Why I Am A Credobaptist

There are several reasons why I am a Credobaptist but the one I wish to deal with stands out from among the others. Anyone informed of the subject should be aware of the Credobaptist arguments that there are no examples of infant baptism in the Bible (admitted by Paedobaptists) and that communion and baptism go hand in hand.

The third argument is the one I wish to address in this piece. I do so because I have observed that many young men who first embrace Reformed soteriology, and are baptistic, tend to study the subject of baptism and notice that the vast majority of the greatest theological minds in the history of the Church, were Paedobaptists. Not only that but the roots of infant baptism are many and go very deep. With this observation in mind, many usually swallow all that the Reformers held. They dive head first into the fount of paedobaptism because they believe (many baptists make this error as well) covenant theology ultimately leads to infant baptism. Of course I don't believe that to be the case at all. In fact, I believe it is the exact opposite.

What seems to overwhelm some is how many people- theological giants- have adhered to paedobaptism. Yet what often gets overlooked is how they have disagreed amongst themselves for the theological reasons why infants should be baptized! This is the third point many of us Credobaptists will point out. This is the one I focus on in this article. As Neville Clark writes, "from the earliest times infant baptism has been a practice in search of a theology; in many quarters it is still so today."  It seems strangely odd that the reason(s) for infant baptism have evolved over time, especially, for a position that champions the historicity of it. Even Louis Berkhof admits, "Reformed theologians did not all agree in the past, and are not even  now all unanimous, in their representation of the ground of infant baptism" (Systematic Theology p. 639). What an admission and it validates Neville Clark's point. It seems that once paedobaptism was administered in the Church, the theological reasons for it evolved. It's still "a practice in search of a theology." Ask a Lutheran why they baptize infants and you will get a different theological reason from, say, a Presbyterian.

 J. M. Pendleton points out: " How contradictory! How antagonistic! It seems that infants are baptized that they may be saved- that they may be regenerated- because they have faith, because their parents are believers- because they are involved in original sin- and because they are holy- because they ought to be brought into the church- and because they are in the church by virtue of their faith- and because of their 'personal connection' with Christ, in consequence of His assumption of human nature" (Three Reasons Why I am a Baptist p. 75) Why such a wide spectrum of reasons for infant baptism?

Zwingli did not like all the reasons for infant baptism that came before he developed his covenantal view (which was adopted and modified by the Reformed Paedobaptists ). He writes, "In this matter of baptism- if I may be pardoned  for saying it- I can conclude that all the doctors have been in error from the time of the apostles" (De Baptismo. Cited in Jeffery Johnson, The Fatal Flaw). It seems that Zwingli did not like the sacramentalism of the Roman Catholic Church and it's ex opere operato (by the fact of the action performed), nor did he like Augustine's view of baptismal regeneration through the faith of the church, nor Luther's view that baptism "worketh forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and confers everlasting salvation on all who believe" (Luther's Small Catechism p. 242) through the faith of the infants themselves. Rejecting those views but still holding to infant baptism, Zwingli went on to develope the "exernal" view of baptism, relating it to circumcision in the Old Testament.

This is the position that has been expounded on, as some were not comfortable with baptism being only an external sign. The Westminster Divines believed that baptism is also a seal which confers grace, "The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time" (WCF ch. XXVIII article VI).


This evolution of paedobaptism is of much concern to me. It certainly rings true that "infant baptism is a practice in search of a theology." Many of our Paedobaptist brothers quicly point to the historicity of it and how a great majority of brilliant theologians embraced it. Yet I concur with John Tombes, "The assessors of infant baptism little agree among themselves, upon the foundation they may build infant baptism. Cyprian and others of the ancients draw it from the universality of divine grace, and the necessity of baptism to salvation. Augustine, Bernard, and others, bring the faith of the church as the reason of baptizing infants. Others, among whom is the Catechism in the English Liturgy, put as the reason of infant baptism, the promise of sureties, in the place of the faith and repentance of the baptized. The Lutherans, the faith of the infant; others, the holiness of a believing nation; others, the faith of the next parent in covenant in a gathered church. This difference of the maintainers of infant baptism, deservedly casts doubt concerning the thing itself" (Cited in Gary Crampton, From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism p.8). This is a  reason why I am a Credobaptist.

Finally, let me say that I do not wish to make this a divisive issue. We here at the blog love our Paedobaptist brethren. We sit at their feet and learn much from them. They are our teachers and we their students. We simply disagree with them on baptism. We hope and pray they will extend us the same love and respect in light of our disagreement. We must remember that we stand united as brothers and sisters in Christ because of the glorious Gospel that bears His name. Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando