In a volume
attempting to outline various ways a Protestant who holds to Sola Scriptura can
also hold to the development of doctrine, Rhyne R. Putman wrote the following
about how infant baptism, even within this framework, would not be a true
doctrinal development:
The Practice of the Church: Baptism
Another interesting case for doctrinal continuity
is the practice of paedobaptism (i.e., the baptism of infants). This is not the
place to rehearse traditional arguments for or against paedobaptism, which have
been explored with detail and skill elsewhere. Those within my own Baptist
tradition characteristically reject paedobaptism (e.g., the baptism of infants)
in favor of credobaptism (i.e., the baptism of adult believers or converts)
because the former practice lacks explicit mention in the New Testament.
However, is such an argument from silence convincing? As we have seen, doctrine
often develops by making explicit that which is implicit in the text, by
faithfully practicing the illocutionary acts of Scripture in new settings and
situations. So, can paedobaptism represent appropriate development faithful to
the judgments of Scripture, or does this practice model an appeal to ecclesial
tradition as additional material authority in development? Further analysis of
this issue is required.
Thiselton briefly addresses the debate
between Joachim Jeremias and Kurt Aland on the nature of “household” baptism
formulae in the New Testament but withholds his own opinion on the matter,
implying that the significance of the baptism is more important than its mode
or proper subjects. Jeremias argues that paedobaptism was a practice in the New
Testament and in the early church. Aland, on the other hand, argues that
credobaptism is normative in the New Testament and standard practice for the
first two centuries of Christianity. Following the pattern of his treatment of
other doctrines, Thiselton does not offer a conclusive statement about the meaning
of baptism (Thiselton, The Hermeneutics
of Doctrine, 512-14; cf. 536-38).
On the other hand, Vanhoozer considers
baptism an important participatory act in the theo-drama but is ambiguous regarding
its mode, administration, and proper subjects:
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper . . . are
communicative actions, less speech-acts than acts that speak . . . Baptism
marks our entry into the church, our regeneration, and purification from sin .
. . Baptism enacts our solidarity with Jesus’ own death and resurrection: in
baptism we participate in being buried with Jesus (united in death) and in
being raised with Jesus (united in life) . . . [The sacraments] are able to
draw us into the pattern of Jesus’ own communicative action. (Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine, 75, italics mine)
Vanhoozer makes no clear-cut case for
paedobaptism or credobaptism, but it is likely that the Presbyterian theologian
would seem to favor paedobaptism and make a case for it within the covenantal
framework he sketches in his theo-dramatic model of doctrine. Neither Thiselton
nor Vanhoozer shows plainly, or for that matter, attempts to show, how the
practice of paedobaptism in their respective faith traditions is an appropriate
development grounded in the unique authority of Scripture.
Notably, one using Yeago and Vanhoozer’s
normative model of discerning the pattern of judgments in Scripture and
enacting their practice in new settings probably could make arguments for both
positions. Advocates of traditional arguments for paedobaptism seem to rely on
making canonical judgments consistent with (ipse-identity)
but not the same as (idem-sameness)
the covenantal practice of circumcision. The first two steps of Yeago and
Vanhoozer’s approach are addressed successfully here. These arguments for
paedobaptism (1) rightly identify the divine dramatis personae of canonical judgments regarding baptism, (2)
rightly identify the plot or canonical significance of baptism: unity with
Christ in his death and resurrection (Rom. 6:5-11).
The question remains: Is the practice of
paedobaptism a fitting response to biblical illocutionary acts regarding
baptism? In other words, what response (or perlocutionary act) to their
description of baptism do biblical writers expect their readers to make? John the
Baptist asks Jesus about the propriety of his request to baptize him. Only Matthew
tells his readers of Jesus’ response and motive in baptism: to “fulfill all righteousness”
(Matt. 3:15). Jesus did not need baptism
because he was a sinner needing forgiveness but allowed John to baptize him in
order that he might demonstrate obedience
and show public solidarity with
Israel and the people of God. Paul seems to stress continuity between the public
performance of baptism and an ongoing, volitional
reckoning of oneness as dead to sin (Rom. 6:11). In both cases, baptism
appears to be a public act of self-commitment,
something impossible for a non-cognizant infant to do. Credobaptism appears a
better fir with the description of baptism as communicative action that enacts
solidarity with Christ. Baptism is a public performance of declaring
allegiance, an enacted, enfleshed confession. In brief, the development of
paedobaptist doctrine appears to focus on the wrong set of canonical judgments,
or misconstrue them all together. This doctrine also may have developed in
order to justify the practices of later Christian tradition, in which case the
focus of authority has shifted. (Rhyne R. Putman, In Defense of Doctrine: Evangelicalism, Theology, and Scripture
[Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015], 362-65)
On Matthew and "to fulfil all righteousness," see:
Acts 10:47, Cornelius, and Baptismal Regeneration (cf. Does Cornelius Help Refute Baptismal Regeneration? and. Was Cornelius Converted Before Acts 10?)
On the related issue of imputed righteousness (which informs a lot of the errant arguments against baptismal regeneration and other doctrines), see: