Thursday, April 30, 2020

Rhyne R. Putman on the Development of Doctrine within Protestantism and the Credo- vs. Paedo-baptism debate


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)

While he is correct in rejecting infant baptism, Putman's analysis is retarded due to his acceptance of Sola Scriptura. For a full-length critique, see:


On Matthew and "to fulfil all righteousness," see:


Putman, apart from holding to the false doctrine of sola Scriptura also holds to a blasphemous view of the effects of baptism--he rejects baptismal regeneration. For some articles addressing this, be sure to see:










J. Paul Sampley on Baptismal Regeneration and Ephesians 5:25-27 

On the related issue of imputed righteousness (which informs a lot of the errant arguments against baptismal regeneration and other doctrines), see:

Blog Archive