I joined in an interesting discussion on Facebook recently. Someone was suggesting that the term “credobaptist” was meaningless and inaccurate it didn’t properly describe the Baptist position and didn’t really distinguish so called “credobaptists” from “paedobatpists”. They offered their own alternative.
A little, though not completely tongue in cheek, I suggested that they stick with “believers’ baptism” which is perhaps an accommodation as someone else noted that we really prefer to be just called “Baptists.” My point was that apart from in semi-academic debates the term “credobaptist” is not used. Indeed in my experience it seems to be paedobaptists using the label to describe us rather than the other way round. It also feels like the main use of the Latinate term is that it rhymes with “paedobaptist”. The thing is though that Baptist folk don’t tend to be into Latinate terms on the whole.[1]
Anyway, I guess that there’s not much in it given that “credo” means “I believe.” There were a few comments about what us baptistic types expected of a baptism candidate and I was about to flesh out in a little more detail why I didn’t think those perceptions were wholly accurate. However, something else came up that seemed to be higher up in order of significance.
It was claimed by a few paedobaptists that their problem with us describing ourselves as credo/baptists or holding to believers baptism is that they do too. This was a bit of a surprise before I’m fairly certain that paedobaptists haven’t generally speaking been claiming that the infant being sprinkled with water is being baptised because they are a believer.
There have been a few, interesting minority claims, from memory originating out of the Federal Vision stable to the effect that possibly an infant has a form of inherited faith or that the baptism itself objectively gives them faith. Note, that in the latter case, this wouldn’t be believers’ baptism so much as baptism for belief/faith. However, that is a minority position. Generally speaking, the view is that the person being baptised does so on the basis that they are children of believing parents. So, there is a view that this in some way brings them within God’s covenant people, though not usually considered regenerate or believing and that there is confidence that they too will personally believe. The latter based on a misinterpretation of Peter’s statement in Acts 2 that the promise is for you and your children.
I guess that you could argue that the baptism is only effective once it has been confirmed with the candidate at a later date stating their baptism vows for themselves. This would mean that the validity of the baptism is only effective retrospectively at that date. This would of course beg the question then “why bother with infant baptism at all? Why not wait until that later date. You could still have the Bishop over to lay hands on the candidates but they could also dunk them in water at the same time.
However, even if you are in effect validating the baptism at a later date, I am not convinced that this could reasonably be considered believers’ baptism or credobaptism. It remains the case that the decision to baptise is based on someone else’s faith and not the recipient’s.
Another suggestion is that we cannot say that faith isn’t present in a child, only that they can/cannot articulate it. One suggestion I’ve heard over time is that faith looks different at different stages in a person’s life, a 20 year old’s articulation may be different to a 15 year olds and a five year old’s different again. I would say that there is a yes and no to this. I professed faith at five years old. There was a maturing of my faith and knowledge as I grew but I would argue that the quality of faith was the same because the whole point of faith is, unless we go all prosperity Gospel, that the question is not the amount or strength of faith but who that faith is in. Anyway, the argument was that we can therefore extend back into infancy and utero. In fact, one person in the conversation argued that children show implicit faith in their parents and so why should they not be able to receive the gift of faith in God. On a side note, I would again suggest that the point is only partially accurate. Yes, children will show implicit trust in their parents but they can also demonstrate many ways in which they don’t trust which is articulated by the word “no” as soon as they are able to verbalise it.
Again though, we want to distinguish carefully “believer’s baptism” or credo/I-believe-baptism with its emphasis on the baptism being specifically for those who believe from the idea that we baptise all children of believers, plus new adherents with the possibility that we may be catching some who have faith in that. Furthermore, w eneed to be clear that when we talk about believers and faith, we are talking about saving faith, not a generalised notion that they trust in God, that hardly makes them Christians but rather that they trust in him for the forgiveness of sin through Jesus’ death and resurrection and so have received the Holy Spirit to give them new life.
Finally, the argument has been made that paedobaptism is credobaptism because it follows on from a confession of faith. However, that confession is made by the parents, godparents and congregation. Technically though that is “credimusbaptsim” (we-believe-baptism) as opposed to credobaptism (I-believe-baptism). I’m sure that there are some who would want to argue for this, that the recipient is benefiting from an act of corporate faith. I guess that there is a logical coherence to such an argument though I don’t consider it either Evangelical or Biblical.
Linked into this suggestion is an argument that the liturgy points to the child’s faith but articulated on their behalf. It is worth noting therefore that as the confession notes a wandering away from God and an announcement of turning from sin, then the current Anglican liturgy does not assume a child always has been a Christian but rather must at some point turn from sin. So the vicar in an Anglican church:
“addresses the candidates directly, or through their parents, godparents and sponsors”
And says:
We all wander far from God and lose our way:
Christ comes to find us and welcomes us home.
In baptism we respond to his call.
Therefore I ask:
Do you turn away from sin?[2]
The candidate or parents and godparents respond with “I do.” Now In the case of a candidate speaking for themselves, it is clear that they are stating their belief. However, if it is the godparents and parent addressed then there is at best ambiguity over whether or not the are speaking personally or on behalf of the child.
Assuming that the priest speaks to the child through the parents and the parents then answer for the child, note a few thins. First, that an additional mediator is put in between the child and God. Secondly, that it I quite a stretch to assume that they are able to speak for the child. Thirdly, faith exercised on behalf of someone is active faith on their part, it might be at best a form of passive faith but I would suggest that it is not faith at all.
In other words, to argue that paedobaptism is to do with the faith of the recipient and so is credo or believers’ baptism is to so mangle the meaning of the words “faith” and “believers” as to render them meaningless and worthless.
We must conclude that at best those holding to such a theology of baptism are seriously confused at a level that risks further confusion about the nature of belief, conversion and salvation. It is certainly nonsensical for them to claim on this basis that they are credobaptists.
[1] Though of course credo means “I believe” so “I believe-baptism” is presumably the same as believers’ baptism.
Faithroots 