The Case for Dual-Mode Baptism Practice

Finding Unity in the Waters that Divide

Photo by Vince Fleming on Unsplash

Should you only baptize by full-immersion believers upon public profession of faith? Or can you baptize infants with sprinkling and welcome them into the family of faith?

Now, I’ve been a Baptist, a Presbyterian, and an Anglican, and I have changed my view of baptism since my own adult baptism back in 1994.

I know the arguments for credobaptism:

• Only believing adults are baptized upon profession of faith in the NT.

• Baptism is an outward sign of an inward experience of grace.

• Circumcision is not replaced by baptism, but by circumcision of the heart, new birth.

• Most of the early church was credobaptism until the third century.

I also know the arguments for paedobaptism:

• NT baptism featured entire “households” which included relatives, retainers, and children.

• If the Abrahamic covenant had a place for children in it, should not the new covenant, which is the fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant, also have a place for children in it?

• Does one raise children to be Christians or as Christians?

• The criteria for baptism is not cognition, but a capacity for worship!

Look, I’m not trying to persuade anyone on this point, because in my Evangelical Theology, I argue that it is possible for churches to practice a both-and approach to credo and paedo baptisms. Baptism is something that should be debated in churches, but should not divide churches!

Even Baptists do infant dedications instead of baptism, while Anglicans and Presbyterians do confirmations or catechism for communion to show that a child has made their parent’s faith their own. Neither dedications nor confirmations are strictly biblical, but it is clear that we need to do something to celebrate that a child has been born into a household of faith and we should do something to mark the moment when a child steps forward in their own faith. As long as you have those two functions, maybe where you put the water is not the most important part. That’s what I argue in Evangelical Theology.

Anyway, I have teamed up several theologians and church leaders to argue for dual-mode baptism. I was blessed to work with Matthew Joss, Anthony Lane, and Andrew Messmer, to craft a statement that tries to respect differences of opinion on the subject of baptism, but allowing for equal alternatives within the church. Something that was advocated by John Bunyan and is practiced by several denominations today including the Evangelical Free Church.

Find the statement below in its entirety.

Photo by Julia Michelle on Unsplash

---

Dual-Model Baptism Statement

Preamble

The question of the proper recipient of baptism is one of many issues that continue to divide Christ’s Church. Some (paedobaptists) hold that it is acceptable to baptize not just believing adults but also the infant children of Christians; others (credobaptists) hold that only believers who personally confess Jesus Christ should be baptized. This division is painful since there are Christians of goodwill on both sides who sincerely submit to the authority of Christ and his Word and so this issue divides Christians from brothers and sisters with whom they would desire to be closely united. Christ prayed for his Church to be one, but often our baptismal practices divide us into many.

Our call for greater unity on this issue is not based on the pursuit of unity for its own sake, but rather unity around the authority of Christ, his Word, and his historic Church. Many have felt division is necessary based on the belief that we are faced with an either–or decision. However, this is not so. Scripture is abundantly clear about the baptism of believing converts but says nothing unambiguously about whether or when the children of Christians should be baptized. What we know of the second century is similarly ambiguous, but it is abundantly clear that in the third and fourth centuries there was a wide variety of practice. The children of Christians were baptized at all different ages, and no one claimed that anyone else’s practice was contrary to Scripture or to apostolic tradition. It was in the fifth century that it began to be argued that all infants born into Christian families should be baptized. It was not until the Anabaptists in the sixteenth century that it was argued that no infants born into Christian families should be baptized.

The Early Church had a wide variety of baptismal practices, but this diversity did not result in church division. All were able to confess with the Nicene Creed “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church” as well as “one baptism for the remission of sins”. The only approach for which there is unambiguous evidence before the fifth century is a variety of baptismal practices, which in today’s context corresponds to dual-model baptism.

It has been argued that different baptismal practices can be seen as “equivalent alternatives”.[1] Credobaptists often have a service of infant dedication, followed by a process of Christian nurture, culminating (hopefully) in baptism at an appropriate age (whether it be childhood, adolescence, or young adulthood). Paedobaptists have a service of infant baptism, followed by a process of Christian nurture, culminating (hopefully) in the child professing faith (e.g. in confirmation) at an appropriate age (whether it be childhood, adolescence, or young adulthood). Apart from the stage at which baptism occurs, the two processes are remarkably similar.

Uniformity is not the same as unity, and just as the Early Church found no need for uniformity about baptism to remain in unity, neither do we. On the contrary, we are convinced that it would be better for Christ’s Church to be united with a diversity of baptismal practices than divided into separate paedobaptist and credobaptist churches. Many today view the two approaches as “equivalent alternatives”. For them, accepting dual-model baptism is straightforward.

However, even for those who do not accept that paedobaptism and credobaptism are “equivalent alternatives”, but are instead fully convinced in their own minds that one is superior, we still urge that they be respectful and unified, because of Scripture’s lack of direct discussion of the issue, its general support of unity in diversity, and the Early Church’s specific practice of unity in diversity regarding baptism.

What does it mean practically to embrace the idea of dual-model baptism? It does not require the homogenization of every church’s baptismal practice. The core conviction of dual-model baptism is this: churches should not condemn opposing views and members should not be penalized for having different convictions. So, for example, a dual-model credobaptist church might not baptize babies, but if one of its congregants had their infant baptized elsewhere, the church would not discipline them. Similarly, if a congregant refused to baptize their baby in a paedobaptist church they would also not be disciplined. Other churches might take a fully egalitarian position, offering a choice between either infant baptism and confirmation, or baby dedication and credobaptism, but this is not required.

Dual-Model Baptism Statement

Being that:

· neither paedobaptism nor credobaptism prevent one from submitting to Christ

· neither paedobaptism nor credobaptism prevent one from submitting to Scripture (as a biblical case can be made for both, and Scripture does not directly condemn either)

· neither paedobaptism nor credobaptism was condemned or established by the Early Church

We affirm:

· both paedobaptism and credobaptism are open options for devout Christians

· sincere convictions about both paedobaptism and credobaptism should be respected by all traditions.

May God use this statement to bring greater visible unity to His Church.

Drafting committee:

Michael Bird

Matthew Joss

Anthony Lane

Andrew Messmer

---

[1] See, for instance, the Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry (BEM) document published in 1982 by the World Council of Churches in cooperation with Christians from all major Protestant and non-Protestant traditions.