New Testament, as well as two that are implied. Paedobaptists have long sought to assert “household baptism” as proof of “infant baptism”. The second does not logically follow the first. Further, contextual statements in each case provide evidence against rather than support for infant baptism. Below is a chart of these biblical occasions.

SUGGESTED HOUSEHOLD BAPTISMS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
	Stated
Household	Book Chapter Verse	Text	Evidence against
Lydia	Acts 16:15	And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.	Household of Lydia consisted of brethren who could be comforted (v. 40)
Philippian jailer	Acts 16:33-34	And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.	The household of the jailer heard the word of the Lord (v. 32) and believed it and rejoiced (v. 34)
Stephanas	1 Corinthians 1:16	And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.	The house of Stephanas was the firstfruits of Achaia, who addicted themselves to the ministry (1 Cor. 16:15)
	Implied
Household	Book Chapter Verse	Text	Evidence against
Cornelius	Acts 10:47-48; 11:14	Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.	Received the Holy Ghost; Spoke in tongues; Magnified God
Crispus	Acts 18:8	And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.	The house members believed on the Lord

Why the Baptist preacher's baby was not sprinkled

J. B. Jeter’s* wife was a Presbyterian. A baby was born in that home. His wife said something like this: “Mr. Jeter, you knew I was a Presbyterian when you married me. As an honest Presbyterian I believe that our baby ought to be baptized.” He consented on condition that she would consent to his holding the baby while the ceremony was performed. She thought it would be a feather in her cap to have the most prominent Baptist preacher in Virginia and one of the best known Baptist editors in the South to hold their baby, while a Presbyterian preacher baptized it.

So she consented. J. B. Jeter announced in his church in Richmond, that he would be out of his pulpit to be present at the Presbyterian church and why. That church was jammed and packed. The scholarly and dignified Presbyterian preacher preached and then announced that those who had babies to be baptized would please bring them forward. Bro. Jeter and his wife arose and he took the baby in his arms and they walked to the front. He was careful to get at the end where they were to begin. Quite a number of other parents had children present for that purpose. Just as the honoured pastor of that Presbyterian Church raised his hand to say the baptismal formula and baptize Bro. Jeter’s baby, Bro. Jeter said something like this “My brother, you and I have been good friends for many years. My wife has been a member of your church and I have never tried to proselyte her to my faith But as a Baptist I believe that we ought to be able to give a Thus saith the Lord for all that we do. This is my baby as well as my wife’s. Before you sprinkle my child, I want you to take your Bible and read out of the Book your authority for what you are about to do.” The scholarly, old-school Presbyterian preacher slowly raised his hand and pronounced the benediction. Mrs. Jeter soon became a Baptist. She said that her pastor was one of the most scholarly Presbyterian preachers in the South. If he could not find infant baptism in the Bible then it must not be there. If infant baptism was not in the Bible, she had never been baptized, for infant baptism was all she ever had. With an open Bible she soon was led to the truth and obeyed her Lord in baptism. 

From Why Be a Baptist by H. Boyce Taylor (1932) as quoted in The Baptist Waymark, August 1986, Vol. 1 No. 3, p. 4

* Jeremiah Bell Jeter (1802--1880), editor of The Religious Herald, author of Campbellism Examined and a number of other books, was born in Bedford County, Virginia, July 18, 1802. Jeter was ordained as a Baptist minister in May, 1824. He died February 18, 1880.

The End of All Debate

"Addison Baker (Baptist) and Thos. Quarles (Methodist) lived on Kingdom Come Creek, in the commonwealth of Kentucky. They got into a controversy on infant baptism, and grew exceedingly warm. Baker advanced an argument that he considered unanswerable by his Methodist opponent, but he was in error. Quarles whipped out a pistol and shot Baker dead."

* The above record is found in Burnett's Budget, March 15, 1905, a paper published in Dallas, Texas by a preacher in the Stone-Campbell Restoration movement, T. R. Burnett. Though I have not found it elsewhere, it appears that this is an historical record and not just humor. Kingdom Come Creek is an area in Letcher County, Kentucky. Burnett went on to write that "If that is the way they discuss the question in Kentucky, we do not wish to do any debating in that state. When Rev. J. C. Weaver reaches the argumentum ad pistolum in our present discussion on infant baptism, we expect to adjourn the debate."

Readings about infants and children

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the blogs linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the posts linked.

These readings offer a wide variety of subjects and opinions on the subjects of infant salvation, infant baptism, child baptism and so forth. Read them with thoughtfulness and reflection, an open mind and a Berean spirit.

How Are Our Children Saved?
How do you discern the conversion of a child?
Infant salvation
John The Baptist: Saved in the Womb?
Letter to a friend about Matt 19.14 and infant salvation
On Calvinism and Infant Salvation: A Brief Proposal
On Calvinism and Infant Salvation: A Brief Proposal, II
Romanian Forum: On the Baptism of Small Children
Should We Baptize Small Children?
The Age of Accountability
The Age (or State) of Accountability
The Baptism of Children
What happens to Infants and Children Who Die?