Well my journey of faith has been very Trinitarian in terms of baptism. I was born extremely prematurely, delivered by a Roman Catholic doctor who baptised me "to give me a name to die with". Move on to 9 months when I was christened in local CofE, more as a family tradition. Much, much later I met the HS (literally at the kitchen sink!) and 6 weeks later was baptised by complete immersion at Haywards Heath Baptist Church. This was the word of God telling me to confirm my status.
Again much later I trained at LST and chose credobaptism to argue at the seminar in Tony Lane's lecture.
It is so much more ecumenical to accept and not penalised either standpoint.
Thank you for bringing up this topic and bringing to us another third way of ecumenical togetherness.
Dr. Joachim Jeremias' book "Infant Baptism in the first four centuries" was eye opening to me, especially as I moved from Baptist to Presbyterian. I agree that the text of Scripture condemns neither practice and Dr. Jeremias showed through archeological evidence that as early as the 2nd century, there was already instances of infant baptism because, as you pointed out, the early church baptized entire households.
I've been a Dual-Mode Baptism (DMB) guy for a few years now mostly because I find that the majority of [R|r]eformed Baptist Churches simply reject the mode and the time for infant baptism. That, right there, had me thinking about the same thing: if text neither condemns nor accepts either practice then why are Baptist churches forcing paedobaptists to re-baptize? That, to me, violates the creed about "one baptism". What I found appealing about DMB is that it respects the conscience(s) of people and churches and emphasizes the catholicity of the church rather than its particulars.
Its a good statement, part of the problem is when you get churches that practice credobaptism insisting that infant baptism is not valid. I think that Barth was of the opinion that whilst believers baptism was best, baptism should not/ could not be repeated, baptism may have taken place at the wrong time but was still valid. I now worship in the Church of Scotland but previously as an elder in a Baptist church I was always uncomfortable with people being 're-baptised'. Candidates often felt they wanted to do it affirm their faith publicly but I worried the emphasis was more on their subjective faith than on Christ's faithfulness.
As a member of an ECC (Evangelical Covenant Church), this was how I encountered this idea of and/both for infant and believers’ baptism. Grew up in a believers’ only baptism model for most of my Christian young life years and it was new and a bit uncomfortable. It’s taken years and folks like Dr. Heiser who proposed similar ideas that helped me process the tension and how this should never split churches. Thank you so much for continuing to show how these longstanding issues can be helpful but never divide the Body.
The issue is not just when and how one should be baptised. Credobaptists believe in personal salvation by faith. A person can receive any rite they like in a church and it does not necessarily divide, but baptism relates to salvation for a credobaptist. Unity would only be possible if that belief in personal salvation by faith is not cut across.
Imagine this scenario. A woman brought up in an Anglican church is baptised as an infant. She stops going to church and is not confirmed. Later in life she goes to a Baptist church and comes to faith. However this Baptist church does not believe in dual baptisms ( anti-anabaptist :) ). They want to have unity with the pedobaptists. The pastor declares to the congregation that she has come to faith and made the Lord her Saviour. But there will be no baptism because she was baptised as an infant. She might feel let down. She has been deprived of the anticipation and preparation for her baptism which she believes is commanded. She is forced to accept that infant baptism as a replacement for her baptism. Yet it had no meaning to her in relation to her saving faith.
So if acceptance of different modes and times of baptism might help to bring unity across churches, refusing dual baptisms can be a problem. Personal salvation by faith must also be a basis of that unity,
Let's turn that around. I was baptised as an infant. I was saved at university and was confirmed there. This had, and still has, great meaning to me. After a number of years in an Anglican church in London, we moved to our current home and joined the local Baptist Church, as it was in walking distance. (We are still there after 37 years!) I had to be rebaptised to become a church member. This had little meaning to me, I'm afraid, as I felt that I made my profession of faith through confirmation. I have always believed in personal salvation by faith, and the route to that faith is less important than the faith.
My Father was catholic, so all of us were baptized as infants. However my mother was southern baptist and that’s how we were raised. Then I was baptized at 9 following my “acceptance of Jesus as my Savior” For many years of my adult life, I questioned a lot about my childhood conversion, I felt it was very real to me as a child but there was so much I did not understand. Longer story but when I was 40, I asked to be baptized again. I kept thinking it would help me “seal” my doubts. I think there is a LOT of emphasis placed on baptism by immersion in the baptist church. So much so, I knew several people that were required to be baptized again when “switching” denominations to become Baptist even tho they were baptized by immersion in their denomination. I always thought that was off. A few years ago we moved states and left the SBC . we attended an Episcopal church and also Presbyterian, seeking where God would desire us to be. I loved the baby baptism services. Especially the Presbyterian church as they had the children of the church stand and also recite a commitment to walk along side the baby as they grew up. I just loved that. Thanks for posting this. I agree with the Dual-mode Baptism.
The Didache seems to cover both options and add a third one as first choice: "And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. [We don't do that except outside in river or sea.] But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit." So running water, preferably cold (screams from most Baptist churches), then still water, then poured water.
I think the most important point on the subject of water baptism is to not put it in the primary or essentials doctrine categories. As Paul said, Christ did not send him to baptize, but to preach the gospel. So each church needs to find their way on this.
Our church believes the strongest scriptural case is for credo, so we practice that. Most of our converts are new un-churched believers, so a clean slate so to speak, so we just simply go with what we ourselves believe is the clearest scriptural paradigm, while not judging anyone else. Again, it's not an essential doctrine.
This has in our church created great times of celebration when we baptize, and it's a simple and clear focus. For infants we dedicate publicly. YMMV.
Excellent Mike, and much needed! Re: paedobaptism even J. I. Packer admits in his Concise Theology, “the New Testament neither illustrates nor prohibits nor forbids [it].”
I really like this idea. I agree that this is something that we shouldn't divide on. Personally, I find the arguments for both equally as persuasive. On some days, I'm slightly more convinced that infant baptism is the way to go, but in general I don't think it's a big deal whichever way one wants to go.
As a 'baptist', I am very attracted to this approach, and certainly the conversation at the very least.
Two books that I recommend are
* Scot McKnight, It takes a Church to Baptise
* David F. Wright, What Has Infant Baptism Done to Baptism? (Didsbury Lectures)
Ian, yes, both are very good. Scot has had quite a journey.
Well my journey of faith has been very Trinitarian in terms of baptism. I was born extremely prematurely, delivered by a Roman Catholic doctor who baptised me "to give me a name to die with". Move on to 9 months when I was christened in local CofE, more as a family tradition. Much, much later I met the HS (literally at the kitchen sink!) and 6 weeks later was baptised by complete immersion at Haywards Heath Baptist Church. This was the word of God telling me to confirm my status.
Again much later I trained at LST and chose credobaptism to argue at the seminar in Tony Lane's lecture.
It is so much more ecumenical to accept and not penalised either standpoint.
Thank you for bringing up this topic and bringing to us another third way of ecumenical togetherness.
A Trinity of baptisms!
Dr. Joachim Jeremias' book "Infant Baptism in the first four centuries" was eye opening to me, especially as I moved from Baptist to Presbyterian. I agree that the text of Scripture condemns neither practice and Dr. Jeremias showed through archeological evidence that as early as the 2nd century, there was already instances of infant baptism because, as you pointed out, the early church baptized entire households.
I've been a Dual-Mode Baptism (DMB) guy for a few years now mostly because I find that the majority of [R|r]eformed Baptist Churches simply reject the mode and the time for infant baptism. That, right there, had me thinking about the same thing: if text neither condemns nor accepts either practice then why are Baptist churches forcing paedobaptists to re-baptize? That, to me, violates the creed about "one baptism". What I found appealing about DMB is that it respects the conscience(s) of people and churches and emphasizes the catholicity of the church rather than its particulars.
Its a good statement, part of the problem is when you get churches that practice credobaptism insisting that infant baptism is not valid. I think that Barth was of the opinion that whilst believers baptism was best, baptism should not/ could not be repeated, baptism may have taken place at the wrong time but was still valid. I now worship in the Church of Scotland but previously as an elder in a Baptist church I was always uncomfortable with people being 're-baptised'. Candidates often felt they wanted to do it affirm their faith publicly but I worried the emphasis was more on their subjective faith than on Christ's faithfulness.
As a member of an ECC (Evangelical Covenant Church), this was how I encountered this idea of and/both for infant and believers’ baptism. Grew up in a believers’ only baptism model for most of my Christian young life years and it was new and a bit uncomfortable. It’s taken years and folks like Dr. Heiser who proposed similar ideas that helped me process the tension and how this should never split churches. Thank you so much for continuing to show how these longstanding issues can be helpful but never divide the Body.
The issue is not just when and how one should be baptised. Credobaptists believe in personal salvation by faith. A person can receive any rite they like in a church and it does not necessarily divide, but baptism relates to salvation for a credobaptist. Unity would only be possible if that belief in personal salvation by faith is not cut across.
Imagine this scenario. A woman brought up in an Anglican church is baptised as an infant. She stops going to church and is not confirmed. Later in life she goes to a Baptist church and comes to faith. However this Baptist church does not believe in dual baptisms ( anti-anabaptist :) ). They want to have unity with the pedobaptists. The pastor declares to the congregation that she has come to faith and made the Lord her Saviour. But there will be no baptism because she was baptised as an infant. She might feel let down. She has been deprived of the anticipation and preparation for her baptism which she believes is commanded. She is forced to accept that infant baptism as a replacement for her baptism. Yet it had no meaning to her in relation to her saving faith.
So if acceptance of different modes and times of baptism might help to bring unity across churches, refusing dual baptisms can be a problem. Personal salvation by faith must also be a basis of that unity,
Let's turn that around. I was baptised as an infant. I was saved at university and was confirmed there. This had, and still has, great meaning to me. After a number of years in an Anglican church in London, we moved to our current home and joined the local Baptist Church, as it was in walking distance. (We are still there after 37 years!) I had to be rebaptised to become a church member. This had little meaning to me, I'm afraid, as I felt that I made my profession of faith through confirmation. I have always believed in personal salvation by faith, and the route to that faith is less important than the faith.
My Father was catholic, so all of us were baptized as infants. However my mother was southern baptist and that’s how we were raised. Then I was baptized at 9 following my “acceptance of Jesus as my Savior” For many years of my adult life, I questioned a lot about my childhood conversion, I felt it was very real to me as a child but there was so much I did not understand. Longer story but when I was 40, I asked to be baptized again. I kept thinking it would help me “seal” my doubts. I think there is a LOT of emphasis placed on baptism by immersion in the baptist church. So much so, I knew several people that were required to be baptized again when “switching” denominations to become Baptist even tho they were baptized by immersion in their denomination. I always thought that was off. A few years ago we moved states and left the SBC . we attended an Episcopal church and also Presbyterian, seeking where God would desire us to be. I loved the baby baptism services. Especially the Presbyterian church as they had the children of the church stand and also recite a commitment to walk along side the baby as they grew up. I just loved that. Thanks for posting this. I agree with the Dual-mode Baptism.
The Didache seems to cover both options and add a third one as first choice: "And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. [We don't do that except outside in river or sea.] But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit." So running water, preferably cold (screams from most Baptist churches), then still water, then poured water.
I think the most important point on the subject of water baptism is to not put it in the primary or essentials doctrine categories. As Paul said, Christ did not send him to baptize, but to preach the gospel. So each church needs to find their way on this.
Our church believes the strongest scriptural case is for credo, so we practice that. Most of our converts are new un-churched believers, so a clean slate so to speak, so we just simply go with what we ourselves believe is the clearest scriptural paradigm, while not judging anyone else. Again, it's not an essential doctrine.
This has in our church created great times of celebration when we baptize, and it's a simple and clear focus. For infants we dedicate publicly. YMMV.
Excellent Mike, and much needed! Re: paedobaptism even J. I. Packer admits in his Concise Theology, “the New Testament neither illustrates nor prohibits nor forbids [it].”
I really like this idea. I agree that this is something that we shouldn't divide on. Personally, I find the arguments for both equally as persuasive. On some days, I'm slightly more convinced that infant baptism is the way to go, but in general I don't think it's a big deal whichever way one wants to go.