A review by theologiaviatorum
Did the Early Church Baptize Infants? by Kurt Aland

informative medium-paced

4.5

It bears repeating that this written debate between Joachim Jeremias and Kurt Aland is primarily a work of history, not theology. In this point by point answer to Jeremias Aland affirms his agreement with the theology of infant baptism. He does not, however, believe that the history bears out the continuous practice of paedobaptism going back to the apostles. He is able to conceive of the early church as containing the baptized as well as the unbaptized. He writes, "Probably the Christian faith began with a 'mixed crowd of baptized and unbaptized Christians living alongside of each other's ... The commingling of baptized and unbaptized members of the community was no problem in that era" (109). Here theology enters the discussion if only as an accident. Does it make sense to speak of "unbaptized members" of the Church? Further, would it have made sense to early Christians? Aland argues that infant baptism did not become widespread until the doctrine of Original Sin was sufficiently settled in the Church. Still, whether we have historical evidence of infant baptism as a continuous practice, Aland insists that we still have good reason to practice it. "[W]hether infant baptism is a valid expression in the later Church depends not so much on whether this continuity can be externally demonstrated but on whether it is now a faithful witness to New Testament baptism" (14). This is a challenging response to Jeremias and a wonderful demonstration of how the exact same facts may by differing interpretation yield different results.